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.
I have heard that Manx are less allergy triggering and are very bright, sweet, and loving.
We don’t have Manx, though, so we use Flonase Nasal Spray :)
I’m sure you’ll find a kitty to love!
=^..^=
While I can't argue with that, I think it's a little sad to see a person's life wind up in a landfill and that person forgotten. And, yes, I know that's ultimately the fate of almost everyone who has ever lived.
Here is a bit about the Devon Rex & allergy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon_Rex
I have teens, it seems I always have teens. As soon as one gets raised, there’s more coming along. Ok, once in a while I wish I could put them in a deep freezer until they’re 35, but mostly they are such a joy and pleasure to me.
I’m on my last two. wow, it’s almost over. Time to enjoy the grands!!!!
Wait till you have to keep your mouth shut about the way your children are bringing up your grandchildren.
I have several grands already and I guess I’ve done good, they are raising WONDERFUL children.
I’m telling you, I don’t have any complaints.
“Kill the boy....kill the boy.....(Igor sounds)”
Duly noted. However the fact remains that although it may be arguably rational to not put yourself in debt for a new generation, generations past did struggle horribly to insure a future. Why not this one?
My father and grandfather worked their whole lives, using up their very health, with no significant return except for grandchildren. I am using up my life and health to raise my kids plus I spend my time as a coach and a pastor, helping to take care of other people’s kids so that they can have a good future.
Okay, I’ll admit that sounds irrational, but still, I have a definite stake in the future.
The responsible couple that is. The Gubmint ones are still cranking.
Not irrational at all. You are a good man. The reason why this generation is not as willing to sacrifice is because ofthe gradual, erosion of the primacy of the family unit as a building block of civilization. The sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the blurring of traditional roles, increased mobility, the need for 2 incomes, the extension of adolescents into the late 20’s and the feminization of society have taken their toll. In an advanced, wealthy society there are only the elderly and the perpetual adolescents and a shrinking number of grown-ups.
Um, my neice learned to read French when her brothers told her she could not play cards with them until she could. She taught herself, just to get one up on them!
Terrific point!
Seems that you've upped the anti on stereotypes! I do agree with you, however.
Socialism is the number one driver of low birth rates in developed countries (and undeveloped countries, as well as the dysfunctional areas of large cities in developed countries, still have dangerously high birth rates). People are being taxed so heavily to support deadbeats and wasteful government schemes that they are delaying and ultimately reducing child-bearing.
Maybe some people can actually just love kids.
Good for you. Just remember to thank me when my kids and grandkids are taking care of you in a nursing home someday.
If this guy and his wife are paying their own way in the nursing home (and they may well save enough to do just that), your kids and grandkids should thank them for the opportunity to work, earn money, and do business with them.
I agree. My first kitty (Norman/Norma, the transsexual attack cat) was a stray kitten my secretary found outside her home. My second (Betty) came from a farm with two mama cats and too many kittens. I took her because Norman needed some company, and she probably would have ended up at the pound if I hadn't. Neither kitty has a pedigree, but they both have great personalities and are wonderful companions.
Because our society is taxing citizens so much that both parents have to work and cannot afford kids or care for them?
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.