Comment by silverquiet
1 year ago
I neither have children nor travel often, but I believe that an annual Caribbean vacation is significantly cheaper than a child. I don't doubt that children can be as you say; that they provide a motivation and sense of purpose for their parents. But clearly that is not the case for all as the number of un-involved parents would suggest.
For myself, I think economic anxiety/precarity has been one of the strongest motivators for never wanting children. As I've faced layoffs, I've often thought to myself, "at least I don't have any kids depending on me" and worried for my coworkers who did. It doesn't help that I face some medical issues either.
But I think more than anything, I just don't want to force some poor child into this world/economic system that we have created that I've never really felt comfortable in. I used to think that this made me some kind of strange outlier, but more and more, given that we see ever decreasing fertility, perhaps I was merely early to this feeling.
Whatever criticisms of the economic system one might have (and there are plenty), we seem to be forgetting that we live in the most materially abundant and safe period of human history, and the problem is especially apparent in the richest countries of the world. So this is no explanation of the demographic crisis.
The decision not to have children is also not especially unique to those in economically precarious situations or those living in poverty. On the contrary, the demographic crisis affects everyone, including a well-off middle class that will have no trouble providing for its children. On top of that, while I support sound pro-natal policies, what we've found is that using financial incentives has very little to no effect on increasing birth rates.
Demographic decline reflects deeper problems in our cultures. We structure our lives in ways that do not respect optimal fertility, putting things off until "we're established in our careers". We define ourselves by what we own. We have a prejudice against large families, associating them with the shame of poverty, misery, backwardness, and a lack of education instead of the great wealth that they are. We have taken individualism to such an extreme that family and community life has taken a huge blow, and with it, the broad social support children would usually grow up with. Children have fewer siblings and fewer cousins to play with and grow up with. We have a dating culture that, instead of functioning as a way to find someone to marry to start a family, is recreational, aimless, and devoid of any desire for commitment. Expectations w.r.t. children that are financially costly lead to thinking that having more children would "deprive" them of a desired standard (this relates to keeping up with the Jones's). And what if you have more than 2 children in close succession? Well, because of safety regulations, you need to buy a larger car, because a basic sedan cannot hold three car seats.
Taken in aggregate, the cultural climate, as well as the attitudes it shapes, is not favorable.
I appreciate the response. I feel like half the points in your third paragraph could easily be framed as economic factors rather than cultural (though I don't think those are as separate as people often seem to think).
What is most interesting to me is that you said cultures (plural) when saying that we have deeper problems. But according to the article, this has become a nearly universal issue across all cultures of the world; and what force but economic globalization could cause something like that?
> what force but economic globalization could cause something like that?
This is a good observation. One possibility is that globalism serves as a vector for communicating certain cultural habits. A natural place to look is the US as it has been the primary globalizing force in recent history. American popular culture (TV, cinema), NGOs, the influence of American universities, etc. all serve to spread ideas sell a certain vision of life. It doesn't matter if the ideas are good. These methods appeal to the emotions.
And this is not a bad suspicion, as it seems that the inverse relation between number of children and wealth, when people are otherwise permitted to have children as they wish, seems to be characteristic of consumerist societies.
2 replies →