> One thing people never get about fertility crisis: people always have more babies in crisis and uncertainty. Simply matter of reproductive strategy: when you're not sure about the future, push for quantity, as fast as possible. When you have stability, you can accumulate resources, and not be afraid to invest them into fewer offspring.

I don't think that's true. There's a lot of crisis and uncertainty today, but fertility is still going down. Many people are investing their resources in zero offspring.

I think kicking you back about 125 years would change your mind.

Before chlorination of water, everyone, everywhere was at risk of getting sick at any time. Same with infections and death at childbirth. The amount of uncertainty compared to that is far lower, not saying it's great, but on average far better.

Also, note that humans had an absolute population explosion. I'm not saying we are or are not overpopulated, but if we are the following would be a good explanation of what is happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

When I'm thirsty, I walk over to the tap and pour myself a glass of water. Virtually no uncertainty over if I'll then keel over and die from pathogens in the water, and no crisis of typhoid or cholera or diptheria where I live in living memory.

I think people underestimate the depth of crisis and uncertainty that exists outside the modern developed world.

> When I'm thirsty, I walk over to the tap and pour myself a glass of water. Virtually no uncertainty over if I'll then keel over and die from pathogens in the water, and no crisis of typhoid or cholera or diptheria where I live in living memory.

And do people "outside the modern developed world" perceive that as "crisis and uncertainty" or "just another Tuesday"?

> I think people underestimate the depth of crisis and uncertainty that exists outside the modern developed world.

Crisis isn't defined by parachuting in a person from a Western developed country, and seeing how they feel about living in those conditions. It's a subjective feeling based on what you're used to.

I think the GGP is wrong, and the "people always have more babies in crisis and uncertainty" is not a reaction to "crisis and uncertainty," it's a side effect of move primitive technological conditions, not some kind of reproductive strategy.

> Crisis isn't defined by parachuting in a person from a Western developed country, and seeing how they feel about living in those conditions. It's a subjective feeling based on what you're used to.

First, I'll note that I meant "modern, developed world" in a temporal as well as geographic way. Second, I'd note that "a subjective feeling based on what you're used to" applies just as much to the modern, developed world, so I don't really understand the contrast. Finally, I'd argue that high levels of child mortality are still traumatizing, even if you're "used" to it.

I don't think this is true. Steady employment causes people to get more kids. Just take a look at Korea, its new administrative capital with most public workers has the highest fertility rate.

Isn't South Korea experiencing a massive demographic crisis right now due to a record low fertility rate?

Yes but the places where this is least the case are those with the most stable employment, I believe Sejong, the location with most public workers, has a whopping 1.4 tfr, 50-60% higher than the rest of the country. Obviously you can't make your whole country public workers but it shows that there's some benefit to stability.