See post #155.
In comparison to developed countries, agrarian societies today are economic basket cases. But in this which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg scenario, it wasn't the high fertility rates that caused better or worse economic situations.
Societies that modernized and "succeeded" transitioned from the universal norm high fertility rates to developed world lower lower fertility rates.
Societies that failed to develop into first world economies did not transition from the universal norm high fertility rates to developed world lower fertility rates, they simply maintained the prior universal norm.
High fertility did not cause modernization. Neither did it cause economic stagnation.
Economic development and "success" in first world nations lead to lower fertility rates.
As third world nations transition to first world status, all trends indicate they too will have lower fertility rates.
Economic prosperity leads to lower fertility.
High fertility does not cause economic stagnation, or else America would never have become an economic world leader.
And as Julian Simon pointed out, population growth is not an impediment to economic growth. In fact, it may be a necessity for it.
But population contraction has always been associated with economic contraction.
Absolutely! And with western medicine and western agriculture “to the rescue” and we see the exponential increase in population in the 3rd world as their “have a lot of kids retirement plan” met the western ethic of not liking to see starving and/or disease ridden kids.
It seems to me that the healthy rate of reproduction we see in the chart above for modern nations is what should be emulated - and while I agree that low birth rates of moribund socialist states point out the bleakness of life and the hopelessness and lack of opportunity under that state run system and are to be avoided - I reject the idea that this is a doomsday scenario as far as WORLD population.
That it seems, despite undue hostility from both sides (mia culpa), is our major bone of contention - IF this reduction in birth rates is actually a threat to mankind - let alone the “greatest” threat to mankind.
We will see in 2050 if the current trend continues unabated and if - at some predicted 9 billion world population - that world population starts to come down.
Until then we live, and will for the next forty years, in a world of expanding human population with a reproductive capacity well in excess of what is currently utilized.