Commander Gorn said:

---

It has nothing to do with the cost of raising kids. Our peasant ancestors were having kids in droves and every other race is still having kids. It has to do with raising kids being perceived as hard (I say this as a millennial with 2 kids). No one wants to give up their Netflix time or wake up in the night to tend to a child. I know countless well-off white couples without kids because they don't want to give up their comfortable lives, not because they would if they could but it's just too financially straining.

---

That's probably some of it too, but all you have to do is compare their incomes to their imposed expenses and the two are not even in the same ballpark, and its not their phone bill. There is also a lot of the 80/20 going on --- mind I am talking about middle class, not working class whose girls don't have quite the same expectations. But frankly, its purely anecdotal --- its just looking at the incomes vs numbers hear required for going out and weddings, etc. The ones bankrolled by parents more don't have as much trouble.

Obligatory post when this topic comes up. Idiocracy, The Documentary.

This is what happens when you give women undeserved benefits of easy college admits, preference in jobs, easy promotions. This has happened for decades and still does.

Women then lose interest in being wives and moms and raising families. They also lose respect for men because they think "I got into Harvard, how can I marry someone from Texas A&M? He is unworthy of me". Women always marry up.

Women prefer to go to work and be corporate slaves than marry and raise kids (which now seem dull and boring).

I see this issue even in my own family. It is everywhere and spreading even into the 3rd world.

Western civilization is in deep trouble because people have become selfish and women more so. No one wants to talk about it because it gets them ostracized, canceled or they lose elections.

93MarineHorn said:

---

This is a big problem. Neither of my two sons (27 & 33 yrs old) nor their longtime girlfriends are interested in getting married and definitely not having kids. I'm praying for an accident.

---

At their age (your youngest at least), I was praying for the opposite.

93MarineHorn said:

---

This is a big problem. Neither of my two sons (27 & 33 yrs old) nor their longtime girlfriends are interested in getting married and definitely not having kids. I'm praying for an accident.

---

What reasons do they give? (If any).

infinity ag said:

---

This is what happens when you give women undeserved benefits of easy college admits, preference in jobs, easy promotions. This has happened for decades and still does.

Women then lose interest in being wives and moms and raising families. They also lose respect for men because they think "I got into Harvard, why can't he? He is unworthy of me". Women always marry up.

Women prefer to go to work and be corporate slaves than marry and raise kids (which now seem dull and boring).

I see this issue even in my own family. It is everywhere and spreading even into the 3rd world.

Western civilization is in deep trouble because people have become selfish and women more so. No one wants to talk about it because it gets them ostracized, canceled or they lose elections.

---

I have a sister who is exactly like this. MIT graduate and extremely smart. Also will not go near any man without a MD or PhD after his name and has essentially removed herself from the pool as she is now in her mid to late 30's without any type of potential suitor.

titan said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

This is a big problem. Neither of my two sons (27 & 33 yrs old) nor their longtime girlfriends are interested in getting married and definitely not having kids. I'm praying for an accident.

---

What reasons do they give? (If any).

---

They'd rather spend their time and energy working and having fun with their friends. They spend a lot of $$ to live in nicer areas so COL does come in to play. Like others have said, younger people look at child rearing as a massive damper on their fun lives. They don't realize what they are missing in terms of life long happiness in regards to raising kids.

TKEAg04 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

This is what happens when you give women undeserved benefits of easy college admits, preference in jobs, easy promotions. This has happened for decades and still does.

Women then lose interest in being wives and moms and raising families. They also lose respect for men because they think "I got into Harvard, why can't he? He is unworthy of me". Women always marry up.

Women prefer to go to work and be corporate slaves than marry and raise kids (which now seem dull and boring).

I see this issue even in my own family. It is everywhere and spreading even into the 3rd world.

Western civilization is in deep trouble because people have become selfish and women more so. No one wants to talk about it because it gets them ostracized, canceled or they lose elections.

---

I have a sister who is exactly like this. MIT graduate and extremely smart. Also will not go near any man without a MD or PhD after his name and has essentially removed herself from the pool as she is now in her mid to late 30's without any type of potential suitor.

---

Despite our imploding population, on average is her "status" a net gain or loss for society? Based purely on your description, I'm guessing a net gain?

Which is a true shame.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

This person had an interesting reply:

Quote:

---

These numbers are real but the interpretation is completely off.

Low birth rates in Europe aren't the result of replacement, mixing, or some secret agenda.

They're the result of Europeans themselves choosing fewer children because of:
high cost of living
late marriage
economic pressure
dual-income households
urbanization
career prioritization
social systems designed around individualism

That's demography, not destruction.

Meanwhile, high fertility countries are simply doing what every population has done in history when they're young: grow.

Human groups have expanded, collapsed, migrated, blended, and reshaped one another for 300,000 years.

There has NEVER been a permanent, isolated 'founding population.'
Every major civilization is the product of waves of migration and mixing.

Europe itself?
Celts Romans Goths Moors Vikings Slavs Normans Turks
There is no single 'original population.'
There never was.

And here's the key scientific point:

Demographic change does NOT erase people.
It creates new variations of people.

Skin tones shift. Languages shift. Cultures evolve.
That's exactly how every modern population was formed.

Calling this 'the end of the West' assumes that culture is static and biological but culture is learned, transmitted, and constantly reinvented.

And fertility collapse?

It's not racial.
It's economic.

South Korea, Japan, China all majority Asian have fertility LOWER than Europe.

By your logic, they should also be considered 'disappearing,' but we never frame it that way.

Why?
Because this isn't about race.
It's about modernity.

Migration isn't erasure.

It's the oldest human behavior on the planet.

Humans left Africa in multiple waves.
Humans mixed with Neanderthals.
Humans mixed across continents long before borders existed.

This moment in history is not an anomaly it's a continuation of what humans have always done.

Fear doesn't come from the numbers.

Fear comes from the belief that identity is fragile.

But identities evolve.
Cultures adapt.
People blend.
Humanity continues.

This isn't the 'end of the old world.'
It's the beginning of the next one just like every era before it.

---

---

Great find. Modernity is selfishness repackaged.

My fear is that people won't learn the right lessons. It isn't the Christian West that is collapsing and failing; it's the Moderns who kept the wrong pieces from a previously Christian West. The dominant culture iterated in the wrong direction and being pruned. I fear they'll cause irreparable damage with their death throes which leave those of us who would restart a Christ based culture as a minority in a cultural soup.

---

It's quite possible that those who might have to restart in he future do so from a poor starting point.

If that does happen, hopefully for them, they'll learn from the failures of those before so it doesn't happen again.

93MarineHorn said:

---

titan said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

This is a big problem. Neither of my two sons (27 & 33 yrs old) nor their longtime girlfriends are interested in getting married and definitely not having kids. I'm praying for an accident.

---

What reasons do they give? (If any).

---

They'd rather spend their time and energy working and having fun with their friends. They spend a lot of $$ to live in nicer areas so COL does come in to play. Like others have said, younger people look at child rearing as a massive damper on their fun lives. They don't realize what they are missing in terms of life long happiness in regards to raising kids.

---

They may also see peers with kids, see all that goes into it, and feel like all that comes with kids isn't for them.

Birth control really is about as on point a phrase as there could be, and because of it people are allow to choose the lives they want to live, not just have to adapt to mistakes and Oops like this in every generation before.

TKEAg04 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

This is what happens when you give women undeserved benefits of easy college admits, preference in jobs, easy promotions. This has happened for decades and still does.

Women then lose interest in being wives and moms and raising families. They also lose respect for men because they think "I got into Harvard, why can't he? He is unworthy of me". Women always marry up.

Women prefer to go to work and be corporate slaves than marry and raise kids (which now seem dull and boring).

I see this issue even in my own family. It is everywhere and spreading even into the 3rd world.

Western civilization is in deep trouble because people have become selfish and women more so. No one wants to talk about it because it gets them ostracized, canceled or they lose elections.

---

I have a sister who is exactly like this. MIT graduate and extremely smart. Also will not go near any man without a MD or PhD after his name and has essentially removed herself from the pool as she is now in her mid to late 30's without any type of potential suitor.

---

Is it thus income based, or would only having an MD and PhD with more modest income do ? Is it code for how many zeros?

Prepare to be diluted and looted? This is what migratory populations generally do when they see another population with more resources and wealth but fewer numbers and willingness or ability to defend those resources.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Prepare to be diluted and looted? This is what migratory populations generally do when they see another population with more resources and wealth but fewer numbers and willingness or ability to defend those resources.

---

Now, that is what happened to Western Rome. But unlike Washington, they didn't do it so much by intention, but had a perfect storm moment that allowed invasion when also at a weak point. But that fewer numbers and ability to defend against looting is exactly what happened. Until the East strengthened by contracting and getting more organized. That's what will in time be needed here. The 50 is probably over in some of our lifetimes and that won't be bad, but necessary for some strongholds of Western Civ style to continue. Probably with more Singaporian discipline and very blunt processes for crime.

Having kids is expensive/people don't make enough money to be financially stable, modern feminism has made dating difficult and made women hate men and commitment, and kids are socially stunted due to technology and Covid dysfunction.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Prepare to be diluted and looted? This is what migratory populations generally do when they see another population with more resources and wealth but fewer numbers and willingness or ability to defend those resources.

---

That can be rebuffed by people's joining each other instead of every people for themselves.

At this point in time we're all Americans with many shared beliefs. I'm not saying the far left and right will ever agree or get along, but there's a ton in the middle that already do, or with only a little push could for the future of their kids.

The current economic situation for the middle class disincentivizes having kids. Unless you fix that, the population will continue to decrease and the pressure to maintain population base via immigration will increase.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

It is called "Higher Education" But Prager and VDH had that right -- its where you banish wisdom and ability to think critically and is more mis-education now.

LOYAL AG said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

BBRex said:

---

I'm more worried about Western Civilization collapse.

---

They go hand in hand. The US and Western Europe largely have built their cultures around hard work and creativity with the U.S. mixing in a healthy dose of rugged individualism. The entire rest of the world is built around collectivism and naked pursuit of power. The problem in the west is two fold. First, our birth rates aren't sufficient to maintain, never mind continue growing, that cultural mindset. Second, internally we have a significant political movement whose beliefs mirror the entire rest of the world and not the values that made the west the dominant culture on earth.

---

I dont know if that explanation fits the history of the United States. The Baby Boom experienced after WW2. A culture surviving isnt collectivism vs rugged individualism but rather selfish vs unselfish. Consumerism vs family.

During the baby boom, America was likely at its minimum in terms of selfishness. Huge families. Kids helped support the family. Families took in the grandparents for multi generational housing. Rugged individualism still persisted but I think rugged individualism persists (id argue to a more extreme amount) today. Well maybe not the rugged but the individualism for sure.

Keep in mind that the baby boom also coincided with the Awakening and boom in Christianity. Life was valued. Community was valued. Family was valued.

Sadly for my generation, millennials and slightly older gen X; consumerism has come before family. Mostly on the back of the career woman push. Some of it comes from a misguided place of good: i want my kid to have the opportunity to (go to college, play club sports, go on great vacations, travel the world, etc).

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but I think you're missing on some definitions. Rugged individualism isn't selfish in any way but rather is the reliance on oneself to provide for your family rather than relying on the collective. It's self reliance, it just sounds cooler to call it rugged individualism. The baby boom was a very self reliant era with large families and a rapidly expanding population creating lots of economic opportunities for everyone.

This era we see today with fewer to no children isn't even close to rugged individualism but rather is an era of selfishness which is a core characteristic of collectivism. Selfish people want society to provide for them and give no thought to their role in perpetuating that system. As long as they get theirs nothing else matters.

---

Rugged individualism is easily corrupted into individualism. People in America arent trying to be self-reliant they are trying to be maximum consumers. It isnt true rugged individualism though it masquerade as such.

Now that isnt to say there isn't ALSO a problem with collectivism. That is growing. But I would posit that is a response to selfishness in society and rugged individualism being more individual in the strictest since.

I think many here struggle to accept that selfishness is still possible even if the person is "earning" the ability themselves. They are both bad. You could argue one is worse then another but that is just a minor point not a major.

No Spin Ag said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

titan said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

This is a big problem. Neither of my two sons (27 & 33 yrs old) nor their longtime girlfriends are interested in getting married and definitely not having kids. I'm praying for an accident.

---

What reasons do they give? (If any).

---

They'd rather spend their time and energy working and having fun with their friends. They spend a lot of $$ to live in nicer areas so COL does come in to play. Like others have said, younger people look at child rearing as a massive damper on their fun lives. They don't realize what they are missing in terms of life long happiness in regards to raising kids.

---

They may also see peers with kids, see all that goes into it, and feel like all that comes with kids isn't for them.

Birth control really is about as on point a phrase as there could be, and because of it people are allow to choose the lives they want to live, not just have to adapt to mistakes and Oops like this in every generation before.

---

My younger was an "oops" that I'm so thankful to have been blessed with.

That's not "interesting comment" that's AI slop copy and pasted from chat gpt or grok.

93MarineHorn said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

titan said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

This is a big problem. Neither of my two sons (27 & 33 yrs old) nor their longtime girlfriends are interested in getting married and definitely not having kids. I'm praying for an accident.

---

What reasons do they give? (If any).

---

They'd rather spend their time and energy working and having fun with their friends. They spend a lot of $$ to live in nicer areas so COL does come in to play. Like others have said, younger people look at child rearing as a massive damper on their fun lives. They don't realize what they are missing in terms of life long happiness in regards to raising kids.

---

They may also see peers with kids, see all that goes into it, and feel like all that comes with kids isn't for them.

Birth control really is about as on point a phrase as there could be, and because of it people are allow to choose the lives they want to live, not just have to adapt to mistakes and Oops like this in every generation before.

---

My younger was an "oops" that I'm so thankful to have been blessed with.

---

And you're the kind of person who should have a kid. Your kids truly blessed for that.

Not everyone born of an oops gets a parent like you. There's way too many examples (see Idiocracy) of what happens with the others.

Zobel said:

---

That's not "interesting comment" that's AI slop copy and pasted from chat gpt or grok.

---

You got that right. Such poppycock, or what sports fans call "sunshine pumpers" viewpoint. The Dark Ages (in the shorter sense, not the Middle Ages) were a definite regression and collapse from what came before, and a great deal was lost. True, it transformed into something new and once again growing great.

But that doesn't change there is nothing trivial about the transition period, and a government like our Dems & Rinos and the West European Ministers reckless immigration policies that deliberately ushers it in needs to be punished. Islam definitely regressed much of the fading Eastern Classical it touched in the 7th and 8th C. The most obvious being Antioch and Alexandria.

No Spin Ag said:

---

This person had an interesting reply:

Quote:

---

These numbers are real but the interpretation is completely off.

Low birth rates in Europe aren't the result of replacement, mixing, or some secret agenda.

They're the result of Europeans themselves choosing fewer children because of:
high cost of living
late marriage
economic pressure
dual-income households
urbanization
career prioritization
social systems designed around individualism

That's demography, not destruction.

Meanwhile, high fertility countries are simply doing what every population has done in history when they're young: grow.

Human groups have expanded, collapsed, migrated, blended, and reshaped one another for 300,000 years.

There has NEVER been a permanent, isolated 'founding population.'
Every major civilization is the product of waves of migration and mixing.

Europe itself?
Celts Romans Goths Moors Vikings Slavs Normans Turks
There is no single 'original population.'
There never was.

And here's the key scientific point:

Demographic change does NOT erase people.
It creates new variations of people.

Skin tones shift. Languages shift. Cultures evolve.
That's exactly how every modern population was formed.

Calling this 'the end of the West' assumes that culture is static and biological but culture is learned, transmitted, and constantly reinvented.

And fertility collapse?

It's not racial.
It's economic.

South Korea, Japan, China all majority Asian have fertility LOWER than Europe.

By your logic, they should also be considered 'disappearing,' but we never frame it that way.

Why?
Because this isn't about race.
It's about modernity.

Migration isn't erasure.

It's the oldest human behavior on the planet.

Humans left Africa in multiple waves.
Humans mixed with Neanderthals.
Humans mixed across continents long before borders existed.

This moment in history is not an anomaly it's a continuation of what humans have always done.

Fear doesn't come from the numbers.

Fear comes from the belief that identity is fragile.

But identities evolve.
Cultures adapt.
People blend.
Humanity continues.

This isn't the 'end of the old world.'
It's the beginning of the next one just like every era before it.

---

---

If high cost of living is the reason people don't breed why are poor people the top breeders?

So when whites become the minority, what will happen to DEI?

itsyourboypookie said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

This person had an interesting reply:

Quote:

---

These numbers are real but the interpretation is completely off.

Low birth rates in Europe aren't the result of replacement, mixing, or some secret agenda.

They're the result of Europeans themselves choosing fewer children because of:
high cost of living
late marriage
economic pressure
dual-income households
urbanization
career prioritization
social systems designed around individualism

That's demography, not destruction.

Meanwhile, high fertility countries are simply doing what every population has done in history when they're young: grow.

Human groups have expanded, collapsed, migrated, blended, and reshaped one another for 300,000 years.

There has NEVER been a permanent, isolated 'founding population.'
Every major civilization is the product of waves of migration and mixing.

Europe itself?
Celts Romans Goths Moors Vikings Slavs Normans Turks
There is no single 'original population.'
There never was.

And here's the key scientific point:

Demographic change does NOT erase people.
It creates new variations of people.

Skin tones shift. Languages shift. Cultures evolve.
That's exactly how every modern population was formed.

Calling this 'the end of the West' assumes that culture is static and biological but culture is learned, transmitted, and constantly reinvented.

And fertility collapse?

It's not racial.
It's economic.

South Korea, Japan, China all majority Asian have fertility LOWER than Europe.

By your logic, they should also be considered 'disappearing,' but we never frame it that way.

Why?
Because this isn't about race.
It's about modernity.

Migration isn't erasure.

It's the oldest human behavior on the planet.

Humans left Africa in multiple waves.
Humans mixed with Neanderthals.
Humans mixed across continents long before borders existed.

This moment in history is not an anomaly it's a continuation of what humans have always done.

Fear doesn't come from the numbers.

Fear comes from the belief that identity is fragile.

But identities evolve.
Cultures adapt.
People blend.
Humanity continues.

This isn't the 'end of the old world.'
It's the beginning of the next one just like every era before it.

---

---

If high cost of living is the reason people don't breed why are poor people the top breeders?

---

No clue, but my guess would be they oops so much, and they themselves were oops, that that's all they know. Again, idiocracy would seem to play a big roll in that.

I volunteer to take on a Russian, Czech, Ukrainian harem to address this situation.

TKEAg04 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

This is what happens when you give women undeserved benefits of easy college admits, preference in jobs, easy promotions. This has happened for decades and still does.

Women then lose interest in being wives and moms and raising families. They also lose respect for men because they think "I got into Harvard, why can't he? He is unworthy of me". Women always marry up.

Women prefer to go to work and be corporate slaves than marry and raise kids (which now seem dull and boring).

I see this issue even in my own family. It is everywhere and spreading even into the 3rd world.

Western civilization is in deep trouble because people have become selfish and women more so. No one wants to talk about it because it gets them ostracized, canceled or they lose elections.

---

I have a sister who is exactly like this. MIT graduate and extremely smart. Also will not go near any man without a MD or PhD after his name and has essentially removed herself from the pool as she is now in her mid to late 30's without any type of potential suitor.

---

0
MD
PhD


2 degrees below zero

Zobel said:

---

That's not "interesting comment" that's AI slop copy and pasted from chat gpt or grok.

---

Moreover, the key problem is completely unaddressed by that comment: the speed at which the migration is happening prevents any possibility of culture evolution. It's not just "migration", it's an invasion aided by the speed of travel and communication in the 21st century.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

I'm more worried about Western Civilization collapse.

---

Same thing

---

Western civilization will still exist, it'll just look different than it does today. That's no different than it looking different than it did 150 years ago. We're still here, we're just different.

---

It wont be based on Christianity, literature, science, art, and freedoms. Islamic counties for instance do not translate many books into Arabic or other Islamic languages. Much will be lost

doubledog said:

---

So when whites become the minority, what will happen to DEI?

---

DEI exists because whites are more intelligent, hold more positions of power, and are more affluent.

It has nothing to do with being a minority.

G Martin 87 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

That's not "interesting comment" that's AI slop copy and pasted from chat gpt or grok.

---

Moreover, the key problem is completely unaddressed by that comment: the speed at which the migration is happening prevents any possibility of culture evolution. It's not just "migration", it's an invasion aided by the speed of travel and communication in the 21st century.

---

Excellent point. One of the reasons Britain turning into England went as tolerably well as it did is now generally credited to what is called the `Arthurian' Fact and Age. Completely leaving aside the issue of the precise nature and character of the historical King Arthur, is the fact is that a leader or group of leaders sufficiently rallied the native Romano-Britains (Romans themselves now a blended intruder of course) to halt the rate and pace of germanic Anglo-Saxon incursion enough to prevent what happened in many parts of the Roman Empire, an outright displacement. Here the "check" lasted long enough for the Anglo-Saxons themselves to become a bit `British' and this is generally recognized.

What the current American government pre-Trump (and Europe's now) are doing is the opposite---facilitating rapid inundation and overrun of culture. Especially by the Bidenites who in the classic age probably would have been seen as outright traitors selling their kingdom without hesitation.

The white population is losing weight?

samurai_science said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

I'm more worried about Western Civilization collapse.

---

Same thing

---

Western civilization will still exist, it'll just look different than it does today. That's no different than it looking different than it did 150 years ago. We're still here, we're just different.

---

It wont be based on Christianity, literature, science, art, and freedoms. Islamic counties for instance do not translate many books into Arabic or other Islamic languages. Much will be lost

---

According to the Google, Muslims make up all of 1.34% of the population. I'd like to think that it'll be many other peoples who will have their shot at running this country long before they might.

I'm thinking La Raza will be next, and seeing as how they can make babies with the best of them, the Muslims are gonna have one long mother of a wait.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

This person had an interesting reply:

Quote:

---

These numbers are real but the interpretation is completely off.

Low birth rates in Europe aren't the result of replacement, mixing, or some secret agenda.

They're the result of Europeans themselves choosing fewer children because of:
high cost of living
late marriage
economic pressure
dual-income households
urbanization
career prioritization
social systems designed around individualism

That's demography, not destruction.

Meanwhile, high fertility countries are simply doing what every population has done in history when they're young: grow.

Human groups have expanded, collapsed, migrated, blended, and reshaped one another for 300,000 years.

There has NEVER been a permanent, isolated 'founding population.'
Every major civilization is the product of waves of migration and mixing.

Europe itself?
Celts Romans Goths Moors Vikings Slavs Normans Turks
There is no single 'original population.'
There never was.

And here's the key scientific point:

Demographic change does NOT erase people.
It creates new variations of people.

Skin tones shift. Languages shift. Cultures evolve.
That's exactly how every modern population was formed.

Calling this 'the end of the West' assumes that culture is static and biological but culture is learned, transmitted, and constantly reinvented.

And fertility collapse?

It's not racial.
It's economic.

South Korea, Japan, China all majority Asian have fertility LOWER than Europe.

By your logic, they should also be considered 'disappearing,' but we never frame it that way.

Why?
Because this isn't about race.
It's about modernity.

Migration isn't erasure.

It's the oldest human behavior on the planet.

Humans left Africa in multiple waves.
Humans mixed with Neanderthals.
Humans mixed across continents long before borders existed.

This moment in history is not an anomaly it's a continuation of what humans have always done.

Fear doesn't come from the numbers.

Fear comes from the belief that identity is fragile.

But identities evolve.
Cultures adapt.
People blend.
Humanity continues.

This isn't the 'end of the old world.'
It's the beginning of the next one just like every era before it.

---

---

If high cost of living is the reason people don't breed why are poor people the top breeders?

---

In poorer areas, the cultures tend to be more focused on gaining mastery of limited available critical resources by lower technology means and that requires manpower. Labor. You also have incentive for your clan of tribe or group to be larger and more dominant. Childhood mortality is higher, and lives are more expendable or have less value so larger numbers of offspring are a hedge against that, and cultures reflect this.

As we see time and again, as a civilization be its culture stabilize, mature, and develop technology, advanced economic and social systems and generate much greater levels of wealth per person, the incentive evolved to having fewer children but children that are given every possible competitive advantage and wealth support, in order to keep pace with the abilities and productivity of their peers. The population growth naturally slows. This also brings about a culture with a more liberal social structure for females that doesn't prioritize child rearing above all else, and makes them more available for advanced productive labor in the work force. There are of course tradeoffs to this new cultural approach, but the evolution seems to be occurring across cultures and populations wherever the society reaches high levels of wealth and productivity.