Why did people have so many children in Victorian times?

Attached: 1521776142479.png (698x1007, 859K)

Because they liked having sex

Bump

Attached: modern homesteading.jpg (800x533, 153K)

People were fucking IDIOTS and looked to royalty as the standard for a fulfilling lifestyle despite 'ol Andy and Vic not even giving a fuck about their kids whatsoever, they just fucked like rabbits.

It was part of the demographic transition, as medical and economical conditions improved drastically for the poor majority. Since kids didn't die as much as before, future parents found it much more effective to invest into one or two children. Others chose to have less children because they wanted to pursue other things than family. The secularization of society and degrading influence of the clergy and their view on reproduction was also very important to the demographic transition.

Are you making this thread just to post some women?

Attached: Demographic-TransitionOWID.png (4400x2700, 219K)

Most people throughout history have had a lot of children, because most of them died. You had to have a lot of children inherently, for the population to remain stable, much less growth. If I recall in China it took 10 births per women just to achieve population stability in the Yangtze region, I might be wrong but it certainly took a lot. In Europe quite a lot of people didn't get the chance to be married/married later in life (depends by region of course), which functioned as a way to restrict fertility since you only had children in marriage.

During the Victorian age, the change wasn't that people had more children than previously (although marriage rates probably did expand), but instead that less children died, so the population grew very rapidly. Eventually fertility control caught up with that and they stabilized : during the Interwar period fertility rates across the West were actually below replacement rates in many countries, and the post-war baby boom was something of an aberration.

Notably such a clean model wasn't the case for France which early on had widespread usage of fertility control through various methods, which if they weren't as effective as today were still plentifully so for reducing the French birth rate to essentially equilibrium. In fact the French population shrunk for a few years in the 1890s.

So women in Victorian times in the standard population model countries (United Kingdom, Germany, etc.) didn't have more children, just more of them survived so it resulted in a high rate of population growth.

Both excellent posts. The industrialization and the germ theory of disease (read: doctors and midwifes washing their filthy hands before handling childbirth) enabled a rapid decrease in child mortality, and thus a huge increase in the population. It took quite a while for this realization to catch on in the general population, which is when people stopped breeding like rabbits.

>if you’re pale like me there’s some Scandinavian in you
Then why are the Irish and Scots paler than Swedes and Danes?

Whoops thought I was posting in the Lindy thread

because the only think i look forward to when coming home from the factory all sweaty is shaggin my wife

This is a silly thread, you should feel silly...

Medicine and treatments where improved and new innovations made it possible to obtain more food. So with both of these things the population started to rise.

It is hard to feed the community, they had to make and sacrifice babies to do it, which is why the population was so small in those times.

Poor people have tons of kids.

Better medicine and more food does not mean that a population rises. We have better medicine and better food than the Victorians but our population isn't growing or is growing only very slowly. Human demographics are much more complicated.

People were accustomed to having loads of kids as infant mortality rate was high.

Nigga did you even check the demographics of today and what was 50 years ago ?

Attached: 550.png (207x243, 6K)

this Societies needed women to shit out babies just to break even, let alone multiply. So you ended up with a lot of children from religious families who would likely be religious themselves and not engage in anal or oral.

Nobody said compared to 50 years ago, it is compared to now, faggot. Do you know how demographic waves work? Population growth in the past results in an expanded cohort which shifts the population to the young side of the spectrum, and so keeps the population growing. Current population growth is below replacement level, despite better food and medicine.

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 81K)

why? They can work for free but not for the first few years when they just consume resources, poor people can't afford such an investment

We are talking about the general number of people on planet earth, which is still rising.

Ever since the Victorian age the population of mankind has witnessed a fast and sudden boom which has been steadily increasing more and more.

The reason why the population isn't increasing at the same rate as "back then" is because we are reaching a peak to our food production.

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 41K)

Because kids died a lot.

You're even more stupid and autistic than I thought you were to conflate the first world with third world shitholes

Poor people are poor people because they're animalistic dumbfucks.

Because if you don't have 8+ children, diphtheria/measles/smallpox will very quickly leave you with 0.

Attached: Diptheria.jpg (449x600, 121K)

I don't know how people did it back then. I think I would be too devastated after the second death to have kids.

read the gravestone more carefully.

5 kids aging from 15 to 2 died within a week from a diphtheria epidemic. The mom and dad survived, as did 2 children.

The couple would go on to have 7 more kids, of which 6 lived to adulthood.

Clearly it wasn't because they had a ton of kids

Attached: image-6.jpg (750x740, 380K)

Cheap reliable birth control and free abortions.
If you look at countries that lack access to both of it they have high population growth.

>Andy and Vic
>Andy

user...

moron, the french birth rate had plunged in the 19th century before modern technology birth control existed, it can be done on lower technology too

Yep abortions and infant killing is really good way to keep population down.
>China before introducing a mezoamerican crops

So much retardation....

What first worlders don't understand is that it is their lives that are abnormal. Not even ancient kings lived as luxuriously as your average American basement dweller. Before the 19th century, 90 percent of humanity lived in absolute poverty and yes, that likely includes your ancestors. They grew food and did labour whose products were then mostly taken away by the "nobility". The rich were always dependant on those whom you call "animalistic dumbfucks".

The French birth rate plunged, it wasn't because of infanticide

Because if one succeeds, it raises the status of the family and makes the previous 7 fuckups moot.

And the resources kids consume in the 3rd world is far smaller than resources kids consume in 1st world countries.

See, that kind of thinking will get you killed by someone you sneer at. Poor people have a lot of kids because their "investment" is much smaller than what a rich person would give his kid.

As I said, it only takes one successful kid to redeem a litter of thuggish twats.

i read it becos dey forgot about da butthole.

They weren't degenerates.

>14 kids

Give that woman a medal