By Patrick F. Cannon
I read recently that young couples are reluctant to have children because they believe the little tykes will just contribute to the ultimate death of the planet. On the other hand, maybe one of them will discover a way not only to halt global warming, but to reverse it.
We just don’t know, do we? What we do know is that the birthrate in this country is 1.6 children per woman, below the replacement rate of 2.1. In 1950, it was three. Were it not for immigration, our population would be declining, and we would have an even more fundamental problem in filling all the available jobs. Look at Japan to see what happens to a country with highly restrictive immigration policies.
This is not a plea for unrestricted immigration. We should have a rational policy that prevents or at least discourages illegal immigration (“undocumented” is just a feel-good euphemism). But we should also ask ourselves why our most-educated women are having the fewest children? The birth rate for women with only a high school education is 2.053 (still below the replacement rate); for those with a bachelor’s degree, it’s 1.284. Are they just too smart to have kids?
It seems to me that this fear of the future is palpable, as if the challenges we face are somehow unique in the history of humanity. Really? I don’t want to give a lesson in world history, but you might want to Google “black death” for starters. (And, by the way, the Earth’s climate has never been static – in its long history, it has been both warmer and colder than it is now.)
It is also argued that the birth rate would rise if we had more generous government benefits for families. Yet, in Scandinavia, with extremely generous benefits for mothers and children, the birth rate is no better than ours. Ditto for most of the rest of Europe.
Closer to the truth, we have the wish of educated young women to firmly establish their careers before having a family. Those who know me best realize I’m not a woman, so what I say should be taken in that context. But I know this: every career has its ebbs and flows. A working life lasts about 50 years. Does it make much difference if you take time out to have children in the early twenties – when fertility is at its highest – or wait until the mid-thirties, when it’s declining and less sure?
And isn’t not having children as a way of saving the planet just another reason for not undergoing the bother and expense of raising them? Are they really that concerned about a dying planet? Do they not have any confidence that future generations will do what is needed to keep the planet alive? Do they really think that it’s going to burn to a cinder in the lifetime of any child they might have?
As it happens, I belong to an extended family that is highly educated and that has more than reproduced itself. We need more people like them. If we do save the world, what’s the point if there’s no one around to enjoy it?
Copyright 2024, Patrick F. Cannon
cannonnadedotcom 
Experts say declining birth rates may be a function of economic prosperity and increasing life expectancy.
In Europe, Japan, the US and other developed countries, life is pretty good. There’s plenty (even too much) to eat, work hours are reasonable, amusements and diversions abundant to pass leisure time. People can freely indulge in self-fulfillment, whether through advanced education, scientific inquiry, the arts or personal quests like changing the world (as college graduates are encouraged to do) and saving the whales, if so inclined. (Do we still care about whales?)
Such pursuits as exploration, discovery and conquest have understandably been the domain of men. After all, aside from hunting, farming or killing each other, what else have men had to keep themselves busy?
Economic prosperity has placed women in a comparable condition. Without the burdens of childbirth and the unending responsibilities of raising children, women have time to make up their minds about their roles in the world (and as a chauvinistic wag — not me! —might crack, that could be a very long time!).
Love and marriage have gone the way of the horse and carriage. Why stay at home with stretch marks, dirty laundry and noisy kids when you could be earning fabulous salaries, traveling to exotic destinations, dining in fine restaurants, and driving around with your girl friends honoring Amelia Earhart in a new Lincoln Aviator. Who knew life could be so good?
Paradoxically and ominously, high living standards can become a curse. Affluence plants the seeds of its own destruction. As women enter the world formerly dominated by men, their biological roles become secondary, even superfluous, and the society’s birth rates decline. What’s more, having more women in the workplace increases economic productivity, boosting the prosperity that made their biological imperative less pressing in the first place. Left unchanged, a vicious cycle ensues.
Italians used to be legendary for large families and bambini everywhere. Today in Italy, although Italians adore children, you rarely see any. Italians’ birth rate is a mere 1.24 children per woman.
The reasons for this are many. Italian women seem to be pissed off at men after centuries of subjugation. Also responsible is a combination of high living costs, lack of employment opportunities, decline in belief in marriage as a religious sacrament, and an over-reliance on the government to do something about it. Good luck! (Although, the government has been known to screw people.)
Italy also has one of the world’s lowest marriage rates. Only 3.2 marriages per 1000 inhabitants. Incredible!
When Italian do marry, they marry late in life, too late to raise a large family. And even then, nearly half (46.4%) end in divorce! As expected, birth rates are lower and divorce rates higher in the prosperous North than in the less affluent South.
In countries where life is Hobbesian, rarely solitary but typically poor, nasty, brutish and short, where daily existence is a reminder of impending mortality, birth rates are generally high.
In Africa, living standards are often minimal and life expectancy averages only 61 years for men (65 for women). There the fertility rate exceeds four births per woman, well in excess of the replacement threshold. (Prosperous India’s birth rate, once high, has leveled off to an extent that experts predict it could soon become an aging society like China).
The prospect of dying young seems to spur procreation. Perhaps it’s Nature’s way of ensuring survival of the species. Our young people are certain they’ll live forever.
Will we survive man’s inhumanity and indifference to Nature? Maybe not if we keep getting more affluent.
I never understood “climate change.” Hasn’t climate, like everything else, always changed? Change is hard and can disappoint. Spring can really hang you up the most! Where I sit used to be a shallow sea. I’m sure the fishing was better, but hasn’t humankind always found ways to adapt? Some say the world will end in fire, some in ice. Has Greta Thunberg ever read Robert Frost? Maybe she needs some sulphur and molasses.
LikeLike
My, how the world has changed. Even the Italian lover has faded away. I hadn’t thought about it, but maybe revenge (and prosperity) is behind it all!
LikeLike
If resentful women and living with parents weren’t enough, educated young people, if they are able, are emigrating to other countries for work. Not a new phenomenon by any means, but not great for birth rates. You see lots of old people in Italy.
LikeLike