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.
That one slipped by me...
-—when the little darlings cease being necessary for agricultural help, they become less fun-—
JMHO, I don’t think it’s possible to truly understand what love is until you’ve had children. I think this is especially true of understanding God’s love for us.
A society under pressure, in "survival mode", tends to cut through the BS. Homosexuality and abortion are not tolerated as much as in a society that's thriving and children are highly valued.
In many ways the very things that disgust us conservatives, are indicators of wealth, security and contentment.
This theory has one important exception. Women won't have as many children if they don't feel that they have supportive mates; IE: Russia. But they WILL have babies without mates if they have a supportive society; IE: the welfare system. They'll have MORE children if they have a supportive system and still feel the pressures of poverty. (That takes me back to my main point.)
Just my humble theory.
That statement is typical stereotyping BS, sounds like something a liberal would say.
I would much rather people, who do to want kids, not to have them, than the scum you find having them and killing them.
Our son is a helluva lot of work. He poops a lot, he needs constant attention, he makes a huge mess wherever he goes, and when he’s ill (he has pneumonia right now), all productive activity stops. He has peed in my face, vomited in my mouth, and kicked me in the balls more times than I can count. He is one year old.
This has been the best year of my life, and I wouldn’t trade him for anything.
The cat ruling class has noted your position.
see my tagline :0)
One Reason ;>)
Leftists don’t understand, and ignore
the fact that people DO RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.
They are consistently surprised when they use socialism to alleviate the consequences for a negative behavior, and see more of that behavior occur.
At least some are. Others know full well that they are creating more of a problem that will need them in power to “solve”.
cats are only good for zotting threads, they are not meant to be pets ; )
As for me and mine, I cannot imagine life without children. The smiles, the giggles, the butterfly kisses and velcro hugs, the sleepless nights when they're sick, the ouchies that can only be fixed by a mother's kiss, and the hope and joy they give and receive each day is what makes every trial a cakewalk and every joy a miracle.
I'd have a dozen of 'em if I could afford it. :-)
Also noted...
I have zero and one by marriage but my siblings have more than made up for me with 19 total. (I think I counted all of the noses)
You said a mouthful. And if the Dems get in the White House, it is going to get far worse.
I understand what you mean. I have just one son. We went through some rough times in the teen years but he is now a productive citizen. My only heartbreak is that he and his wife do not look like they are going to have children and they do not attend church (I think that there is a direct link with church and people having children).
Anyway, I wouldn’t change anything either. He is a conservative politically and he makes me laugh. He is one of the funniest people I know. He is a joy and adds a lot to my life.
I would make the case that 70% of the U.S. population is comprised of real children and overgrown adolescents who are perpetually in need of a nanny state to keep them alive.
I got a big kick out of your post. I hope your son is well soon.
Sounds like some of our kids. Enjoy it, because soon enough he’ll be a teenager.
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.