Thinking our way to endangerment: spawning results

[danaeris]

The replacement rate in a fully developed country to avoid a declining population: 2.1
United States fertility rate: 2.1
United Kingdom fertility rate: 1.66
Canadian fertility rate: 1.57
My friends' list fertility rate: 0.95

Food for thought.

We talk about not wanting children unless we're sure we can do right by them. We talk about not wanting to sacrifice our lives, our happiness, our identities to have children. We talk a lot, about a lot of things.

Well, this is the other side of that story.

Sure, our countries can replace the missing fertility rate with immigrants. Sure, a certain amount of that introduces a certain multiculturalism, which is part of what makes Canada a wonderful place to live. But at what point does the fertility rate drop so low that we lose the integrity of our culture because half our citizens are immigrants? It's not a matter of it being bad, but simply... 75% Canadian + 25% a mixture of naturalized other cultures (and that's the mixture we'd need for a replacement rate of 2.1, based on the above statistic) is still distinctly Canadian, largely because those other cultures are a potpourri. But at some point, if that Canadian statistic drops low enough, we lose continuity, don't we? How low would it have to be for that to happen?

As for progressive people like us... I find it frightening how low our fertility rate is. I'm vain enough to believe that my friends are better. That you may be passing on higher quality genetic stock, and that even if you adopt, you are likely to be passing on values which I think deserve to be perpetuated. I value our subcultures, and I want to see them grow and thrive, not wither and die.

In a forward thinking sense, I don't think this is sustainable, either. If this is what happens to fully developed nations, and our idealistic goal is for everyone on the planet to be able to enjoy some sort of comparable quality of life, then can we expect the fertility rates in those other countries to drop as well? If the whole world has a fertility rate lower than the replacement rate, that IS a serious problem.

So now I guess I need to dig deeper.

Why don't you want children? Or, why only one or two? Or, if you want many children, what are your reasons?

I didn't answer my own poll, but I'll answer now. I think I want children. I wasn't sure but these days I'm increasingly certain that I do. I'm scared that I'm too unstable to handle it, that I'll be a bad mother. But I want children nonetheless. I used to think that two children with three parents would be the perfect number. Now, though, looking at these numbers, I kind of wonder if I could handle more. I think, I guess, it depends on who I'm with, what they want, how we feel after the first or second child, etc.

I've been thinking a little about what the government can do to encourage brilliant people to have children. Usually they just offer baby bonuses, which are lame, and most likely to encourage the wrong people to have children they can't care for. The people I admire and respect, however, are most likely to avoid having children, or have fewer, because it's a hassle. Because it prevents them from living the vital active lives they adore. Which makes me suspect that a system that provides high quality care for children from an early age could make a huge difference. If I knew that I could have maternity leave as long as my babies need to nurse, that my husband could have paternity leave for a good long time, and that by the time my maternity leave ran out, my kid would be old enough for preschool, then suddenly, the burden of having children is much less. Another thing to consider is schools that run year round and/or run during business hours, so that after-school care is not a concern.

I don't know what the answers are. I'm aware there are issues (cost, ideal care for the children being with parents and not at school/preschool, etc.) with what I'm describing. But I think all of this is worth some thought.

Comments

[sonata960.livejournal.com]

We're planning on only 2 for a couple of reasons:

1) My age (36)
2) Pregnancy is not that much fun, really
3) Costs - daycare (we both need to work and want to), bigger cars/gas, upkeep, college, etc, etc really add up
4) Not wanting to be outnumbered :)

For number 2 we hope to do a nanny until they are 9 mo or so and then start daycare. Miss C really likes her daycare at MIT (often doesn't want to leave). They do yoga, have a musician in, etc, and she likes routine and socialization, so it works for us.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

I used to worry about this sort of thing, until it was pointed out to me that that's only worrisome if you think that "people like us" only come from being parented by "people like us". However, this is untrue, since at least *my* parents are not at all "people like us", and I think generally the previous generation aren't necessarily people I consider "my tribe" or whatever. I guess I hear about this sort of thing more generally as "omg, intellectuals & academics aren't reproducing, the population is going to be overwhelmed by really dumb people!" I think this is a fallacy because academics is a result of class and money as well as innate smarts, and I think right now there are a *lot* more smart people who just don't have the money/class to make it.

Anyway, this may have been completely incoherent. I'm really tired. Sorry if it was and poke me & I might be able to make it more coherent later.

Also, to answer your poll, I don't currently want children, or think that I do. I'm open to my opinions changing but until they do change, I'm not going to have a child. I'm seriously more tempted to sell my eggs than I am to have a child right now. I just don't have any active desire to have a child, and I don't subscribe to the "get married & have 2.5 kids" paradigm, so that means I don't want one. Also, I have some active reasons to *not* have kids, mainly because of a lack of role models which demonstrate that I can still maintain *my* life and *my* desires while raising children. This is slowly changing as I see my peers have children and maintain a career and a life, but I'm still wary of it.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

I want children, but am not willing to risk pregnancy because of the seizures, and likewise, because of said seizures, I live an eclectic lifestyle; the seizures require me to get the 8-10 consecutive hours of sleep a day, and you don't get that for the first half decade of a child's life. I see no reason to expose a child to that, or to expose me, for that matter.

[mytheria.livejournal.com]

I go back and forth on this topic. I question my abilities, my genetics, and financial responsibility. Also, I don't know that there is enough of an emotional safety net (in my community at this point) for me to do so. Also the idea that if I plan to get pregnant I'd need to be off most of my medication for at least 18 months.
But, I am also considering it sometimes. That said, I wouldn't want more than 2 children for many reasons.
1) 2 kids gives you 1 hand for each when out places. I'd much rather be able to be a touchstone like that for them.
2) with 3 kids there is the tendency for it to be 2 against 1
3) I don't know if I could give an appropriate level of energy into raising more children than that. I believe that kids should have responsibilities, but I would not want my children to later resent each other for having to help with caring for younger siblings, or having older siblings take care of them instead of a parent.

But in general my opinion is that if at this point in my life I become unexpectedly pregnant, I'd probably not have an abortion (but would be worried about my medications having long term effects on the child).

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

World population growth is projected to stop at roughly 2060 at roughly 11-13 billion. I don't know where you got the US fertility number, but it sounds very high compared to what I've heard. But I don't have any sources at the moment. I heard that the US stopped growing a lot time ago except for immigration, then Europe followed suit. As nations industrialize, children switch from being an asset to being a liability, financially.

I wanted a child, badly. Can't have one. I wanted *one* child, with an option for a second one if I had a partner enthusiastic about the idea, and we somehow had enough resources to support two reasonably. It's a matter of the huge cost, and feeling responsibility to do right by them. I'm not rich and I'm not going to be.

I grew up one of six kids raised on a truck driver's salary. Both of my parents were the youngest of ten children. I have fifty first cousins. I'm not interested in a brutal lifelong struggle just to survive and keep my kids while being unable to take them to the dentist. I've seen that.

I really am not worried about the human race going on a descending exponential for a couple of centuries, we have enough people to spare for that for quite some time. Besides, we're entering a new era of scarcity, unless the right breakthroughs happen. Not that population will decrease in time to help with that.

Kids are expensive. Always have been. But in olden days, they turned into workers very quickly; now they don't. So the cost has gone up hugely. I'd try to manage one if I could, despite feeling I don't have the resources to do it right.

[nathanjw]

When the continued existence of my culture threatens the continued existence of humankind, as it does through overpopulation and resource exploitation, it is right and proper that my culture should lose out.

Bring on the decreased fertility. If we don't get the population of the world cut soon, it will be cut catastrophically for us.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I intend to have children. Current plan is to begin steps toward adopting if I'm not in a stable long-term relationship by 30. Otherwise, 2-3 biological children followed by 2-3 adopted children.

[geekosaur]

On the one hand, Russ and I come from lower middle class/"blue collar" families.
On the other, the trend for developed countries, and groups of intelligent people, to have lower fertility is well documented.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

As for progressive people like us... I find it frightening how low our fertility rate is. I'm vain enough to believe that my friends are better. That you may be passing on higher quality genetic stock, and that even if you adopt, you are likely to be passing on values which I think deserve to be perpetuated. I value our subcultures, and I want to see them grow and thrive, not wither and die.

I find this approach to be worryingly close to advocating eugenics. What do you mean by 'higher quality genetic stock'? And how does this relate to passing on positive values through behaviour towards one's children?

The idea that poor or foreign people are less 'progressive' is very 19th century Fabian, and implies that those who have 'the right values' would stop being poor within generation or 2. It echoes the concerns of Europeans at the time who really fretted about being 'bred out' by hordes of non-Europeans - particularly the French-speaking upper-class Russians, who fretted about Asiatic Russians, see 'Anna Karenina' for reference to this. It's basically a kind of covert racism.

I wonder what indigenous Canadians think of Canadian culture 'los[ing] continuity' because of immigration - perhaps a hollow laugh?

What makes 'us' so damn special that we should be encouraged to reproduce?

I'm not trying to have a go at you here, but this kind of argument really gets under my skin.

[tikva.livejournal.com]

Yes, this. Particularly as one of the people who would be on the, "no, really, please don't breed" list, if such a thing were to come out.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

As a historian (of sorts), this whole train of thought freaks me out no end. Rewarding fertility? That'll be Germany under Hitler and Stalin under Russia, then? Not to mention the feminist implications.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

The earth is bloody near, if not over, it's carrying load for people. Technology may change this, or may not. I'm not going to worry about declining population until the population drops several billion, and that just doesn't look likely in my lifetime -- so I feel no need to add to the load.

[caillean.livejournal.com]

For now, just a quick comment, more later.

Germany is facing that problem. They've an interesting solution. Bill and I were actually talking about this the other night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/world/europe/23germany.html

[tikva.livejournal.com]

I am unlikely to have children. I have one partner who does not want children, and another with whom I can't come to an agreement on the religion issue for any potential children. It's just easier not to have them.

When my mother figures this out, she's likely to plotz, so if you hear a loud explosion from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, it's my mother realizing I'm not giving her grandkids. *heh*

[acegreco.livejournal.com]

Ok. Initially, I was a little perturbed that I was grouped into a statistic without knowing where this was coming from, but I'm guessing that you're not looking at your whole friends list and saying "You and you have children, you and you do not," but rather there was some poll somewhere that I neglected to contribute to. That being said, I most definitely do want children when I settle down, there's no question of that, but I don't see adopting or immigrating as a bad thing, especially when there are a lot of women who have difficulty conceiving as it is. The problems it solves in the long run are much more significant than the hoops to jump through in the interim. While the percentage of growth in Canada, USA, and your friends list are below the figure to justifiably 'keep humanity going', the average population increase figure worldwide is still above that magical 2.1 children per adult. Not by much, but just enough. Additionally, the wide range of estimates out there state that we'll be working with upwards of 9.5 billion people worldwide by 2050. We're having trouble spreading out 6 billion, nevermind 9.5 billion. If a little bit of population fluctuation is required for us to figure out how to work together to create a cohesive and livable planet, then so be it.

A few thoughts

[lastmx.livejournal.com]

To answer your questions: Because I don't have a stable environment to bring them up in yet. I do plan/hope to have 2 - 4 kids. I think I have good genes and values, and I want to pass those on.

But it's going to be a big personal sacrifice. There's an old joke, you can have a kid or you can have a Ferrari, they both cost the same. Partly I want to have kids because my genes tell me to. It's instinct, I *want* to get my chromosomes into the next round of this great big game we call Life. I also think my parents are genuinely cool people and did a pretty good job of raising me, and sacrificed plenty of the things they wanted so I could have a decent shot at life. I plan to do the same thing when I have kids, because there are more important things than *me*.

Just be careful with this issue, it stirs up a lot of emotions on all sides of the spectrum. If you want to read some SF that looks at this issue I suggest Caliphate by Tom Kratman. I can pretty much guarantee that the author's politics will horrify you. But you might enjoy a few of the ideas.

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

I'm actually for a declining population, provided that the fertility rates in all countries drop. (The environment will thank us.) Fewer kids mean better appropriation of resources.

[truthspeaker.livejournal.com]

Right now, Russia is the worst off with a depopulation crisis. Some projections have suggested that the population will soon (ie in a few decades) reach half of its peak population. Do a google search on russia, depopulation, crisis for a number of articles on this.

However, there is the notion of carrying capacity. Lowering the population may actually make resources more available and lower pollution to levels that have less damaging consequences.

One problem is when depopulation happens too quickly in a developed nation -- the society and economy has trouble adjusting, and this is the crisis Russia is facing.

Another is genetic. Intelligent people tend not to breed as much -- I think this is not the point people are arguing against. However, I take the unpopular belief that there is a genetic basis for intelligence -- it's not limited to any particular race or demographic, but I believe that some people can have a genetic predisposition to intelligence. But if there is a genetic basis for intelligence, and intelligent people don't breed as much, there will be a statistical decline in raw intelligence. (Of course, with increased education in third world countries, we get more intelligent educated people overall, as intelligent people in poorer nations get an opportunity to use their ability to benefit others.) So, it's a complicated issue.