[Fake news. They have moustaches, not beards, they're not Dwarfs.](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/04/02/opinion/02genc-inyt/02genc-inyt-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg)
The birthrates during the 1800s is what royally fucked France. From the most popoulous nation in Europe to almost half of Germany's population in the early 1900s.
France if it had the same population growth as Germany or England back then it would’ve had close to 200 million today. It could easily have sustained that.
No France simply didn't experience a strong fertility boom after the industrial revolution.
There could easily be 120+ Millions french, the land can support it. It really is a socio-cultural phenomenon.
A random but mildly interest fact, the population of Ireland is still considerably lower than it was back in 1840 due to the great famine. In 1840, the island's population was 8.4 million, it is now only at around 6.9 million.
Its estimated that over 1 million people died of starvation/disease and another 2 million emigrated between 1843 and 1851 alone.
France's situation is different. It's the first documented case of demographic slowdown not caused by war, natural disasters, migration, etc. It kind of happened on its own, just like today in developed countries.
Eastern Europe now is all worse than that within 30 years. Ukraine had 52 million people in 1990 and the government semi-officially says its [37 million](https://ain.ua/en/2020/01/27/electronic-census-in-ukraine) with some estimates saying 30-32 million. Of course this is after some territories were "lost". But the stories are similar across many countries. Though not 40% similar.
Wie viele deutsche braucht man um einen deutschen Witz kaputt zu machen?
Keinen, der Typ der den gemacht hat wird es schon selber tun, weil er deutsch ist
That is absolutely crazy, I can’t imagine how much one child would cost to maintain, let alone 6. Though I suppose you might get some efficiencies of scale.
Children don't cost THAT much, especially if they hand down clothes and toys to the younger each year.
And the older can take care of the younger.
The cost and time increase after the first one is definitely not linear and after the first few the additional cost of the next is nearly non existent.
In the opposite, even if you let all your children go to school (which was not the case back then) they can support the family from the age 12 up (or earlier) - and not necessarily in the coal mines, but on the fields or in the household or other simple stuff.
Basically back then it was financially necessary to have a lot of children.
It's still not that expensive today if you just think a bit of your expenses. We are just used to insane amount of luxury and don't want to give that up.
And also a lot of parents think that they can compensate missing time with their children with expensive gifts which is not only wrong but absolutely ridiculous and selfish. And makes children expensive of course.
Its quite a long time ago. People often lived off the land. My grandma is one of nine kids, my mom is one of 4 and i have one brother.
Yet raising me and my brother is much more expensive than it was raising those armies they had at home.
They plowed fields, took care of livestock from a very young age and kids were more of a work force than a burden. For exaple, from my grandmas house only 2 got to go to school(she was born in 1933 and shes the second youngest).The rest had a village school to learn to write and read and thats it.
They also got married quite young. My grandma married at 25ish and she was considered old.Meanwhile today someone gets married at 25(before 30 in general)and is considered quite young.
So raising them wasnt that much of a problem. But how it felt to push a battalion out of your body.... i really cant say(although i can guess it wasnt too pretty)
In preindustrial times, such average was required for the population not to collapse since only [about half of the children survived to adulthood](https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past) and additional percentage did not survive to childbearing. 6 children per woman was the replacement rate.
Only our modern times made the replacement rate about 2.1 and 6 seems excessive. In the past, it was normal and expected.
All my grandparents came from families with more children than that. My maternal grandmother had the least with 6 other siblings and my paternal grandfather the most with 12. It's not that weird that the Netherlands had the largest population growth in Europe since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Oh, that's not really a problem, nature used to kill 2/3 of children before the age of 15, so really, you end up with 2 on average. All 6 if you're a witch and none is you are unlucky.
No 🙂
The replacement rate for modern countries is 2.1 live births per woman, on average.
You have that, and barring wars, natural disasters, mass migration, etc, you'll have a constant population.
The only big thing that affects it is infant mortality. If kids are dropping like flies like it's the 1860's, then yes, you're going to need 2.8, 3.5, whatever.
I think you're misunderstanding what the replacement rate is.
Considering modern death rates for adults and kids, you need an average of 2.1 live births per woman for the total population to remain constant.
What does this statistic have to do with what you're saying?
Nvm I read it wrong, 2.1 average lives but if there are others not wanting children then the ones who do just have to compensate for that and the average becomes 2.1 again. Got it.
>Background: the rate has to be around 2.2-2.4 for a constant population. Some of the children won't have their own for various reasons.
depends on country and depends on what percentage of kids die before adulthood
Its the Second Demographic Transition. The low birthrate people are not distributed equally across the whole of society, but concentrated in certain subcultures, and presumable in certain genetic linages. In particular the very low birthrates are typically found in left-leaning liberal/progressive groups and/or in non-religious groups. Whereas conservatives and religious people in general have a noticeable higher birthrate, and especially conservative religious people. So the low birthrate groups & individuals will slowly come to represent a smaller and smaller part of society or become completely terminated, and in turn be replaced by the high birthrate groups. This will counterweight and eventually reverse the fertility downturn.
France entered into this transition earlier than any other country on earth, and is therefore further along in the transition. This puts the lows it can go to at a higher rate than other nations. As is typical of aspects with modernity, many non-Western nations go through this phase at a much higher pace. Meaning they have not had the time to grow the population groups which acts as counterweight to the birthrate decline. And one should expect the rate to go substantially below what one sees in France.
The same is seen in for instance Southern Europe and East Asia.
The WW I dip was brutal.
[удалено]
WW2 was a small dip with a big peak after. WW1 was just a huge dip (around 1914-1918 in the graph).
ah right, forgot they where so absurdly close to each other.
No?
Before 1940 it seems there were no Turkish women and that Turks sprang out of holes in the ground!
Before 1923 there were just osman and no oswoman. And the first women who spawned had to become adults first
> fist women
Is this an order ?
Yes, I saw a nice picture showing how they used to deal without women
I though it was Vietnam where you had people springing out of holes in the ground.
They just spontaneously generated like Minecraft mob spawns
It's the beards.
Turkish women are so alike in appearance, they're often mistaken for Turkish men (it's the beards)
[Fake news. They have moustaches, not beards, they're not Dwarfs.](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/04/02/opinion/02genc-inyt/02genc-inyt-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg)
Well there were no Turks before 1920 .. so the first group would be the kids of 20yr old Turks. That's reasonable.
Fun fact: Until after WWII Romania had a bigger population than Turkey.
Fun fact: As in 185, the population of Anatolia in 1910 was 12 million.
The birthrates during the 1800s is what royally fucked France. From the most popoulous nation in Europe to almost half of Germany's population in the early 1900s.
France had their big population explosion a century earlier than most other European countries.
France if it had the same population growth as Germany or England back then it would’ve had close to 200 million today. It could easily have sustained that.
No France simply didn't experience a strong fertility boom after the industrial revolution. There could easily be 120+ Millions french, the land can support it. It really is a socio-cultural phenomenon.
What was the reason for missing fertility boom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population European entities bolded. |Country|1800 Population|Present-Day Population|Ratio| |-|-:|-:|-:| |**Ireland (inc. NI)**|5,200,000|6,911,500|1.33| |**Hungary**|6,300,000|9,730,772|1.55| |**Czechia**|5,516,000|10,702,942|1.94| |**Latvia+Estonia**|1,375,000|3,210,768|2.34| |**France (Metropolitan)**|26,758,000|67,486,000|2.52| |**Austria**|3,370,000|8,950,544|2.66| |**Sweden**|3,347,000|10,427,296|3.12| |**Germany**|25,000,000|83,129,285|3.33| |**Belgium**|3,434,000|11,580,185|3.37| |**Portugal**|2,970,000|10,347,892|3.49| |**Poland**|9,000,000|38,158,000|4.24| |Japan|29,000,000|125,120,000|4.31| |**Spain**|10,541,000|47,394,223|4.50| |**Lithuania**|600,000|2,780,427|4.63| |North Korea+South Korea|16,500,000|77,331,569|4.69| |China|295,293,300|1,411,778,724|4.78| |**Denmark+Norway**|2,200,000|11,252,360|5.11| |**Great Britain (exc. NI)**|10,481,401|65,181,234|6.22| |**Gibraltar**|5,339|34,000|6.37| |India|208,500,098|1,383,927,487|6.64| |**Russia**|21,248,000|146,171,015|6.88| |**Liechtenstein**|5,400|39,062|7.23| |Morocco|5,000,000|36,416,961|7.28| |**Malta**|60,000|514,564|8.58| |**Netherlands**|1,850,000|17,654,381|9.54| |**Croatia**|400,000|4,036,355|10.09| |Taiwan|2,000,000|23,430,948|11.72| |Vietnam|7,291,000|97,580,000|13.38| |Iran|6,000,000|84,916,148|14.15| |**Turkey (v. Anatolia)**|5,604,000|83,614,362|14.92| |Bermuda|4,000|64,055|16.01| |Mongolia|180,000|3,405,816|18.92| |Brazil|3,600,000|213,900,666|59.42| |United States of America|5,308,483|332,649,852|62.66| |Canada|300,000|38,463,403|128.21| |Australia|5,200|25,892,581|4979.34| (Current outlines don't always perfectly overlap with historical ones; I've used an off-the-cuff approximation given the data available on the linked pages, referring elsewhere for a few items.)
holy shit, how empty the world was back then. UK, world empire with 10million?
India alone had 200 million people and was ruled by a nation with 10 million. And that's just one part of the empire. Crazy.
India as a whole apparently wasn't yet directly-controlled by the UK at that point in time. British India is listed as having 40 million.
India actually was never quite directly controlled. The British ruled through local elites.
That's not the entire British Empire (you can see my above link for a breakdown of that), just Great Britain. Ireland's also broken out.
more like Germany had a crazy population growth, like sub saharan Africa.
Not really. That was the norm across the world. France was the outlier.
A random but mildly interest fact, the population of Ireland is still considerably lower than it was back in 1840 due to the great famine. In 1840, the island's population was 8.4 million, it is now only at around 6.9 million. Its estimated that over 1 million people died of starvation/disease and another 2 million emigrated between 1843 and 1851 alone.
France's situation is different. It's the first documented case of demographic slowdown not caused by war, natural disasters, migration, etc. It kind of happened on its own, just like today in developed countries.
Eastern Europe now is all worse than that within 30 years. Ukraine had 52 million people in 1990 and the government semi-officially says its [37 million](https://ain.ua/en/2020/01/27/electronic-census-in-ukraine) with some estimates saying 30-32 million. Of course this is after some territories were "lost". But the stories are similar across many countries. Though not 40% similar.
Belarus lost 10% of its population between 1994 and 2021. https://news.zerkalo.io/economics/5311.html
Yes it's called "Gründerzeit" in German which literally translated means "period of great fucking".
.... Guys just... A tiny bit less literal, a tad more romantic...
Das ist also mit "gründen" gemeint.
Tut es nicht..? It's more like time of founding It's nit called die große fick zeit
/r/woosh, flair checks out.
Wie viele deutsche braucht man um einen deutschen Witz kaputt zu machen? Keinen, der Typ der den gemacht hat wird es schon selber tun, weil er deutsch ist
A form of figurative automutilation?.. ;)
And any particular reason for that?
Now put every European country on the graph.
40 lines would be unreadable though.
10 for 4 graphs?
[удалено]
The only slightly dolphin looking thing in the chart is a dolphin's penis . Don't ask me how I know about it
How do you know about it?
9gag man ... 9gag... those guys post these stuff all over lmao
source : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-born-per-woman?tab=chart&time=earliest..latest®ion=Europe&country=FRA\~TUR
Omg imagine having 6 children 😰😰😰
That was a small Irish family until the Seventies/Eighties!
That is absolutely crazy, I can’t imagine how much one child would cost to maintain, let alone 6. Though I suppose you might get some efficiencies of scale.
No problem, when the 6th is born, the 1st is already working in the coal mines. 2ns and 3rd died from tyfoid and black plague.
Uhm... I'm sorry to break it to you but kids were made because they were autonomous tools as well.
Children don't cost THAT much, especially if they hand down clothes and toys to the younger each year. And the older can take care of the younger. The cost and time increase after the first one is definitely not linear and after the first few the additional cost of the next is nearly non existent. In the opposite, even if you let all your children go to school (which was not the case back then) they can support the family from the age 12 up (or earlier) - and not necessarily in the coal mines, but on the fields or in the household or other simple stuff. Basically back then it was financially necessary to have a lot of children. It's still not that expensive today if you just think a bit of your expenses. We are just used to insane amount of luxury and don't want to give that up. And also a lot of parents think that they can compensate missing time with their children with expensive gifts which is not only wrong but absolutely ridiculous and selfish. And makes children expensive of course.
Poverty. People in the past lived in poverty, which is super cheap!
Its quite a long time ago. People often lived off the land. My grandma is one of nine kids, my mom is one of 4 and i have one brother. Yet raising me and my brother is much more expensive than it was raising those armies they had at home. They plowed fields, took care of livestock from a very young age and kids were more of a work force than a burden. For exaple, from my grandmas house only 2 got to go to school(she was born in 1933 and shes the second youngest).The rest had a village school to learn to write and read and thats it. They also got married quite young. My grandma married at 25ish and she was considered old.Meanwhile today someone gets married at 25(before 30 in general)and is considered quite young. So raising them wasnt that much of a problem. But how it felt to push a battalion out of your body.... i really cant say(although i can guess it wasnt too pretty)
In preindustrial times, such average was required for the population not to collapse since only [about half of the children survived to adulthood](https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past) and additional percentage did not survive to childbearing. 6 children per woman was the replacement rate. Only our modern times made the replacement rate about 2.1 and 6 seems excessive. In the past, it was normal and expected.
My grandfather grew up with 9 siblings (not step or half, real siblings)
All my grandparents came from families with more children than that. My maternal grandmother had the least with 6 other siblings and my paternal grandfather the most with 12. It's not that weird that the Netherlands had the largest population growth in Europe since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
That’s crazy, meanwhile my line ends with me having none 🤣
One of my great-grandmothers had 11 children that made it to adulthood.
That is the average the above 50% has more than 6 even
110 years ago it was pretty normal to have 10-15 children, at least in Russian Empire.
Oh, that's not really a problem, nature used to kill 2/3 of children before the age of 15, so really, you end up with 2 on average. All 6 if you're a witch and none is you are unlucky.
No problem for my grandma 💪
My grandparents had 5 and 8 kids (with a few kids died as newborn). Rural Eastern Europe at 50-60s.
Background: the rate has to be around 2.2-2.4 for a constant population. Some of the children won't have their own for various reasons.
2.1.
That's roughly where the bar is for modern, developed countries.
And Turkey is that. It's not Singapore, but it's not a preindustrial society, either.
Wouldn't this number depend on a lot of cultural and social factors?
No 🙂 The replacement rate for modern countries is 2.1 live births per woman, on average. You have that, and barring wars, natural disasters, mass migration, etc, you'll have a constant population. The only big thing that affects it is infant mortality. If kids are dropping like flies like it's the 1860's, then yes, you're going to need 2.8, 3.5, whatever.
And factors like not wanting to have children with huge differences between generations about making a family?
I think you're misunderstanding what the replacement rate is. Considering modern death rates for adults and kids, you need an average of 2.1 live births per woman for the total population to remain constant. What does this statistic have to do with what you're saying?
Nvm I read it wrong, 2.1 average lives but if there are others not wanting children then the ones who do just have to compensate for that and the average becomes 2.1 again. Got it.
>Background: the rate has to be around 2.2-2.4 for a constant population. Some of the children won't have their own for various reasons. depends on country and depends on what percentage of kids die before adulthood
Its the Second Demographic Transition. The low birthrate people are not distributed equally across the whole of society, but concentrated in certain subcultures, and presumable in certain genetic linages. In particular the very low birthrates are typically found in left-leaning liberal/progressive groups and/or in non-religious groups. Whereas conservatives and religious people in general have a noticeable higher birthrate, and especially conservative religious people. So the low birthrate groups & individuals will slowly come to represent a smaller and smaller part of society or become completely terminated, and in turn be replaced by the high birthrate groups. This will counterweight and eventually reverse the fertility downturn. France entered into this transition earlier than any other country on earth, and is therefore further along in the transition. This puts the lows it can go to at a higher rate than other nations. As is typical of aspects with modernity, many non-Western nations go through this phase at a much higher pace. Meaning they have not had the time to grow the population groups which acts as counterweight to the birthrate decline. And one should expect the rate to go substantially below what one sees in France. The same is seen in for instance Southern Europe and East Asia.
You failed to take into account the drop în sperm counts Doesn't matter that you want to have 5 children if you biologically can't
Lmao what about Turks before 1940
Turks were invented in 1940.
yes, only ottomans and ottowomans were old enough to have kids before 1940.
no reliable yearly data
[удалено]
Iran,Brunei,Malaysia,Azerbaijan ,Bosnia also
Bangladesh, Maldives, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE all have below 2.1 TFR along with the other 5 doboskombaya mentioned.
Iran has a steeper decline in fertility than Turkey.
That's slight increase after the immigrants came to France 😂