I'm not talking about just the US, either.Īnyway, I believe the only true solution to declining birth rates is simply to become poor again as a society. I presume they all keep claiming the issue is money because who doesn't like free handouts from the government just by saying you'll have kids? Get 'em while the getting's good. I also notice that every single would-be or could-be parent inquired says they can't afford it, while also clearly enjoying many luxuries that being poor would actively prohibit. Probably because it goes against a lot of narratives and the simple solution it implies is brutally unpalatable for pretty much everyone. I've also noticed this trend, richer societies have less children and poorer societies have more children.Ībsolutely no politician (aka the people charged with population and demographic concerns) actually points this out, though. >wealthier people opt to have fewer or no kids, and larger families are usually those of lower income, like there's an inverse relationship between wealth and desired number of children. The folk who still have to stretch and sacrifice to make ends meet already have the mindsets needed for children (sacrifice, hard work) and aren't affected by the line of belief that motherhood is 'below' since they already have learned not to compare themselves to others.Īgain this is speculation. There's a popular line of thought that motherhood is below a working woman, and men and woman alike are enjoying increased ease of living and a consumerism lifestyle. Even I used to want a large family until I acquired a higher standard of living and certain luxuries that I would likely have to give up if I got married and had kids. From my observation (i have not researched this this is anecdotal), wealthier people opt to have fewer or no kids, and larger families are usually those of lower income, like there's an inverse relationship between wealth and desired number of children. I don't believe whether ones finances allowing someone to have children is the factor for whether they will. The factual and pragmatic view today is that if you can't afford a large home, one parent taking a lot of time off of work, and $120K+ in education bills then you are not setting your offspring up for success, this is not based on your personal morality, it is based on economics, and on statistical observations of the population.Įrgo your lionizing of people who have have children actually amounts to a defense of the economically privileged, and you assert that the benefactors of the systemic increase of wealth inequality in our society are the most moral people. While we can debate the various reasons for the decline in the reproduction rate there's no doubt that this is a big one, not as many people can afford to raise kids. a child is dramatically more expensive than it was a few generations ago. The fact of the matter is that successfully raising, educating etc. I'm downvoting this because of the arrogant and dubious notion that people who've chosen not to have children are somehow morally flawed. Today, we both think we're entitled to having children (IVF is a testament to that), and refuse to have them. Having many children used to be seen as a blessing, a privilege. Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US). A consumerist is going to view a child not as a gift, but a burden. Most who can have children of their own are not having them, or many of them, not because of some kind of exceptional higher calling, but rather for morally dubious reasons. Something like the priesthood is an exception, not the rule. Even biological parents do that.īut that's not that we're seeing behind the present demographic decline. Certainly, we can be parental figures in non-biological ways as well. And indeed, if you are, say, a Catholic, you would say that while having children is the natural course and the normal path for most people, a small minority are called to sacrifice this natural end for the sake of a higher supernatural, spiritual end, e.g., the priesthood, by which one becomes a spiritual parent in place of a biological one. Of course, you are right that not everyone must reproduce, that there is no particular obligation for anyone to reproduce, and that those who do not can still contribute to the well-being of their families, the human species, and the common good. This does not bode well and at some point the decline of such a society will become irreversible. We're in that sort of condition now, where we are having little or no children in the developed world. Most human beings do reproduce as that is our nature, or certainly most of us used to with the exception of periods of social collapse (think of Rome). Our nature vis-a-vis reproduction is quite different. But I'll bite.įirst, human beings are not bees or ants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |