Talk:Post-World War II baby boom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Discussion: Changes to article
Canadian soldiers are never (or rarely) called servicemen, that is a strictly American usage. KJB Interesting. BB posted by nonmember ip address 69.194.78.149
I think this article needs to be completely rewritten. It entirely overlooks the historical use of contraceptives as well as the sexual revolution of the 1960's. Ask yourself, if the baby boom stopped around 1964 or 1965, why would would the baby boom suddenly stop just as the sexual revolution was just starting? It should be the other way around! The answer is - contraceptives, which actually helped usher in this sexual revolution, while seeing the baby boom come to an end. I don't know what someone was thinking about when he wrote this article. This edit was posted by user: Diligenes at 18:16, 27 March 2006, however this user did not sign his/her name."~Jazzdude00021
- While the sexual revolution occured directly after the "baby boom," it is an entirly seperate issue and should be discussed on a different article. This article is also not the place for the "historical use of contriceptives." That belongs in an article entitled such. The point is, while Diligenes has accurate and valid points, they belong elsewhere. This article's focus is on the Post-World War II Baby Boom and as such is its title. Jazzdude00021 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1957 birth rate decline
Can someone provide an external link? thx. John wesley 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion Merge Proposal Between Articles
- Since the party initiating the template did not bother to justify their nomination, I'm certainly not going to support their bad idea by putting something here before hand! HEY! Someone came to the party you gave, and it wasn't here! As a matter of fact, since procedure wasn't followed, I'm going to act boldly and remove both templates. FrankB 08:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critique of Baby Boom Theory
The section looks too much like an essay. Although I'm not sure how to put all the objective information into a less opinionative-sounding reading, something should be done especially with the last sentence: "Properly understood, the Baby Boom was not a deviation from, but merely a return to, the demographic status quo." --HeteroZellous 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because a week has passed and no replies or changes have been made since, I'm putting the section here for now:
The growth in population which followed World War II, was far too great to be explained as a product of increased sexual activity on the part of returning servicemen, and certainly too great to be the result of popular "elation" at the end of hostilities.
There is, in the first place, no evidence that "elation", or happiness, or any other psychological condition leads to increased fecundity, and there is no evidence to suggest that human reproductive activity is greater in times of peace and plenty, than it is in the midst of war and want.[citation needed]
A better explanation would note that the industrialized world, in the 1940s, witnessed a substantial decline in the rates of both infant and maternal mortality. This in turn is rooted firmly in scientific fact— broad spectrum antibiotics were generally both new and rare before the war, crash research produced many more during it, and mass production started during it for many such. Others cleared trials and joined the antibacterial battlefields shortly thereafter. More children were surviving the crucible of infancy, and more mothers were surviving the trial of birth, than at any prior time in history. The latter is of primary importance, since women are the limiting factor in population growth, and every additional woman who came through childbirth alive was capable of progenating[sic] several times more. It is tempting to assume, as well, that women became somewhat more enthusiastic about the prospect of pregnancy, in proportion as it ceased to carry a statistically credible threat of death.
But on closer examination, this also fails to account. The demographic trend at issue is simply too great to be thus explained. The only thing that matches the Baby Boom, in size and scope, is the sharp decline in population growth that immediately preceded it. Indeed, it is not the high birth rate of the post-war years, but rather the uncommonly low birth rate of the 1930s, which demands our attention. It is true that the population of the United States grew almost twice as much in the decade after World War II, as in the decade before, but the highest rate of growth achieved then, was still lower than that recorded at the turn of the century.
Properly understood, the Baby Boom was not a deviation from, but merely a return to, the demographic status quo.
- --HeteroZellous 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is such a stupid idiom
"As is often the case with a large war, the elation of victory and large numbers of males returning to their country triggered a baby boom after the end of World War II."
How disgusting. Why don't we all put on sandals, strip naked, put flowers in our hair and skip around, hand-in-hand with a shit-stained ass?
[edit] changes to article limiting coverage to the boom itself
I am rewriting the "boomer" article and have moved some info from this article that discussed the boomer to that article.
This article still needs references to make it verifiable. --Tinned Elk 23:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
