Culture can certainly affect things, and a country as culturally isolated as Japan definitely has their own thing going on. That's always been the case. Yet they never seem to be at risk of extinction.That is sadly uncorrect. At no time, for example, prior to the 20th Century did Japan go through an extended period (that I am aware of) where their fertility rate was below 1.8. Ditto for China, and Europe. Birthrates are not "snapping back to norm", they are "diving below replacement." The result of their failure to replace themselves is going to be a poorer, dirtier, more pain-filled world, not a better one.
Europe is mid-transition. And China is not allowing natural population, so you can't use them at all.
Nope. But I tend to be against incentives that cause people suffering.And me as well. I wouldn't want to raise 10 kids any more than I would want to subsistence farm for a living. But that alters the fact that our elderly are still dependent upon the productivity of the generations that follow them not a whit.
I didn't say it was a poorer option. I said it was a no-win situation.So your argument is that agriculture was disastrous because it was the poorer option to genocide?
But, again, the human populace exploded after agriculture. Agriculture gave us the security (and reduced our mortality rates) that hunting gathering did not, which is why we shifted to it. But, again, that's for another thread. G'night, smoke.
It exploded after agriculture mostly because physiological conditioning changes allowed them to. A hunter gatherer woman couldn't spit out that many kids if she tried -- they basically have the bodies of endurance runners, and they remain infertile for far longer after their last birth. Women in agriculture lost that as the strength required for farm work became higher and social control needed to make agriculture work meant women were heavily oppressed and limited in their movements.
'Night? I'm just getting started. The birds are singing...