I don’t want to bring kids into this kind of world
It’s no secret that having children is considered to be a lifestyle choice, rather than something that’s just generally accepted as something most of us will do. But what happens when there are fewer children on Earth, and in the West? The zero-sum global warming fundamentalists would tell you that the Earth will be a better place without so many people. The more rational would tell you that we need more people, not less. A new documentary, Demographic Winter, explains why this problem is a lot more immediate than the problem of, say, global warming.
Demographic Winter asserts that “every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness.” And surely they are right. Modern societies offer people many other satisfactions and choices outside of the family. In particular women find that their time becomes more highly valued in occupations outside the home. There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have [...] And finally, the most profound event of the 20th century may have been the sexual revolution’s drive toward gender equality, enabled by modern contraception. Unlike other creatures, people can have the fun of sex without the side effect of parenthood.
So, modernity essentially transforms children from capital goods that produce family income into consumption items to be enjoyed for their own sakes, more akin to sculptures, paintings, or theatre. But that’s just the problem – according to happiness researchers, people don’t really enjoy rearing children.
We say we don’t want to bring kids into This Kind of World, and by “This Kind of World,” we mean the kind where we don’t have to bother with them.













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top42 Comments to “I don’t want to bring kids into this kind of world”
A profound thesis. The Japanese and the Russians are also experiencing a birth dearth. I could see prosperity and women’s salaries enticing Japanese gals to defer mommyhood. But Russia?? It remains a poor country still reeling with the effects of communism. Nothing out there as far as I can see in Russia to entice anyone to give up parenthood. I think in Russia the birth dearth shows pessimism about the future of the ruble and the Russian Republic.
Years ago the economist Julian Simon wrote a book refuting the population limiters. People are the ultimate resource. In any given society with higher birth rates you stand the greater risk of getting a Bill Gates or Albert Einstein.
Worldviews which disparage having children deserve to continue on with their internal rot. In the meantime, perhaps proFamily politicians might actually pass laws which express a societal preference for bigger families. Zoning laws alone keep younger parents isolated from live-in grandparents or other relatives who could help out with child care.
Report comment to moderator
The zero-sum global warming fundamentalists would tell you that the Earth will be a better place without so many people. The more rational would tell you that we need more people, not less.
Harrison: The Earth’s resources are finite. There is only enough room to house so many people. The more land you turn over to housing and business, the less you have to farm, so as the population grows, the ability to produce food for them diminishes. Energy is also limited, as as the environment’s capacity to absorb waste.
The Earth’s carrying capacity isn’t infinite. There is an argument to be made for slowing population growth that has nothing to do with being a “global warming fundamentalist.”
Report comment to moderator
The following comment:
“The more rational would tell you that we need more people, not less.”
would appear not to be grounded by data.
Steveg’s point is clear: land, water, sun shine, and carbon based energy is limited. As such, by definition, the number of people on the earth is limited.
If this is the case, then it would appear to undermine the argument that we need more people not less, at least when reviewed on a global level.
Since this would seem tautological, it seems that the comment that “we need more people not less” is looking at the situation from something other than a global perspective.
Report comment to moderator
#2: Harrison: The Earth’s resources are finite.
The religious understand that as much as they understand evolution.
God said, be fruitful and multiply, that must mean have as many babies as you can and then keep having more. It’s ok. God will take care of it. Jesus gave out fish, that’s what God will do, give out fish. Even when we are standing back to back eating soylant green, God will take care of it. Look at how he protects us today from natural disasters and terrorists. That’s proof. Leave it in God’s hands. Just fill every square inch with people and when the land is completely covered, we will build cheerleading pyramids and stand on each other’s shoulders. God will take care of us.
Besides, long before then, the skies will magically open and Jesus will come down from heaven on a beam of light and all the good Christians will be beamed up into heaven on magical rays of light and then that evil devil will come to earth and do bad things. Oh brother.
Report comment to moderator
rdean post 4,
but of course there are atheists who believe the same argument, just without the Biblical justification.
My sense is that there are two problems:
1) innumeracy: it is hard for some to understand quantitative data
2) local optimization: all too often we optimize the local entity without cnosidering the global implications of our decisions
So consider the following problem:
there is a lake with a lily pad mat. Each day the size of the lily pad mat doubles. At the end of 30 days the entire pond is covered (and the pond will now eutrophy).
On what days is half the pond covered?
Extending the question:
On what day is one quarter of the pond coverered?
Report comment to moderator
A friend told me once that families of three children provide the world with an important product: a negotiator. When families are made up of only one child, you often have despots. When they’re made up of two children, you frequently have warring factions. But when you have three, at least one has to learn the art of negotiation and the other two find a way to better get along.
I’m a much better person because I raised children. I didn’t know that until I was in the middle of it and never would have guessed what a positive impact they had on my life. I feel sorry for those who see children as problems, and not solutions.
Report comment to moderator
Two issues – First, we don’t know the “optimum” population for the world under the current level of ability to steward things. Second, any such optimum number would change as advances are made in methodologies for agriculture and such, and as events such as natural disasters take place so as to diminsh our capacities for production.
Currently, the problems with poverty and starvation and such are not ones of having exceeded our capacity to produce. What we have is varying local/regional/national politicial corruption and problems with distribution.
Report comment to moderator
Musing at #5:
there is a lake with a lily pad mat. Each day the size of the lily pad mat doubles. At the end of 30 days the entire pond is covered (and the pond will now eutrophy).
On what days is half the pond covered?
Extending the question:
On what day is one quarter of the pond coverered?
I could be wrong, but it would seem that half the pond is covered on Day 29 and one quarter on Day 28.
Which makes the point very effectively. Well done.
Report comment to moderator
#5,
Pond is half covered on day 29
Pond is quarter covered on day 28
So I was going to write a potentially insightful post, but KRM expressed my own thoughts better than I could.
“Which makes the point very effectively. Well done.” – SteveG
Which point is that?
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG, MUSING, and RDEAN,
Material resources are finite, but creative activity and imagination are not. It’s creative activity that produces the cotton gin and the tractor, which turned the “finite” resource of agricultural production into a larger “finite” resource. It’s creative activity that produces new inventions, new innoculations, new ways of purifying water, new ways to harness energy, etc.
Creative activity requires people, lots of people. Your office HR manager was right; people are our greatest resource. A failure to recognize the creative potential of people to improve and redeem the world and its problems is a failure of the zero-sum kind.
Report comment to moderator
Robert M at #9: “Which makes the point very effectively. Well done.” – SteveG
Which point is that?
That things can grow out of control very fast after a long time of looking manageable.
In the lilly pad illustration, the coverage of the pond is only slight for most of the 30 days. Even on day 26 the pond is only 1/16 covered and it looks like a nice, well-balanced situation. Four days later, the pond is starting to die.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, what happened to all those “scientists” who post here? KRM is right. We have the food, but we don’t distribute it properly for the reasons he cited.
But if you want to be pessimistic: what if the lily pad gets an incurable disease and it decreases day by day? That lake could be lily pad free pretty quick.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G – Taking that scenario with the global warming scare is what fuels the hysteria. If you assume human activity is the cause of the small rise in global temp over the last century and put it into an model expecting exponentially increasing results, such hysteria appears justified – along with the need to dismantle the world economy and resuce human populations to a fraction of their current level.
However, there is not suficient basis to adopt that model as the correct one, and it is likely that we will need the global economy functioning to deal with the actual cause of the problem once we put aside the global warming myths.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, what happened to all those “scientists” who post here? KRM is right. We have the food, but we don’t distribute it properly for the reasons he cited.
That’s true for now, but it won’t be forever with continued population growth. A century ago, in 1900, there were about 1.6 billion people. Today it’s about 6.6 billion.
You need a certain number to be productive, and I don’t think we’re at risk of overstripping the planet yet. But in the pads on the pond scenario, we may be around Day 25. The bigger the population is, if birth and death rates remain constant, the faster it grows.
I’m not at all arguing that people shouldn’t marry and have children. Contrary to how I may be perceived here, I’m quite a fan of families. But I don’t think we need to be encouraging large families as the norm.
Report comment to moderator
KRM: I’m actually an agnostic on the global warming thing. I don’t think it’s been shown one way or the other how human activity does or doesn’t contribute.
But there are ample other reasons to consider population growth as something to monitor. Even if if human activity has nothing to do with climate, we’re still responsible for consuming finite resources, balancing habitation with arable land and disposing of our waste. The capacity for those things has limits. It’s just common sense.
Report comment to moderator
HSK post 10,
well I do agree with you that people are our critical resource. There is an interesting diversity question buried in this comment.
However, it is equally true that we are fast approaching some hard limits on earth carrying capacity arguably no matter how clever we are (at least with present technologies).
It turns out that exponential growth (the lily pad example) is typically very difficult for people to internalize. We still have half the pond left, but it is only one day until total closure of the pond for example.
So I suggest we are already hitting hard limits on clean water (c.f. Barcelona and the western U.S.). The clearest example, however, is food.
So based on FAO numbers (I once sat int he library working through these numbers), we have enough food for twice the worlds population: if we eat gruel at about 1800 calories or so a day. If we want 2300 or so calories with a modest amount of protein (similar to typical South America), we have enough food for about 80% of the world. If we want to eat a western diet (perhaps 2800 calories with significant animal protein) then we have enough food for perhaps half the worlds population.
You are right we are not out of food. You would be wrong, however, we don’t have enough food for the diets which provide a reasonable opportunity for health.
We can continue with oil: arguably we have already peaked on oil production. Adding small inefficient fields will only tweak the oil supply for the U.S. If you disagree, tell me about $3+/gallon gas and the inelastic supply demand curves.
The other fun one is solar power. We can be totally energy independent with solar power (c.f. Scientific American article of perhaps two months back). It only requires about 100,000 sq mi of solar cells. We can think of a number of Southern States (we need the quality sunshine) which would fit the bill admirably if we simply paved them over.
The issue remains the exponential growth of demand contrasted with typically linear growth of supply is problematic.
You are of course right: we need to be smart about how we do things and use our resources wisely. I suggest you are wrong, however, it will not be enough just to get smart.
There is one potential exception: adopt a technological solution (and it will be technological) which expands our resource stock by 10X or greater. This is interestingly enough possible. Amusingly, I suggest we will see that the backlash from Florida will not allow us to execute on it.
Report comment to moderator
HSK,
Have you lost it completely?
First, IMHO, global warming is a hoax. Not even a good one, but we sure don’t need more people.
Creativity only delays the date when we can no longer sustain the population. Besides, life is more pleasant when people aren’t stacked up like cord wood. And they’re less likely to fight over limited resources.
Report comment to moderator
So, modernity essentially transforms children from capital goods that produce family income into consumption items to be enjoyed for their own sakes,
Yes, Harrison, by all means let’s go back to having children as capital goods that produce family income!! The old ways are best. Be fruitful and multiply until you make the earth uninhabitable and force jesus to come back and take us all away for our pie in the sky.
right …
Report comment to moderator
#17: First, IMHO, global warming is a hoax.
All studies show, all measurments taken, confirm the earth is indeed getting warmer. The disagreement is how and why.
Report comment to moderator
“Besides, life is more pleasant when people aren’t stacked up like cord wood.”
Can I quote you, RRBAR? That has to be the sentence of the day! LOL!
Report comment to moderator
I point my bony finger at the women of this planet and say “YOU are the reason we’re in this fine mess!”. If you women had stayed home (where you belong) and stayed pregnant, we would have plenty of babies. But noooo! You had to go out and get an education and get jobs (that takes away jobs from us men), taking you away from your God given responsibility to be birthin’ babies like jack rabbits.
Not!
*****
I have never understood the conservative Christian nostalgia for a time when children were considered property and worked like a dog in the farm or (later) in the factory. Education was poor to non-existent (except for the wealthy few), sickness, disease, and death were common (families had lots of children to replace the ones they lost), and there was no hope that one’s children would have a better life (once a peasant always as peasant).
Now society has fewer children and takes better care of them. A child’s chances of making it to adulthood are much greater. A child’s chances of having a better life are greatly improved. All in all, things are far better than the “good old days” that our conservative Christian friends pine away for. They were not so good in many people’s opinion.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – How do you propose to stop the ‘excessive’ breeding in those areas where the population is growing fastest?
Report comment to moderator
#21 – I don’t understand either – and it’s not just HSK; this is a big Olasky theme.
Creative activity requires people, lots of people.
Creativity doesn’t require “LOTS” of people, generally, it requires creative people; especially it requires individual attention and education! Being awash in an over-populated collective reduces per capita creativity. Creativity presupposes individuality – something that fades in sardine-packed collectives with too many people. When it comes to creative individuals, more (people) is most likely less (creative individuals)!
Besides – what a dumb idea – over-use planetary resources in hope that some saviour will arise to save us with technological creativity? How ’bout a little less procreativity! That would work just as well and is more of a sure thing. If conservatives like HSK gave an iota of concern about creativity in the human population, they’d support funding for education of the people that are already here!
Report comment to moderator
KRM – First, we don’t know the “optimum” population for the world under the current level of ability to steward things.
Given current extinction levels, it’s very clear that we’re well over the “optimum” population for stewardship, whatever that was!
The Current Mass Extinction
Report comment to moderator
KRM post 22,
but HSK presented this in the introduction:
“There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have”
Further, as discussed by ANLIR in post 22, if there is less chance of children dieing because they are better cared for, it appears that families have fewer children.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a lot of assumptions built into HSK’s argument but the thread has diverted somewhat to sustainability. Perhaps the following metaphorical essay may help.
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/aug/eastersend543
I condensed it for my grade seven class. The geography curriculum requires a unit on sustainable development. I decided the textbook with its feel good lets recycle message was boring and predictable — a message a kids have heard since gr. 1. Instead they read about Easter Island. Easter Island is a metaphor on how we treat the Earth since it was a self-contained society which destroyed itself through over-use and abuse of resources.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir writes:
“Now society has fewer children and takes better care of them. A child’s chances of making it to adulthood are much greater. A child’s chances of having a better life are greatly improved.”
Having fewer children does not guarantee better care, more love etc. Parents are so distracted in this day and age – they’re so busy trying to work full time and “give” their children things that they really aren’t giving them what they really need. Love, time and attention.
I certainly don’t advocate treating children like slaves but I think it’s very beneficial for children to work along side their parents. We have a small Amish community in our area and those children work along side their parents every day – if done in the spirit of love, that can be a very rewarding relationship.
We have a soon to be 6 year old grandson whose favorite day of the week is Saturday. Why? It’s not because he is off school and can spend the day goofing off. He spends the day with my husband and they do all type of chores/projects. They start the day by going out for breakfast, which he says “It’s a waste of time, Grandma because Grandpa and I have work to do.”
I understand the points you are attempting to make but kids don’t necessarily have it better because there are less of them in a family or because they have more things and less work to do in the family!
Posted in a hurry so hope it isn’t too disjointed!
Report comment to moderator
VS,
Nothing wrong with a kid working. Shoot, when I was 8 years old and asked my dad for money he said “get a paper route and mow grass”. And I did both, getting up at 5:30 a.m. to deliver papers outside of Chicago, through bitter cold winters.
But my parents put education first because they knew that it was a way for us to have a better life than they had. My dad worked like a dog to support a wife and 6 kids. He didn’t want us to do that.
By any measure, most kids in western societies have great lives. Having fewer kids has enables parents and communities to devote more resources to them. To me it’s a quality vs quantity debate. Societies can have tons and tons of kids and their lives will be more difficult by any measure (health care, education, upward mobility). Or societies can have fewer kids, with a better quality of life.
Report comment to moderator
RDean,
Sorry RDean, you’d be mistaken about the global warming thing. The earth actually COOLED last year. The heating/cooling bit just goes in natural cycles.
Now, go find some other “crisis” to worry about!
Report comment to moderator
KRM: SteveG – How do you propose to stop the ‘excessive’ breeding in those areas where the population is growing fastest?
I don’t. I can’t. Nor did I say there’s anything to be done about it, except to recognize that Harrison’s position in favor of encouraging more population growth than already happens is short-sighted.
Report comment to moderator
Fertility rates are falling worldwide. It’s not just a European thing.
People have children because they have hope for the future. Children ARE the future. Not wanting to bring children into this kind of world expresses this perfectly. It reflects the belief that those children will not be able to change the world for the better. It is also convenient, because it avoids the sacrifice of childrearing. People now are not willing to significantly compromise their lifestyle for the sake of the future.
Nations such as Russia, Spain, Japan, and Italy are in a death spiral. Population increases exponentially with high fertility rates, but it also decreases exponentially with low fertility rates. This may be the last European generation.
It’s time to bury the old population explosion canard before it buries us.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, the UN has had to step back their future population estimates several times in recent years.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E4DD153CF934A15751C0A9659C8B63
World population is expected to peak this century and then actually begin to decline.
Report comment to moderator
I have one kidlet. I’d love to have more.
Not as “capital goods”, but for their own sakes, to enjoy my offspring, share my love, and pass my values on to them.
There’s a subtle (or not so subtle, just not widely spoken aloud) economic analysis when individuals decide how many children they will have.
There are questions of “can our family afford to have more children.” There is also the decision, is it better to have a small family, lavishing all one’s resources on one or two children, or a large family with little spent on each child.
I seem to recall that when you look at entire societies historically, poorer ones have more children per family, so there will be enough to “work the family farm” and that enough will survive to adulthood, given high infant and childhood mortality. As societies become wealthier, they tend to opt for “quality” over “quantity”, spending more on education and luxuries, on fewer children. Rennaisance Italy for some reason comes to mind as an example.
But, I think the choice is up to the values and abilities of the individual family. There isn’t one single right answer, nor is there some moral imperitive on the “right” number of children to have.
Growing up, our neighbors had one child. The people across the street had six. The parents of the only child said “Isn’t that disgusting, haveing so many kids!”
Well, no. It’s not. It’s just their choice, just as having one kid was your choice. For me, at this point, one child is partly my wife’s choice, while she finishes her Master’s. It may not even be our choice at all, but God’s, as we had to work very hard to have our daughter.
Finally, “But what happens when there are fewer children on Earth, and in the West?” implicitly makes it seem like some sort of a breeding race between “us” and “them” that our side should “win”.
I disagree vehemently. The question of whether and how many children to have is a personal decision, not a moral imperitive to win some imagined “breeding race.”
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the projected population peak:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412543a0.html
Report comment to moderator
I disagree vehemently. The question of whether and how many children to have is a personal decision, not a moral imperitive to win some imagined “breeding race.”
I agree. However, the population explosion idea has been used for decades to justify NOT having children.
As a father of four, I often hear about it often. One time an older gentleman, watching my children play in a pool and observing how many there were, asked me if I knew how much garbage they would produce. There’s hope for the future! To him children are garbage producers who have a net deduction on the future.
Report comment to moderator
#29: Sorry RDean, you’d be mistaken about the global warming thing. The earth actually COOLED last year. The heating/cooling bit just goes in natural cycles.
Actaully, 2007 was the coolest year in the last 16. But of course, we are looking at the average of the entire earth. The polar cap in the north continues to melt while the Antarctica continues to become even more cold.
Every country in the world has experienced severe climate change in the last 20 years. What does it all mean, who knows? That’s why we have science. To study, to learn, to come up with solutions. Many people insist God will take care of us, but if 9/11 and Katrina are any indications, I believe we are on our own.
Just insisting a problem is not there is an open invitation to disaster. If there is no problem, let’s prove it.
Report comment to moderator
In particular women find that their time becomes more highly valued in occupations outside the home.
Is it that, or is it that the childrearing task is no longer valued in our society? It is reduced to wiping noses and baking cookies.
The Victorians valued it very highly, as did the Puritans. But that was before the days of public schooling and daytime dramas.
Report comment to moderator
#28 “Having fewer kids has enables parents and communities to devote more resources to them.”
This is true for some resources but not others. Having larger families means less time available for a parent to give indidual attention to each child – but more siblings and aunts and uncles and cousins who can give the child time and attention that wouldn’t be possible in a smaller family. Children can learn a great deal by watching the example of older siblings and actually being taught by them. And parents can get the rest they need when the extended family can help out. And the parents will have a better idea how to parent to begin with by having seen more examples of parenting in action.
It doesn’t always work to have larger families, for various reasons. If you come from a small family, as I do (each of my parents had only one sibling, as did I), you don’t have that extended family to help out when you’re starting out with your own family. And special-needs children do require more of their parents’ attention.
We looked into the idea of adopting a child from the foster care system, but were advised that such a child would be special-needs simply from having the emotional baggage of having been shuffled around for years. And with a special-needs child already (mild autism), we would have trouble giving the adopted child all the time and attention that would be needed, especially at the beginning. Maybe later, when both boys are older.
Report comment to moderator
pauline post 38,
but continuing your point:
“but more siblings and aunts and uncles and cousins who can give the child time and attention that wouldn’t be possible in a smaller family.”
But of course this is true only if families do not disperse. My family is on the other side of the country, and my wife and I were on our own for raising our daughter.
And as the U.S. beomes more dispersed, this support structure of the extended family tends to breakdown whether one has large families or not.
Report comment to moderator
musing,
That is true of course. But my impression from knowing people from larger families is that their family ties tend to be closer so that they are less likely to disperse as much, because it is important for them to stay nearby. Moving away might mean an hour away instead of to the other side of the country. And I know a number of people who initially moved away but returned once they had children because they realized how important it was to raise children near their grandparents and other extended family.
Naturally there are always people who do choose to move away, for whatever reason. In our case case it was my husband becoming a pastor. His father had chosen the military, which kept his family always on the move. Of course, both of us came from relatively small families that were already dispersed by the time we were grown.
Report comment to moderator
pauline post 40,
I suggest that moving forward moving will be the norm.
Consider, we no longer work for a single company, but are expected top change companies throughout our career.
The employment market in the U.S. has become national (if not international).
And those areas undergoing economnic growth are also the areas undergoing significant in miogration.
These behaviors are driven by a free market in employment, and the economic imperative, for the professional at least, is almost beyond resistance.
So I suggest that even the large family/tight knit family is being deconstructed by our free market system.
I will go a step further. As discussed with CherylD in another thread, it may be argued that such inter-regional migration is necessary to maintain a strong U.S national identity which is not subsumed by regional identities.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
I came from a large family (6 children) and I can say that it was a huge struggle just to survive financially. It put a terrible strain on my dad in particular because he worked incredibly hard all his life. He got to enjoy one year of retirement before passing away. Large families are not as wonderful as some conservative Christians make them out to be. There are definitely trade-offs and drawbacks.
But I have observed that whether families are large or small, they all have their disfunctions, shortcomings, and troubles.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!