I’ve often found myself in conversations with people who insist that we have an overpopulation crisis and would do well to avoid contributing to it (eg. having kids). There are concerns about the environment and that having too many humans on this planet are simply unsustainable. Of course 100% of those holding those opinions have already been born.
A lot of this rings true for me. Personally, I would have said as late as age 35 that I was very unsure whether I would have children at all and 5 years later I have 2. One of the main changes for me was that it became possible to afford a standard of living I considered acceptable. At that time I lived in a 900 sq ft high-rise apartment and I simply could not envision having kids in the type of place I could afford in the city, and I also didn’t know what to do about the very hit-or-miss schools in the city. Things became simpler when COVID hit and both our companies went full-remote right around the time our incomes got high enough to get out of debt and come up with a down payment within a few years. We had long sneered at the suburbs, but after a year locked up in our city apartment unable to leave, and tired of smelling weed from neighbors seeping in through all our vents, we snapped and moved to the suburbs. After that I had to do much persuasive work to get kids to happen. But for most of my life I really did not think it would happen and I was fully expecting to live out my life childless in the city. That would have been fun too but I’m very fulfilled having children because there is much nurturing and cuddling one can do, and one can watch them grow. It’s exciting. But It’s very challenging. Much work had to be done to overcome fears of birth defects and things like that too.
I think you’re right that finding a suitable partner is a big part of the challenge for some too. It is way better to be single than in a bad relationship. I think that if you are not successfully partnered yet (and looking for that) that you will find someone excellent because you would be quite the catch and should not settle for less than someone outstanding. I personally have not been single in 17 years, so I don’t think I appreciate how difficult it is. I hear it’s tough!
You covered many, if not all the issues plaguing our social/interpersonal existences today. Is prosperity the cause for our eventual extinction...I would say yes, in the same way that progress will be - and could likely be the cause for the debasement and perversion of our collective societies.
When discussing the chaos and derangement that abounds in the world today, I often say "people have too much time on their hands...they no longer have to labor to survive". Both those observations point to: An abundance of Prosperity - in developed societies we have more than enough to eat, have more than adequate shelter and levels of leisure, comfort and distraction (especially in the adolescent ranks) than ever before. Progress - We no longer have to labor as hard or at all, to have abundant prosperity.
You rarely hear of any "Western issues" in third world countries, where they are literally laboring to survive. Children who are old enough, work along side parents, from sun up to sundown, in order to contribute to the family's survival and welfare.
There is little time to get lost in fb, X, or Instagram on your Iphone or lock yourself away, in your own room.
The old adage that each generation steals from it's offspring, that which made previous generations great, holds true. When times become easy, people become soft, wallowing in the comfort of the "now" and worrying little about the future. After all, dinner is just a door dash delivery away.
The leap I make is, there is no baser need, in these developed countries (especially ones who have vilified the nuclear family and the burden of children), to make population maintenance a priority or worry. The pursuit of a family or children, has been replaced by the pursuit of careers, cars, status, followers, social media likes and distraction. The family and children - in general - are afterthought, to be fit in, if convenient.
Another thought, why is this decline in some places, necessarily a bad thing - in a larger/big picture sense? While no one wants to see their society or culture go extinct, it has happened many times, in the past. For whatever reason (be it cyclic occurrences, natural limitation on peoples in mass groupings, or Devine planning) why would this not be a natural progression, as prosperity and progress reach peak levels - akin to many other extinct civilizations, that came before us?
When we study them, it's a given that they perished and subsequent civilizations/cultures rose to take their place. While we may wonder about the how, for the most part, we we accept it as part of history's march forward. It's only when we put ourselves in the middle of it, that it becomes a problem.
I often ask friends and co-workers, when new stories about natural "disasters" break..."if there were no people around, would they be "disasters"? My point to them is, these events have been occurring for millennia, naturally and it's only because humans placed themselves in the middle of them, that they became disasters.
Is extinction a product of poor population management; poor dating environments/mechanisms/practices; poor ethical and moral values or apathy where children and families are concerned; an over abundance of prosperity and progress or is it natural cycles of civilizations, that have peaked and are on their way to decline and extinction - so that others can rise, in their place? Unknown, but it will happen, sooner or later, for whatever reason - as history has repeatedly proven.
I found this claim by the demography expert to be surprising as perhaps you did.
"What’s interesting is that according to his findings, in the U.S., for example, amongst those having children, rates haven’t actually fallen that much. He claims that those wanting two kids, will likely have two. Those desiring 3-4 will also have that number."
That seems like a very hard thing to prove. And counter to my intuition and to the rest of your excellent post. If women are having children later, then you'd think that smaller families would naturally be the result as the fertility window would be smaller.
There is very little need for "mere survival work" today. Machinery replaced slavery long ago. Producing and delivering crops involve much fewer people.
It could be as simple as natural moderation. We are not a threatened species. Perhaps the sexual imperative reduces in a species which has established a high level of comfort.
In third world nations, where survival is more precarious, birth rates are higher. Unfortunately, so is infant mortality.
This leads me to believe that establishing stable market economies in the third world would lead to a more stable global population and better standards of living for all.
I like Elon Musk but I disagree that we need a larger human population.
I don't remember where I've heard this recently, but if we look 300 year back and much beyond... for a society to become prosperous it needs to grow (more importantly to grow its brain power, i.e. the number of smart people who are free to spend their time doing creative tasks rather than manual labor/survival work). For it to grow, the birth rate must be above 2 offsprings reaching the age of procreational maturity and ideally even more. Then you start calculating, considering the average number of miscarriages per one full term, the average number of still births per one successful, the average number of infants who died per one who survives, the average number of children that die per one that reaches the age of maturity, etc... An average woman had to stay pregnant all the time. So yes, in third-world countries, not only you need to have a higher birth rate, but women cannot really be contributing to the society much beyond just having children.
A lot of this rings true for me. Personally, I would have said as late as age 35 that I was very unsure whether I would have children at all and 5 years later I have 2. One of the main changes for me was that it became possible to afford a standard of living I considered acceptable. At that time I lived in a 900 sq ft high-rise apartment and I simply could not envision having kids in the type of place I could afford in the city, and I also didn’t know what to do about the very hit-or-miss schools in the city. Things became simpler when COVID hit and both our companies went full-remote right around the time our incomes got high enough to get out of debt and come up with a down payment within a few years. We had long sneered at the suburbs, but after a year locked up in our city apartment unable to leave, and tired of smelling weed from neighbors seeping in through all our vents, we snapped and moved to the suburbs. After that I had to do much persuasive work to get kids to happen. But for most of my life I really did not think it would happen and I was fully expecting to live out my life childless in the city. That would have been fun too but I’m very fulfilled having children because there is much nurturing and cuddling one can do, and one can watch them grow. It’s exciting. But It’s very challenging. Much work had to be done to overcome fears of birth defects and things like that too.
I think you’re right that finding a suitable partner is a big part of the challenge for some too. It is way better to be single than in a bad relationship. I think that if you are not successfully partnered yet (and looking for that) that you will find someone excellent because you would be quite the catch and should not settle for less than someone outstanding. I personally have not been single in 17 years, so I don’t think I appreciate how difficult it is. I hear it’s tough!
A very well written and enjoyable post.
You covered many, if not all the issues plaguing our social/interpersonal existences today. Is prosperity the cause for our eventual extinction...I would say yes, in the same way that progress will be - and could likely be the cause for the debasement and perversion of our collective societies.
When discussing the chaos and derangement that abounds in the world today, I often say "people have too much time on their hands...they no longer have to labor to survive". Both those observations point to: An abundance of Prosperity - in developed societies we have more than enough to eat, have more than adequate shelter and levels of leisure, comfort and distraction (especially in the adolescent ranks) than ever before. Progress - We no longer have to labor as hard or at all, to have abundant prosperity.
You rarely hear of any "Western issues" in third world countries, where they are literally laboring to survive. Children who are old enough, work along side parents, from sun up to sundown, in order to contribute to the family's survival and welfare.
There is little time to get lost in fb, X, or Instagram on your Iphone or lock yourself away, in your own room.
The old adage that each generation steals from it's offspring, that which made previous generations great, holds true. When times become easy, people become soft, wallowing in the comfort of the "now" and worrying little about the future. After all, dinner is just a door dash delivery away.
The leap I make is, there is no baser need, in these developed countries (especially ones who have vilified the nuclear family and the burden of children), to make population maintenance a priority or worry. The pursuit of a family or children, has been replaced by the pursuit of careers, cars, status, followers, social media likes and distraction. The family and children - in general - are afterthought, to be fit in, if convenient.
Another thought, why is this decline in some places, necessarily a bad thing - in a larger/big picture sense? While no one wants to see their society or culture go extinct, it has happened many times, in the past. For whatever reason (be it cyclic occurrences, natural limitation on peoples in mass groupings, or Devine planning) why would this not be a natural progression, as prosperity and progress reach peak levels - akin to many other extinct civilizations, that came before us?
When we study them, it's a given that they perished and subsequent civilizations/cultures rose to take their place. While we may wonder about the how, for the most part, we we accept it as part of history's march forward. It's only when we put ourselves in the middle of it, that it becomes a problem.
I often ask friends and co-workers, when new stories about natural "disasters" break..."if there were no people around, would they be "disasters"? My point to them is, these events have been occurring for millennia, naturally and it's only because humans placed themselves in the middle of them, that they became disasters.
Is extinction a product of poor population management; poor dating environments/mechanisms/practices; poor ethical and moral values or apathy where children and families are concerned; an over abundance of prosperity and progress or is it natural cycles of civilizations, that have peaked and are on their way to decline and extinction - so that others can rise, in their place? Unknown, but it will happen, sooner or later, for whatever reason - as history has repeatedly proven.
Thanks for the excellent article.
I found this claim by the demography expert to be surprising as perhaps you did.
"What’s interesting is that according to his findings, in the U.S., for example, amongst those having children, rates haven’t actually fallen that much. He claims that those wanting two kids, will likely have two. Those desiring 3-4 will also have that number."
That seems like a very hard thing to prove. And counter to my intuition and to the rest of your excellent post. If women are having children later, then you'd think that smaller families would naturally be the result as the fertility window would be smaller.
robertsdavidn.substack.com/about
There is very little need for "mere survival work" today. Machinery replaced slavery long ago. Producing and delivering crops involve much fewer people.
I'm becoming more of an opinion that Universe is self-correcting
It could be as simple as natural moderation. We are not a threatened species. Perhaps the sexual imperative reduces in a species which has established a high level of comfort.
In third world nations, where survival is more precarious, birth rates are higher. Unfortunately, so is infant mortality.
This leads me to believe that establishing stable market economies in the third world would lead to a more stable global population and better standards of living for all.
I like Elon Musk but I disagree that we need a larger human population.
I don't remember where I've heard this recently, but if we look 300 year back and much beyond... for a society to become prosperous it needs to grow (more importantly to grow its brain power, i.e. the number of smart people who are free to spend their time doing creative tasks rather than manual labor/survival work). For it to grow, the birth rate must be above 2 offsprings reaching the age of procreational maturity and ideally even more. Then you start calculating, considering the average number of miscarriages per one full term, the average number of still births per one successful, the average number of infants who died per one who survives, the average number of children that die per one that reaches the age of maturity, etc... An average woman had to stay pregnant all the time. So yes, in third-world countries, not only you need to have a higher birth rate, but women cannot really be contributing to the society much beyond just having children.