Where Have All The Children Gone?
You don't have to be Whitney Houston to believe the children are our future. Brian "Saint Paul" Ward has some interesting observations sparked by seeing the film Children of Men.
I think Brian is right, and especially so on that "expensive burden" part. Yet that comes down to more than simple selfishness and materialism among potential parents. There is perhaps an even more crucial reason birthrates are becoming dangerously low, at least in Western countries: environmentalism.
Not all environmentalism off course. But there is a core concept that seems to have been enthusiastically embraced by the environmental movement which posits that human beings are wrecking the planet by using up all its resources. Therefore more humans equals more harm. Therefore it is environmentally irresponsible to have lots of children. Far from being thought about as an act of sacrifice and love, having many children is viewed as a selfish act causing harm to the planet.
This is the reason I see economic work, like that of the late Julian Simon, as critical in reviving what Pope John Paul II called a culture of life. People don't just need to be told to stop seeing having children as hindrances to living a fun life. They need to stop seeing them as plunderers of the earth's limited natural resources. Rather than seeing children as more hungry mouths nibbling at an already finite pie, they should be recognized as the future bakers of more pie.
Simon put it well in an article he once wrote for the Cato Institute:
Of course, Simon himself - the struggles he had being taken seriously, and the way he was demonized in his lifetime - is an illustration that this concept is a hard sell. The cultural consensus has so completely embraced the notion that "more people" is a bad thing for the future of the planet most won't even consider the notion that this might not be true.
Despite being a hard sell, I think it's an important one to attempt. As Brian correctly noted above, there is no serious hope of "the good life" for society in the context of a childless future.
Simon frequently employed satire and humor in his attempts to break through this stubborn refusal to think. Take the jump to see a great example.
Far from a message about alienation and xenophobia, though my goggles, Children of Men is the most powerful pro life message I've seen in any mass media vehicle.
The context of Children of Men is science fiction, a world where the human race can no longer procreate and the resulting collapse of society. The impact of this scenario was enhanced by the Mark Steyn commentary I had been reading before hand, through his recent book and related columns. As he documents, the real world is full of societies systematically, by choice, eliminating its children. All European countries are below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. In Mother Russia, abortions outnumber births by a ratio of 2-to-1. Even here in the God-fearin', allegedly theocracy-leaning USA, around a million abortions per year.
The reasons are varied, but, especially in this country, it is the teaching of modern secular society that children are an expensive burden and an impediment to the good life, which consists of acquiring material possessions and indulging any personal whim you may summon. What's extraordinary about Children of Men is its reminding us that for the good life, for any life, children are all that matter.
I think Brian is right, and especially so on that "expensive burden" part. Yet that comes down to more than simple selfishness and materialism among potential parents. There is perhaps an even more crucial reason birthrates are becoming dangerously low, at least in Western countries: environmentalism.
Not all environmentalism off course. But there is a core concept that seems to have been enthusiastically embraced by the environmental movement which posits that human beings are wrecking the planet by using up all its resources. Therefore more humans equals more harm. Therefore it is environmentally irresponsible to have lots of children. Far from being thought about as an act of sacrifice and love, having many children is viewed as a selfish act causing harm to the planet.
This is the reason I see economic work, like that of the late Julian Simon, as critical in reviving what Pope John Paul II called a culture of life. People don't just need to be told to stop seeing having children as hindrances to living a fun life. They need to stop seeing them as plunderers of the earth's limited natural resources. Rather than seeing children as more hungry mouths nibbling at an already finite pie, they should be recognized as the future bakers of more pie.
Simon put it well in an article he once wrote for the Cato Institute:
How can it be that economic welfare grows over time along with population, instead of humanity's being reduced to misery and poverty as population grows and we use more and more resources? We need some theory to explain this controversion of common sense.
The process operates as follows: More people and increased income cause problems in the short run--shortages and pollutions. Short-run scarcity raises prices and pollution causes outcries. Those problems present opportunity and prompt the search for solutions. In a free society solutions are eventually found, though many people seek and fail to find solutions at cost to themselves. In the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. This theory fits the facts of history.
Of course, Simon himself - the struggles he had being taken seriously, and the way he was demonized in his lifetime - is an illustration that this concept is a hard sell. The cultural consensus has so completely embraced the notion that "more people" is a bad thing for the future of the planet most won't even consider the notion that this might not be true.
Despite being a hard sell, I think it's an important one to attempt. As Brian correctly noted above, there is no serious hope of "the good life" for society in the context of a childless future.
Simon frequently employed satire and humor in his attempts to break through this stubborn refusal to think. Take the jump to see a great example.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Wednesday January 17, 2007 at 5:17pm
Now the role of caring for the elderly is seen by many as the role of government. With government providing that care, there is a lower return on "the investement".
The math is simple to me. Take the population of the earth and divide it by the number of acres of fertile land. Look at how much land it takes to produce all the things I'd like my children to have. We passed the threshold of every person being able to have as much as I'd like to have somewhere in the early to mid 1900s - I don't recall the exact number but it was around 1.5 billion people.
To me, its not a matter of the harm being caused by the people living here (although that is a concern as it has the potential of limiting the production capacity for future generations) - it is a matter of how much can be continuously and eternally produced and how much do we want available for every child?
The choice to have less children is seen as a moral choice by people like me so that the children we DO have and the generations that follow can enjoy a life that is at least as bountiful as the one I get to enjoy - hopefully more so.
To take your example -- agriculture. We have increased the amount of food produced per acre by a much greater rate than the population increase and that number will continue to increase as technology improves.
At a 2.1 replacement rate, the 2 child approach seems reasonable. Those countries and cultures that are well below that rate are in a precarious spot because of the ponzi scheme nature (similar to our Social Security system) of the social programs they so heavily depend upon.
This discussion brought to mind P.J. O'Roukes chapter title in his book "All the Troubles In the World". -- Overpopulation - Too Many of You, Just Enough of Me.
You are the perfect example of the point I was making. I've met you in the past and know you're both intelligent and sincere. You don't try to live selfishly. Quite the opposite. And yet you are sincerely convinced that overpopulation is a real problem, and you'd be contributing to it if you have too many children.
My point is that your belief is actually the opposite of the truth. Resources are not as scarce as people instinctively believe they are. The belief in scarcity has proven to have no predictive power whatsoever. Yet it remains firmly held by most people. For some reason we're pretty sure we've just about used up the planet, even though the broad historical trend shows the opposite.
I'd encourage you to check out some of the Julian Simon links I posted above. It's counter-intuitive. But it's demonstrably true. More people equals a better world. Not a worse one.
Nordeaster,
When do you start blogging again?