5 ms·

First, while we have eliminated the "family wage", which was what allowed American working class families to be supported on one income alone in the 1950s, and

First, while we have eliminated the "family wage", which was what allowed American working class families to be supported on one income alone in the 1950s, and we have made things like the housing market cost prohibitive, and wrecked community life, we also have different priorities today. For example, among those who can afford an annual vacation to the Caribbean or a new car or whatever, many would not be willing to give that up if they had to in order to have another child. Keeping up with the Jones's is a thing, and we simply view children as burdensome sacrifices that deprive us of empty self-indulgence rather than great riches and an occasion to grow as a human being. Second, the obsession with finances is unjustified. What's "enough" to have a child? And will you ever get there? You might hit infertility sooner and then it'll be too late. Having a child is an incredible motivator, because you have a firm and clear and worthy purpose. Your whole life is rearranged, and in a good way. You have descendants and in that sense, you are not alone or the end of the line. When children are a mere possibility, mere phantoms that you hope to afford one day, you won't have the same drive, and it becomes easy to get sidetracked or fall into resignation.

silverquiet 1y 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.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  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.
  - silverquiet 1y ago
    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?
toomuchtodo 1y ago
To raise a child in the US 0-18 is ~$330k in 2023 dollars. That buys a lot of happiness sans child, not to mention the loss of freedom and autonomy required for child rearing not lost by avoiding children. The value proposition is simply not compelling.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  What is your definition of happiness? Money, "freedom", and "autonomy"? But what are these for? What is the point of being free? What is the point of money? The point of both freedom and money is to be able to do what is good. Freedom and autonomy and money have no value in themselves; they have only instrumental value. They only enable the good (and money, only specific kinds of goods). They are not sources of happiness per se. So being free to have children is the freedom to pursue the good that are children and of being a parent. Being a parent is meaningful. Freedom, full stop, is not. And money, full stop, is certainly not.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Children and being a parent being “good” or meaningful is an opinion, not an objective fact. Many can do better, as measured by their life happiness and expectations, without. The point of freedom and autonomy is to explore and experience the one life you have. Some people find meaning in children and parenting, but many do not, and are just fine. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-so-many-single-women-without-children-are-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/complete-without-kids/201103/fact-or-fiction-childfree-couples-are-happier-couples-kids https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/complete-without-kid... https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-happier-in-the-long-run https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2367106/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2367106/
    - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
      I would reject that the goodness of children or parenthood is a matter of opinion. They are objectively good and intrinsically meaningful. What may or may not be a good idea is being a parent yourself. Parenthood requires a basic maturity that some people don't have, and some people may have lives that are too prohibitive or demanding in some manner, or they may have chosen to sacrifice parenthood for some noble end (like running an orphanage), but these are outliers, among others. Parenthood is very central to our humanity. Fatherhood is a core expression of masculinity while motherhood is a core expression of femininity. Of course, parenthood isn't always expressed by having biological children. In the Catholic Church, for example, priests assume a paternal role in their parishes, while religious sisters often assume a maternal role by becoming teachers or by mentoring young novices. In such cases, such people choose to sacrifice their biological parenthood for the sake of a worthy good, and here, a parental role that isn't biological. Pathological expressions of the subconscious parental desire can be seen when people treat their pets like children (like those women who push their dogs around in strollers and pamper them in obscene ways). However, in a healthy society, most people will choose to have biological children. The outliers do not disprove the general. And the fact that so many people are actively choosing not to have children is a sign of cultural decadence and decline. When you speak of "autonomy", what is this "experience" of the one life you have in mind? Being a parent is, of course, such an experience, and not just one of many you can choose from, but an experience that is deeply central to being human. That so many are choosing not to have children is not the result of some spiritual awakening where they are choosing to sacrifice having children for some worthy noble end. The argument from autonomy is really an argument from self-indulgence. The objective richness and centrality of parenthood to human life is typically traded by such people for a life of pointless and empty "experiences", or lesser goods. By hiding behind "autonomy" and some relativized notion of preference, parenthood becomes as banal as choosing a flavor of ice cream, which it isn't. No one is forced to have children, and no one in particular needs to have them, but as I said earlier, when a culture is healthy, most people will choose to have them. That so many are choosing not to is not a matter of choosing chocolate over vanilla, but usually, it is a matter of trivializing one's life by choosing comfort, self-indulgence, and the avoidance of responsibility and commitment. These stand in the way of a voracious, egotistical autonomy. But such autonomy does not make us grow as human beings. It stifles our development, feeds narcissism, and imagines us and our appetites as the center of the universe. In the end, it is a dehumanizing recipe for unhappiness and misery. So the basic problem is not firstly the falling statistic, but the narcissistic attitude engendered by vacuous hyperindividualism.

silverquiet 1y 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.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
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.
- silverquiet 1y ago
  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?

toomuchtodo 1y ago

To raise a child in the US 0-18 is ~$330k in 2023 dollars. That buys a lot of happiness sans child, not to mention the loss of freedom and autonomy required for child rearing not lost by avoiding children. The value proposition is simply not compelling.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
What is your definition of happiness? Money, "freedom", and "autonomy"? But what are these for? What is the point of being free? What is the point of money? The point of both freedom and money is to be able to do what is good. Freedom and autonomy and money have no value in themselves; they have only instrumental value. They only enable the good (and money, only specific kinds of goods). They are not sources of happiness per se. So being free to have children is the freedom to pursue the good that are children and of being a parent. Being a parent is meaningful. Freedom, full stop, is not. And money, full stop, is certainly not.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Children and being a parent being “good” or meaningful is an opinion, not an objective fact. Many can do better, as measured by their life happiness and expectations, without. The point of freedom and autonomy is to explore and experience the one life you have. Some people find meaning in children and parenting, but many do not, and are just fine. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-so-many-single-women-without-children-are-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/complete-without-kids/201103/fact-or-fiction-childfree-couples-are-happier-couples-kids https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/complete-without-kid... https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-happier-in-the-long-run https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2367106/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2367106/
  - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
    I would reject that the goodness of children or parenthood is a matter of opinion. They are objectively good and intrinsically meaningful. What may or may not be a good idea is being a parent yourself. Parenthood requires a basic maturity that some people don't have, and some people may have lives that are too prohibitive or demanding in some manner, or they may have chosen to sacrifice parenthood for some noble end (like running an orphanage), but these are outliers, among others. Parenthood is very central to our humanity. Fatherhood is a core expression of masculinity while motherhood is a core expression of femininity. Of course, parenthood isn't always expressed by having biological children. In the Catholic Church, for example, priests assume a paternal role in their parishes, while religious sisters often assume a maternal role by becoming teachers or by mentoring young novices. In such cases, such people choose to sacrifice their biological parenthood for the sake of a worthy good, and here, a parental role that isn't biological. Pathological expressions of the subconscious parental desire can be seen when people treat their pets like children (like those women who push their dogs around in strollers and pamper them in obscene ways). However, in a healthy society, most people will choose to have biological children. The outliers do not disprove the general. And the fact that so many people are actively choosing not to have children is a sign of cultural decadence and decline. When you speak of "autonomy", what is this "experience" of the one life you have in mind? Being a parent is, of course, such an experience, and not just one of many you can choose from, but an experience that is deeply central to being human. That so many are choosing not to have children is not the result of some spiritual awakening where they are choosing to sacrifice having children for some worthy noble end. The argument from autonomy is really an argument from self-indulgence. The objective richness and centrality of parenthood to human life is typically traded by such people for a life of pointless and empty "experiences", or lesser goods. By hiding behind "autonomy" and some relativized notion of preference, parenthood becomes as banal as choosing a flavor of ice cream, which it isn't. No one is forced to have children, and no one in particular needs to have them, but as I said earlier, when a culture is healthy, most people will choose to have them. That so many are choosing not to is not a matter of choosing chocolate over vanilla, but usually, it is a matter of trivializing one's life by choosing comfort, self-indulgence, and the avoidance of responsibility and commitment. These stand in the way of a voracious, egotistical autonomy. But such autonomy does not make us grow as human beings. It stifles our development, feeds narcissism, and imagines us and our appetites as the center of the universe. In the end, it is a dehumanizing recipe for unhappiness and misery. So the basic problem is not firstly the falling statistic, but the narcissistic attitude engendered by vacuous hyperindividualism.