Baby Making Nations

Now here is a topic that is sure to start a lunch conversation that makes the men sweat.  The recent article Is the West's baby bust being busted? examines the new trend of rising birth rates in developed nations. It has been thought for some time that the wealthier a nation gets, more specifically their women, the fewer children they have. The article presents the new finding that the wealthier nations, mostly European, have rising birth rates. Now it is not for me to ruin anyone’s lunch with diaper talk and children themed songs from PBS, but the article gives little reasons why this would happen and I thought maybe we could supply the reasons.

It would be logical that birth rates would drop, and they have historically as nations get wealthy. Women must work to supplement a higher standard of living. In developed nations, the work trends and occupations often require higher education. This would mostly require men and women to delay having children and getting married until they are financially settled or at least into their later twenties. Career women would have to establish themselves in a field and this would take some time with unequal pay of the sexes and the historical lack of opportunities in business. Finally, the reason for lower birth rates is the difficult burden of managing a household and having a career. Though these factors would not limit child birth, they have and would deter many women and families from having a large family.

For some reason the study does not sit well with me, even though it is Philadelphia’s University of Pennsylvania doing part of the research. First they do not factor in immigration and though they downplay the role of it in birthrates, it has played a huge factor in keeping America at its competent rate of population growth. From New York to Texas, Florida to Arizona (not to mention California), the children of immigrants are filling our schools and neighborhoods. It is difficult for the reader to bypass their first hand experience with just a sentence. Secondly, they do not factor in the fertility science that has boomed in the recent years to help developed nations have their children regardless of age.  Developed nations, especially with a nationalized medical system, offer fertility assistance at low cost. These countries are under pressure to maintain the nationalism and language that they see slipping away to immigrant culture and language. With the help of a state run medical assistance, they can promote child birth in all women and they just may have according to this study. Finally, the study does not broach the topic of populations in competition for natural resources. The mother must have an instinct to help the child succeed and prosper in the world. The biological instinct would suppress the need for multiple births if the children would compete for attention and goods in the same house, country and world. These problems were not addressed or just glanced over in the study, and thus makes the argument questionable.

 So why are rates going up?  

 The article says rates are high in developing nations because the more children they have, the better chance that someone will still be alive to take care of the parents when they get older. I had a certain sting of guilt here because I never considered that my birth was actually to take care of my parents. I also realize how poor a job I have being doing of that. I will let you fill in your own reasons in the comments, but I believe one is dissatisfaction in the spiritual aspect of modern life. Children help us to remember what is important. They are a point of pride outside of our own ego that we can enjoy and control. Children provide a connection to the community that being a working person doesn’t. It is what you may have in common with your neighbor. Schools and sports are how we connect with our own peer group. The need to have a good home life is still part of Americana that we strive to attain. The more children you have, the more connected to the community you are. This helps a parent create a new persona, away from the pressure of work and career, which satisfies a human need.

 What makes people have large families?

Coming from a large family, I can not say enough about the benefits and positive relationships it has provided. This being said, I do not want a large family and there is guilt as if I am depriving my own children of what I believed made me a better and more caring person. The easy answer would be the lack of birth control. A harder answer would be that people want large families so they do not have to fit into a strange society. This is the reason why immigrants have large families. You have a support group that helps your children survive on the streets and schools. It is especially pertinent when a large family is a financial burden. The inability or refusal to join a community is perhaps a reason why large families existed and exist today primarily in recent immigrant families. Sorry,  Jon and Kate.

Why is the large family disappearing in the America and European landscape?

The large family is disappearing because of the tremendous financial burden of existing in America. The lack of faith in occupations and the ever changing skill set one must acquire to stay current in today’s economy are just two reasons. There are many reasons, but I believe that a parent realizes that success for their children is tied to economic prosperity in both the social and career fields. The later one waits to have children, the more valuable the experience becomes because the thought must exist that this may be the last chance to be a parent. There are perhaps many reasons, but I believe financial fear is the one that keeps families smaller.

 So the birth rates are on the rise. We can feel confident that some will come to follow us that look like us and talk like us. We can have our own nations still if you get to baby making. The developing nations are beating us and are having more and more children in abject poverty. The article clearly draws a line between our problem and their's. That might be the saddest part of it all: that the world’s children or immigrant children are not our own.

 So do you have any answers for the above questions?

Comments

[Patrick Edmonds]

Lots of questions raised here on a vast array of topics. I see the connecting theme though to be family. I think a part of the decline in larger families was more than just economical. It was also a manipulation of the selfless into the selfish. We have promoted a value system that is centered around the individual rather than the group. We see more and more couples get married, have a few children, and then set their plans for the future. Many married couples plan out exactly how many children they are going to have before they're even married and they refuse to have children after a certain age- 33-35 being a popular cut off. I'm sure I will one day do the same, because I am unfortunately a product of my generation and I want to enjoy my golden years without having to worry about college tuition and other horrible expenses. Contrarily, look at your family, where you truly learned the function of a democratic system. There was no time for individuality and personal gripes. The family always came first, and I believe, as you said, it paid off tremendously for you. Can we actually teach and model for children selflessness if there is only one or two of them, guaranteeing they will receive their own room, bike, clothes, TV, DVD player, computer, etc? I did not grow up in a large family, even though my mother wanted more children, but I still was forced to share a room with my brothers until I 16 and we only had one TV where we watched it together, and I, being the youngest, wore all of their clothes, especially when I was younger. Now, some may argue that this was purely financial, but I disagree. My family was not destitute; we had enough money to live in a nice safe neighborhood, and attend quality schools, and even take a nice vacation once a year because of the generosity of our larger extended family. I truly believe my mother was teaching my brothers and me the value of frugality and the danger of materialism; the importance of sharing and the peril of isolation; and the benefit of altruism and the detriment of egoism. There were lessons being taught here at a very young age that I am now finally coming to appreciate when I see the level of self-centeredness in today's culture.

The other reason for large families of the past was religion. Pro-creation was a staple of the church and for many Catholic Immigrant families, who were coming from absolutely nothing and now finally had money with running water and an extra bedroom or two, it made sense to have 8-12 kids. You mention that this growth of population could be a spiritual renewal, and I hope it is one if it emphasizes the selfless ideals I discussed above. Thanks for the thoughts!

[Soc. Rates]

I worry that (possibly being a minor logical fallacy) if one of the reasons posed by the article for a decline in birth rates is an increase in wealth, does an increase in birth rates perhaps mirror an overall decrease in wealth? Perhaps the state of the economy has a negative correlation with our reproductive exploits beyond the scope of our own conscious decision making.
Recently, I've begun reading a fantastic work, THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE by Howard Bloom that, among tackling modern conceptions of "evil" in society, makes the claim that the individual is merely a piece of a larger puzzle. Humans are "unwitting cells..." formed together making a larger "social organism." In addition, he postulates that such instincts as cowardice, fear, and panic, which have been known to freeze a person when in the face of danger, are not genetic evolutions that are meant to maintain individual human existence, but instead "all too often, it is the social unit, not the individual, whose survival comes first.(7)." I ask you this, perhaps, in lieu of individual comfort and success, perhaps humans still subscribe to the procreation and improvement of their own species first and foremost. This increase in birth rates is perhaps the species anticipating hard times coming in the future.

[James dugan]

I have to side with Soc. Rates over Edmonds in their arguments. First of all, there were both great comments that represented thought and I appreciate you taking the time.

Though I agree with a kind of selfishness that inhabits American culture, I do not think that fully permeates European cultures. We value children for what they can offer to our lives, not necessary what we can offer them. Your mom taught valuable lessons in frugality and priorities and that created a stronger character. But I wonder how many Americans stop having children because they can not provide for them the finer things, like their own TV, Sketcher sneakers, and Disney trips? I know some do, but I think the majority have children and then go into debt providing the materialism because they feel guilt and are trying to overcompensate. Your brothers or any sibling is the greatest gift we can offer to our children, yet I see this undervalued or underutilized. I think you may be totally right when it comes to America.

Now for Soc. Rates, I am just enamoured with the idea that biological or genetic societal influences are shaping our action and inaction. I have to read that book. You said that having less children may be a natural sign of a genetic inclination that is "calling it quits". This may be like Edmonds suggests that it could be a faulty life style or too individualistic choices that harm the social unit or say, the human race. It would be natural for a human to cut off or stop producing or doing something if it would endanger the organism. This may be the reason for the smaller birth rates of developed nations that continue to pollute and horde most of the resources needed for the human race, especially when they are a small minority. The rise of births may be a result of the genetic calamity that is facing some branches and the survival instict is kicking in, though clearly weakened and heading for eventual extinction.

America for some time have been considering these ideas with China becoming a larger economic power, Russia and Canada being larger land masses, and Brazil becoming an economic powerhouse in our backyard. We are Americans, but the fate of the nation will determine our future. It is cool to think about us being part of something so large, like the human race or planet earth, and our actions are subconsciously controlled by something we may have no consciousness of.

Thanks again.