I'm more old school than that.
Posted on 02/27/2008 7:06:01 AM PST by Uncledave
Why are People Having Fewer Kids?
Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much.
Ronald Bailey | February 26, 2008
The "demographic winter" is coming. So warns a new documentary of the same name. What is the demographic winter? The phrase, according to the film's promotional materials, "denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as the 'birth dearth,' and what that portends." The first half of Demographic Winter was previewed at the conservative Heritage Foundation a couple of weeks ago. According the film, the demographic winter augurs little good, e.g., economic collapse and social deterioration. If current trends continue world population should begin a steep decline sometime around the middle of the 21st century. Why?
Because total fertility rates (TFRs) are plummeting around the world. Population stability is achieved when each woman bears an average of 2.1 kids over the course of her lifetime—one for her, one for her male partner, and a little overage to make up to childhood deaths. Today, there are sixty countries in which TFRs are below 2.1. For example, the European Union's TFR is 1.5 and no EU member state has a TFR at replacement or above. Even high population developing countries have seen steep declines in fertility. Since 1970, China's TFR fell from 5.8 to 1.6; India's from 5.8 to 2.9; Indonesia from 5.6 to 2.4; Japan's from 2.0 to 1.3; Mexico's from 6.8 to 2.4; Brazil's from 5.4 to 2.3; and South Africa's from 5.9 to 2.7. The U.S. TFR dropped from 2.55 in 1970 to around 2.1 today, largely because of the influx of higher fertility immigrants. However, the fertility of second generation Americans drops to the level of longer established Americans.
I doubt that the "demographic winter" portends economic collapse or social deterioration, but let us set that aside for this column, and instead ask why people are choosing to have fewer children? After all, voluntary childlessness seems to violate the Darwinian premise that our genes dispose us, like all other creatures, to try to reproduce.
However, demographic data are undercutting the notion that there is some kind of sociobiological nurturing imperative, economist and demographer Nicholas Eberstadt noted during the question period following the documentary. As evidence, he pointed to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, where 30 percent of women are childless and that Hong Kong's TFR has been below 1 birth per woman for at least a decade.
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. Eberstadt also noted the best predictor of fertility levels is the desired family size as reported by women. 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.
"Economists have modeled the impact of many variables on people's overall happiness and have consistently found that children have only a small impact. A small negative impact," reports Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Daniel Gilbert. In addition, the more children a person has the less happy they are. According to Gilbert, researchers have found that people derive more satisfaction from eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television than taking care of their kids. "Indeed, looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing housework," asserts Gilbert in his bestselling, Stumbling on Happiness (2006).
Of course, that's not what most parents say when asked. For instance, in a 2007 Pew Research Center survey people insisted that their relationships with their little darlings are of the greatest importance to their personal happiness and fulfillment. However, the same survey also found "by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the 'mutual happiness and fulfillment' of adults rather than the 'bearing and raising of children.'"
Gilbert suggests that people claim their kids are their chief source of happiness largely because it's what they are expected to say. In addition, Gilbert observes that the more people pay for an item, the more highly they tend to value it and children are expensive, even if you don't throw in piano lessons, soccer camps, orthodonture, and college tuitions. Gilbert further notes that the more children people have, the less happy they tend to be. Since that is the case, it is not surprising that people are choosing to have fewer children. And if people with fewer children are happier, then people with no children must be happiest, right? Not exactly, but the data do suggest that voluntarily childless women and men are not less happy than parents. And they sure do have more money to squander as they try to pursue what happiness they can and strive to somehow fill up their allegedly empty lives.
Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily childless lifestyle too much.
Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His most recent book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, is available from Prometheus Books.
The Good Book has all the “ideas” that you need to lead a prosperous and successful life, and God actually promises that in Joshua 1:8...
but that’s “too narrow minded and judgemental”.
Well, my attitude is those who are great parents should have as many kids as they want and can have. Good parents are a joy to see and their kids are a blessing.
But it’s like not everyone is going to raise a decent human, and those who can’t should be encouraged not to have children.
IOW, When I see large families like the Duggars, I think “They raised the great kids I would have messed up! YES!”
Well, I do have the carbon footprint of a family of 12.
“Defining oneself based on childlessness makes as much sense as defining oneself by the computer operating system they use. and God knows we have seen threads on that subject as well,”
Wasn’t there just one about whether Macs or PCs were liberal or conservative? LOL!
We need the election to really kick in, so we can actually have something REAL to debate around here!!
yep that’s exactly the one i was referring to!! everyone was proudly beating their chests over which was best, based on their owning it. Slim were you on there, defining yourself via computer system? bc i know marteen was....
Just remember: it's not the names you're called that count, it's the names you answer to.
-—when the little darlings cease being necessary for agricultural help, they become less fun-—
You can still set them to cleaning toilets and ironing clothes.
I know it's frustrating, but your son is "normal". For some strange reason, boys just seen to need a little more time to grow up. *sigh* (I've got a teen right now, too.)
Thank G-d for the United States Army!
When our son was diagnosed with diabetes at age 9, the fact that he could never be a soldier was one of the most painful realities of the disease.
Feel free to add to the list. :)
thanks!
I’m lucky - both kids take after their Father - even tempered, smart, easy to manage. I, on the other hand, was a nightmare teen.
I'm more old school than that.
LMAO!! That was awesome!
When my son was a very destructive 18 month old and driving us crazy I'd remind my husband, "I'd rather have a healthy baby raising hell than a disabled child lying limp on the couch."
We'd almost lost him when he was a year old and that experience gave me a *lot* of patience!
My cats are not pets. They're friendly roommates! :-)
Let’s all face facts here - why would Martin subject a child to having to raise HIM! ;^)
I'm still waiting for Service Pack 2 on this baby.
Ah, when it comes to foibles, the good Lord saw fit to be generous with me. So I shall tend to the beam in my own eye in the meantime. ;-)
My son measures his nose against my nose almost every day. He sometimes cheats and wears his tennis shoes. My nose still touches the bridge of his. I will be sad AND happy the day he’s taller.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.