6 ms·

The Obvious-Once-You-Think-About-It Reason Why Education Cuts Fertility

13 points by jger15 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
stevejm 2y ago
wohooo
nonameiguess 2y ago
This topic constantly belies the fact that everywhere it is discussed is a sausage fest. Pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing are energetically demanding, physically unpleasant, dangerous things to do. Sexually reproducing creatures nonetheless have a strong instinct to do it because we wouldn't exist otherwise, but education brings increasing choices, increasing opportunities to do anything else, and once you have that choice, at least some birthing people are going to choose something else at least some of the time. Ergo, you get a marginal effect.
JohnMakin 2y ago
I am male, so I am speaking from that perspective, but I have never been sold on the idea of having/raising kids, especially after I became educated - education (generally) affords more opportunities, kids, especially for women, only limits them. I can take a job across the country suddenly with little thought, work or do hobbies for long hours without worry of depriving my dependents. I can think about the future on my own terms, not hazy ones based on offspring that may/may not be on the same page about said future. The tradeoffs presented to me don't appear appealing. "Who will take care of you when you're old?" Well, myself, presumably. That isn't a very strong argument, especially when considering the massive sacrifice and loss of freedom that comes with procreation. I know everyone says it is worth it, but I find little appealing to it. What's more, is society sees this as some sort of fundamental character flaw or moral failing rather than a rational decision based on my values. Even beyond that, on a philosophical/ethical level, I believe bringing children into a world of such uncertainty and possible collapse is not really that appealing either, whether or not that is realistic. The anxiety I'd feel about such conditions the world is currently in would be orders of magnitude higher if I had children.
- fatnoah 2y ago
  > "Who will take care of you when you're old?" Well, myself, presumably. I'm sure nearly every person who ended up needed their kids to take care of them probably felt the same way right up until they needed help. Regardless, "future help" is definitely a terrible reason to have kids. As you noted, it's a complete change in life, lifestyle, and priorities. One needs to be ready for this (or as ready as one can be, anyway) before taking it on, and be willing to commit 100% to a journey that will be unpredictable and that has no guarantees of success or happiness. As a parent that was previously in a "no way am I having kids" state, yet wouldn't trade in being a parent for anything else in the world, I have 100% respect for those who do and those who don't want to have kids.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I think the flip side to that feeling is that people are young and healthy, and that when they're no longer self-supporting, they'd rather be gone. Here I'm overgeneralizing from the N=1 case of myself. But I had always been young-and-healthy, and even at middle-aged-and-healthy, I have a hard time visualizing the impending disabilities. I've also got the bias of being comfortably middle-class. I will be able to afford the help I need for basic disabilities. It's easy to imagine that by the time I run out of money for that, I'll also have run out of interest in limping (literally) along. There is a very strong chance that I will have a change of mind once actually faced with them, but it's really hard for me to have an emotional understanding of that now. So I need to point out that there is a very dark aspect hanging over that belief that you will take care of yourself in your age, just to take that out and consider it, even though I can't resolve it.
- jamieplex 2y ago
  "I believe bringing children into a world of such uncertainty and possible collapse is not really that appealing either, whether or not that is realistic." What a curious response. I have been hearing that argument for over 50 years, and, arguably, it has been used across the world since the first world war over 100 years ago, and (especially) since the first atomic bomb was dropped. And yet it is essentially a feeble and frail argument based upon fear of the unknown. Interesting to hear a techie say it.
millzlane 2y ago
2006 seems so long ago. Anyone else remember Mike Judges take on this topic? https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Wow. So much discussion, and so little of it actually about the content of the article. Everyone's hung up on discussing whether they should or shouldn't have kids, and that's not the point at all. The argument of the article is that there is pressure to finish your education before you have kids. The longer your education lasts, the later you wait to have kids. That's all right for males, but female fertility runs out sooner. So particularly, the more education females get, the later they wait to have kids, and so the fewer kids they have. The claim is, this mechanism is enough to explain why education cuts fertility. Would anyone care to discuss that?
- shaftway 2y ago
  I'll throw my hat in the ring. I don't think that this is truly the primary mechanism. Maybe a contributing one, but definitely not the predominant cause. Let's say that the average woman wants to have children every 3 years. This is probably a gross oversimplification, but it feels about right; most people I know who have multiple kids or siblings have a 2-4 year age gap. In the days of yore (for some definition of "yore") women would typically have children from the age of 19-20 until 40-ish. That gives you about 20 years to have kids, resulting in families with ~7 children. Again, this feels about right; go back a few generations in my family tree and you see families of 6-8 kids. If spending time at school is the dominant mechanism then women would typically have 5-6 fewer years in which to conceive, and you'd expect families to have ~2 fewer children, making the average ~5. But it's, what, 2.3 children and dropping? A quick google search for fertility rate showed that the last significant peak in the US was in 1957 (after a slump around the world wars and great depression). A second quick google search for "what happened with women in the 60s" immediately starts discussing the women's liberation movement, with increased rates of women employment and education. A third google search for "when did birth control come out" gave the year 1960 for the use of Enovid as a birth control mechanism, but an actual release date of 1957 for cramps. If I was going to point fingers at an "obvious" reason for a decline in fertility, it would be that women finally had the choice as to whether or not they would have kids, and they had the means to effect that choice.
- jfengel 2y ago
  It's certainly a compelling thesis. You'll also want to put your education to use immediately. You want to take advantage of the pipelines for fresh graduates, and to be perceived as a youth when competing for entry-level jobs. It's hard enough to get that first job when you're fresh out. It could be even harder when you've spent the ages of 22-30 getting your kids born and ready to spend their days in school, so you're trying to score your first job in your late 20s or early 30s. It may be that the education mechanism by itself suffices to explain it, even without that factor. I wish it were possible to factor out that youth bias. We present women with such a terrible choice: their prime years for preparing for work are the same as their prime years for starting their family.

13 points by jger15 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

stevejm 2y ago

wohooo

nonameiguess 2y ago

This topic constantly belies the fact that everywhere it is discussed is a sausage fest. Pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing are energetically demanding, physically unpleasant, dangerous things to do. Sexually reproducing creatures nonetheless have a strong instinct to do it because we wouldn't exist otherwise, but education brings increasing choices, increasing opportunities to do anything else, and once you have that choice, at least some birthing people are going to choose something else at least some of the time. Ergo, you get a marginal effect.

JohnMakin 2y ago

I am male, so I am speaking from that perspective, but I have never been sold on the idea of having/raising kids, especially after I became educated - education (generally) affords more opportunities, kids, especially for women, only limits them. I can take a job across the country suddenly with little thought, work or do hobbies for long hours without worry of depriving my dependents. I can think about the future on my own terms, not hazy ones based on offspring that may/may not be on the same page about said future. The tradeoffs presented to me don't appear appealing. "Who will take care of you when you're old?" Well, myself, presumably. That isn't a very strong argument, especially when considering the massive sacrifice and loss of freedom that comes with procreation. I know everyone says it is worth it, but I find little appealing to it. What's more, is society sees this as some sort of fundamental character flaw or moral failing rather than a rational decision based on my values. Even beyond that, on a philosophical/ethical level, I believe bringing children into a world of such uncertainty and possible collapse is not really that appealing either, whether or not that is realistic. The anxiety I'd feel about such conditions the world is currently in would be orders of magnitude higher if I had children.

fatnoah 2y ago
> "Who will take care of you when you're old?" Well, myself, presumably. I'm sure nearly every person who ended up needed their kids to take care of them probably felt the same way right up until they needed help. Regardless, "future help" is definitely a terrible reason to have kids. As you noted, it's a complete change in life, lifestyle, and priorities. One needs to be ready for this (or as ready as one can be, anyway) before taking it on, and be willing to commit 100% to a journey that will be unpredictable and that has no guarantees of success or happiness. As a parent that was previously in a "no way am I having kids" state, yet wouldn't trade in being a parent for anything else in the world, I have 100% respect for those who do and those who don't want to have kids.
- jfengel 2y ago
  I think the flip side to that feeling is that people are young and healthy, and that when they're no longer self-supporting, they'd rather be gone. Here I'm overgeneralizing from the N=1 case of myself. But I had always been young-and-healthy, and even at middle-aged-and-healthy, I have a hard time visualizing the impending disabilities. I've also got the bias of being comfortably middle-class. I will be able to afford the help I need for basic disabilities. It's easy to imagine that by the time I run out of money for that, I'll also have run out of interest in limping (literally) along. There is a very strong chance that I will have a change of mind once actually faced with them, but it's really hard for me to have an emotional understanding of that now. So I need to point out that there is a very dark aspect hanging over that belief that you will take care of yourself in your age, just to take that out and consider it, even though I can't resolve it.
jamieplex 2y ago
"I believe bringing children into a world of such uncertainty and possible collapse is not really that appealing either, whether or not that is realistic." What a curious response. I have been hearing that argument for over 50 years, and, arguably, it has been used across the world since the first world war over 100 years ago, and (especially) since the first atomic bomb was dropped. And yet it is essentially a feeble and frail argument based upon fear of the unknown. Interesting to hear a techie say it.

millzlane 2y ago

2006 seems so long ago. Anyone else remember Mike Judges take on this topic? https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Wow. So much discussion, and so little of it actually about the content of the article. Everyone's hung up on discussing whether they should or shouldn't have kids, and that's not the point at all. The argument of the article is that there is pressure to finish your education before you have kids. The longer your education lasts, the later you wait to have kids. That's all right for males, but female fertility runs out sooner. So particularly, the more education females get, the later they wait to have kids, and so the fewer kids they have. The claim is, this mechanism is enough to explain why education cuts fertility. Would anyone care to discuss that?

shaftway 2y ago
I'll throw my hat in the ring. I don't think that this is truly the primary mechanism. Maybe a contributing one, but definitely not the predominant cause. Let's say that the average woman wants to have children every 3 years. This is probably a gross oversimplification, but it feels about right; most people I know who have multiple kids or siblings have a 2-4 year age gap. In the days of yore (for some definition of "yore") women would typically have children from the age of 19-20 until 40-ish. That gives you about 20 years to have kids, resulting in families with ~7 children. Again, this feels about right; go back a few generations in my family tree and you see families of 6-8 kids. If spending time at school is the dominant mechanism then women would typically have 5-6 fewer years in which to conceive, and you'd expect families to have ~2 fewer children, making the average ~5. But it's, what, 2.3 children and dropping? A quick google search for fertility rate showed that the last significant peak in the US was in 1957 (after a slump around the world wars and great depression). A second quick google search for "what happened with women in the 60s" immediately starts discussing the women's liberation movement, with increased rates of women employment and education. A third google search for "when did birth control come out" gave the year 1960 for the use of Enovid as a birth control mechanism, but an actual release date of 1957 for cramps. If I was going to point fingers at an "obvious" reason for a decline in fertility, it would be that women finally had the choice as to whether or not they would have kids, and they had the means to effect that choice.
jfengel 2y ago
It's certainly a compelling thesis. You'll also want to put your education to use immediately. You want to take advantage of the pipelines for fresh graduates, and to be perceived as a youth when competing for entry-level jobs. It's hard enough to get that first job when you're fresh out. It could be even harder when you've spent the ages of 22-30 getting your kids born and ready to spend their days in school, so you're trying to score your first job in your late 20s or early 30s. It may be that the education mechanism by itself suffices to explain it, even without that factor. I wish it were possible to factor out that youth bias. We present women with such a terrible choice: their prime years for preparing for work are the same as their prime years for starting their family.