[Bosnjak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate

For Agricultural societies is such a high fertility rate destructive.

Africa the poorest continent has the highest fertility rate.

Even in a western economy it is nearly unpossible to feed up to 8 Children.

[Zyx]

So the kid's die. That's natural selection. Darwin said this over a hundred years ago.


Moreover, Africa's kind of modern. "Agricultural society" isn't the correct term for it. More like "poorly modernized" and "extremely oppressed."

[Jackal]

Rank in Fertility rates vs. Composition of GDP by Sector (Industry & Agriculture)
1. Niger: Industry 17%, Agriculture 39%
2. Guinea-Bassau: Industry 12%, Agriculture 62%
4. Burundi: Industry 20.7%, Agriculture 33.4%
5. Liberia: Industry 5.4%, Agriculture 76.9%
6. Democratic Republic of Congo: Industry 11%, Agriculture 55%
8. Mali: Industry 17%, Agriculture 45%
9. Sierra Leone: Industry 31%, Agriculture 49%
10. Uganda: Industry 25.1%, Agriculture 22.5%
11. Angola: Industry 65.8%, Agriculture 9.6%
12. Chad: Industry 6.5%, Agriculture 47.2%
13. Somalia: Industry 10%, Agriculture 65%
14. Burkina Faso: Industry 20.7%, Agriculture 30.1%
15. Rwanda: Industry 14.1%, Agriculture 41.7%

That is only the top 15. While, yes, a lot of Africa is poorly industrialized, a majority (at least in the top 15 highest fertility rates) can still arguably be considered "agricultural societies".

Sources 1 and 2.

[lovertothemoon]

That tends to be a trend for developing nations, at least historically. First, you have lots of kids because a lot of them die. Then conditions improve and a lot less of them die, but it takes while for society to deal with the change. Finally, the birth rates start to get low, just like the death rates, and the population gets to a relative equilibrium. Many countries are just now in their transitional period.

[Zyx]

While, yes, a lot of Africa is poorly industrialized, a majority (at least in the top 15 highest fertility rates) can still arguably be considered "agricultural societies".

I wrote 'modernized' not 'industrialized.'

Slavery, though without industry, was a modern system.

High fertility is wrong if a people are doing subsistence farming, not simply sharecropping farming. When one doesn't own the land on which one farms, it's quite reasonable, especially if the rent is high, to have many children in order to bring in a higher income. That's how modernity demands it. In the U.S., University is too expensive (~$200,000 per child) for multiple children, so we don't have them.

[Jackal]

I wrote 'modernized' not 'industrialized.'

I only stated industrialized because, at least in modern times, countries that are industrialized tend to be considered the most modern. I still feel, given the statistics I have provided, that those nations are considered agricultural societies.

Slavery, though without industry, was a modern system.

I am curious, though, why do you consider slavery being a modern system of the time?

High fertility is wrong if a people are doing subsistence farming, not simply sharecropping farming. When one doesn't own the land on which one farms, it's quite reasonable, especially if the rent is high, to have many children in order to bring in a higher income. That's how modernity demands it.

This, of course, can also be a hindrance on society as a whole. Sounds like a good setup for dysgenic breeding, no? Among other problems.

In the U.S., University is too expensive (~$200,000 per child) for multiple children, so we don't have them.

Depends on the University really. That sounds like a private university to me. I only pay ~$6000 a year and I go to a top public university in my state.

[Zyx]

I only stated industrialized because, at least in modern times, countries that are industrialized tend to be considered the most modern.

That's why I wrote 'poorly modernized.'

I still feel, given the statistics I have provided, that those nations are considered agricultural societies.

Agricultural societies are more agricultural for the sake of sustenance. Cash crops are as capitalist as heavy machinery as mall economies.

I am curious, though, why do you consider slavery being a modern system of the time?

It's among the earliest economic systems of the modern age. When Columbus came to America, the modern age began. Wouldn't you call 'plantations' modern? Africa is more a plantation than a series of independent farmers, the latter making an agricultural society, the former a modern one. For instance, Africans also do a lot of mining, which is more like the plantation than the farming. The economic system thus isn't agricultural but more resource gathering for the larger capitalist machine.

The above reminds you of a videogame, so the analogy should fit. Say, if you ever played StarCraft (or any of the RTS games), you had your workers who gathered resources and built things. That's kind of the role of Africa in the global economy. In this it's modern, whereas the critters that one runs across, that are neutral to the controlled races, are more agricultural society, surviving off the land for their own sake. Being low in the modern economy doesn't make one primitive. Resource gathering is considerably instrumental to the modern system: the capitalist machine.

Sounds like a good setup for dysgenic breeding, no? Among other problems.

Not at all, though it depends on what you mean. If intelligence can be selected for, will it be selected for in this sort of system? Probably not. But the premise isn't even established to lend to such a conversation, and the alternative, less breeding, doesn't lend to better selection either.

I only pay ~$6000 a year and I go to a top public university in my state.

In the U.S.? What about housing and food? I admit, I paid out-of-state, which plain burns a hole in one's pocket, but by the end of your four years, considering the high cost of housing, food, books and so forth, your financial contributions to the education system should be much greater than what's considered affordable for the average family to turn out for, say, five kids.

[Jackal]

It's among the earliest economic systems of the modern age. When Columbus came to America, the modern age began. Wouldn't you call 'plantations' modern? Africa is more a plantation than a series of independent farmers, the latter making an agricultural society, the former a modern one. For instance, Africans also do a lot of mining, which is more like the plantation than the farming. The economic system thus isn't agricultural but more resource gathering for the larger capitalist machine.

The above reminds you of a videogame, so the analogy should fit. Say, if you ever played StarCraft (or any of the RTS games), you had your workers who gathered resources and built things. That's kind of the role of Africa in the global economy. In this it's modern, whereas the critters that one runs across, that are neutral to the controlled races, are more agricultural society, surviving off the land for their own sake. Being low in the modern economy doesn't make one primitive. Resource gathering is considerably instrumental to the modern system: the capitalist machine.

Slavery has been around during ancient times, though. It was practiced at the said times, thus could be considered "modern" for the time, but it had been around for much longer and remained around well past Columbus' time all the way into the 1960s and 70s in the Arab world. Also, how many agricultural products do you see from Africa? We live stateside, so most of our foreign agricultural products come from South America. Can anyone from Europe inform us how much of "produced in (African country)" they find in their local marketplaces? It is required by law, at least in the United States, to have a Country of Origin Label (COOL) and I have actually yet to see any from Africa.

In the U.S.? What about housing and food? I admit, I paid out-of-state, which plain burns a hole in one's pocket, but by the end of your four years, considering the high cost of housing, food, books and so forth, your financial contributions to the education system should be much greater than what's considered affordable for the average family to turn out for, say, five kids.

Yes, in the United States. I am a commuter student so housing and food are covered by my parents but still don't amount to some overwhelming amount. I also get government loans to pay for my schooling. My high school tuition (I went to a private, Catholic school) was about the same a year as my university.

[Zyx]

Slavery has been around during ancient times, though.

It's a different form of slavery: we call the modern form "chattel slavery" for its more dehumanizing aspect. But what's important about slavery for this conversation isn't so much the enslavement insomuch as the produce: plantations are modern and Africa is a series of plantations.

Plantations, like large tobacco fields, aren't at all "primitive."

Also, how many agricultural products do you see from Africa?

During colonization, practically most of Europe's agricultural products came from abroad. As to the COOL, Africans gather the raw materials rather than assembling the final product, in this the credit wouldn't go to them. But the naturally richest country in the world is the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" and you are surrounded with the materials from it, particularly Coltan which is in your cellphone, laptops and other electronics: it makes for one of the most cost-efficient superconductors. The Congo wouldn't appear on the COOL since the Congo doesn't largely produce, if it does, superconductors.

I am a commuter student so housing and food are covered by my parents but still don't amount to some overwhelming amount.

Good on you, I've such terrible debt.

[Nets]

High fertility is wrong if a people are doing subsistence farming, not simply sharecropping farming. When one doesn't own the land on which one farms, it's quite reasonable, especially if the rent is high, to have many children in order to bring in a higher income. That's how modernity demands it. In the U.S., University is too expensive (~$200,000 per child) for multiple children, so we don't have them.

Many countries in Europe have free universities (or close to free) as well as far lower birthrates than the USA. How does this square with your analysis?

[Zyx]

What do you think? I sort of misspoke blaming "University" for our lack of fertility, when I would more mean 'cost of rearing.'

You're the economist, Nets, you should be able to tell us about how people take into account expenses and incomes in order to balance their family lives.

[eon]

Most African countries are still undergoing demographic transition. If I remember correctly, in Sub-Saharan Africa the average life expectancy is about 40 years old, about the life expectancy in the United States prior to the 1900's. This means that while birth rates are high, so are death rates and it takes more children to replace the original parents as many will die before adulthood. According to the theory of demographic transition, birth rates will decline as death rates decline, leading to a low TFR of about 2. In line with this theory, things such as improved infrastructure and less dependence on children for agricultural labor causes the transition to a low fertility rate naturally. An example of this would be the good ole' USA. As we moved away from an agricultural society in the early 1900's, both birth and death rates declined.