Childless and Happy

A wave of pretty odd demographic hysteria seems to me to be sweeping across certain precincts of the country lately, a wave whose prophesies of economic doom in particular strike me as curiously unsupported by any kind of vaguely rigorous models or anything. So I appreciate all efforts to calm people down. That said, Ron Bailey's article on how being childless doesn't make people unhappy seemed to me to be a bit wide of the mark insofar as it didn't take into account the perspective of old people at all.

Whatever else raising children may be, it's also an expensive and time consuming pain in the ass that sharply limits your flexibility to do a variety of things for a large number of years. One can easily imagine the joys of parenthood being roughly offset by the burdens. But later in life, having a solid relationship with grownup kids and their children seems low-cost and hard-to-replace. Loneliness is very hard on people. To acknowledge that reality isn't to say we need to get all freaked out if the norm moves from 2-3 kids per family to 1-2 kids per family.

Comments

Hi Matt -- while I find eudaimonic arguments about childrearing interesting, I find "odd demographic hysteria" even more interesting. Any possibility you could insert a link to an example of the demographic hysteria you're talking about? Am I right assume it's some version of "the upper middle class is failing to reproduce itself" hysteria?

Posted by Ted | February 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Your link to the study on women relates only to women in their fifties. That means teenagers, who are notoriously hard on parents. Your link to the study on men is to an English study. The English as a culture do not like or relate to children well. They're very different from Americans.

Posted by Bloix | February 27, 2008 5:32 PM

Excuse me, not your links, Bailey's links.

Posted by Bloix | February 27, 2008 5:34 PM

But later in life, having a solid relationship with grownup kids and their children seems low-cost and hard-to-replace

As the old joke goes, "If I'd known grandkids were this much fun, I'd have had them FIRST!"

I have a 20-month old daughter, and let me assure you that her grandparents get a hell of a lot more happiness out of her than I do!

Posted by j.e.b. | February 27, 2008 5:42 PM

Oh, okay. I finally read the link you *did* include, and it explains the "odd demographic hysteria," I suppose.

Your argument about old age is a good one, but a lot does depend on the nature of the relationship between parents and children. For instance, what if they never call, they never write?

My private suspicion is that, over time, daughters probably pay a net happiness dividend, whereas sons are pretty much a happiness sink. God help us if it ever gets to be cheap to determine the sex of your offspring; people who know what's good for them will choose F and we'll have a 75% female society.

Posted by Ted | February 27, 2008 5:45 PM

Yeah, it's another outbreak of the race suicide meme that's been kicking around for, what, centuries now? Going under the name of "Demographic Winter" these days. All that history does set up the elegant rebuttal, "Are we living in thrall to the brutish papist hordes? No, we are not living in thrall to the brutish papist hordes."

That said, the more sophisticated purveyors of this stuff do have some point: even if every major population group eventually drops to a Western birth rate, the ones that do it last will enter the endgame with a significant numerical advantage. Still, even then, it oversimplifies in presenting memetic reproduction as coextensive with and exclusive to genetic reproduction. Which is to say, it underestimates the way in which us childless, party-of-death elites are perfectly capable of sustaining our position by seducing and co-opting the breeders' kids.

But even that's overthinking things, really. The appeal of "Demographic Winter", as with all its predecessors, is that it provides a relatively plausible "or else" to the "carry out God's will (as I understand it) or else" construction, for the benefit of those too human to put all their eggs in the afterlife/Kingdom-of-God basket.

Posted by Senescent | February 27, 2008 5:49 PM

I'll take an exception to Ted's analysis and declare that boys are probably a net plus as far as happiness is concerned. So far (and probably forever) I have only boys, one who will be enter his teenage years soon. Both have been tremendous joys, but I can also imagine the same with girls. At least I can breathe a sigh of relief in the belief that my boys will bring less headaches in their adolescence than daughters. But I digress. I didn't realize before parenthood how much of a joy children are. At least for me, my life wouldn't have been complete without them.

Posted by Pan | February 27, 2008 5:51 PM

Here is a pretty good response to much of this demographic hysteria.

Posted by Peter | February 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Here is a pretty good response to much of this demographic hysteria.

Posted by Peter | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM

Bloix,

Your link to the study on women relates only to women in their fifties. That means teenagers, who are notoriously hard on parents.

No, it doesn't mean teenagers. The sample included women who had children at a variety of ages. The piece states that "Women who gave birth early, before age 19, reported being least happy." The children of those women would be in their thirties by the time the women were in their fifties.

The Time piece that Bailey links to reports that: "Economists have modeled the impact of many variables on people's overall happiness and have consistently found that children have only a small impact. A small negative impact."

Your link to the study on men is to an English study. The English as a culture do not like or relate to children well.

And your evidence for this claim is what? The British fertility rate appears to be somewhat higher than the average for developed nations, which doesn't exactly suggest that "The English as a culture do not like or relate to children well." Maybe you've been watching too much Masterpiece Theater.

"Children should be neither seen, nor heard."

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM

"Stumbling On Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert has a great section on having children and happiness. Turns out we have kind of a cognitive dissonance towards having kids as a species-survival deal.

Posted by eglenn | February 27, 2008 6:00 PM

Ted, you say when it's easy to sex select our offspring "people who know what's good for them will choose F and we'll have a 75% female society."

I'm having trouble with your arithmetic. Just what percentage of people DO you think "know what's good for them"? On my most positive and good will filled days I don't think it’s over 15%, tops. Won't most of "the ususal gang of idiots" chose M?--Jay C. Smith

Posted by Jay C. Smith | February 27, 2008 6:00 PM

For those who hope for a 75% female society...

Imagine the world were 75% female, and you wanted to have a kid. Would you want to bring a daughter into that kind of a world? A world where she would have to compete tooth and nail to find a mate (a mate who would probably have other mates at the same time)?

No, you probably wouldn't. And so we're back to 50-50...

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 27, 2008 6:07 PM

"Whatever else raising children may be, it's also an expensive and time consuming pain in the ass that sharply limits your flexibility to do a variety of things for a large number of years."

I take exception to that. I know my wife and I are lucky in our child, but she has never ever been a burden to us in her 19 years, and we could not imagine our lives without her.

Pain in the ass - well, occasionally, but then so am I.

Posted by wvng | February 27, 2008 6:07 PM

From what I have read on this subject, probably the best hedge on your happiness bets is to get married late, and have one child even later if you feel like it. Maybe two if you really liked the first one (and are introspective enough to know if you really liked the first one).

By the way, my general answer to all this low birth rate handwringing is to point out that people really could be working a lot longer these days. Not me, of course--I plan to delay some gratification, save a bunch, and retire early. And yes, I realize I am counting on too few people saving enough, since if we all did, it wouldn't solve the problem.

Posted by DTM | February 27, 2008 6:10 PM

WVNG's comment illustrates the fact that birth control - which fundamentally decouples sex and childbearing - will eventually bias evolution toward people who intrinsically enjoy raising kids.

Very interesting.

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 27, 2008 6:13 PM

Your argument about old age is a good one, but a lot does depend on the nature of the relationship between parents and children. For instance, what if they never call, they never write?

That was my reaction too. How much contact do old people generally have with their children and grandchildren? I think the old are mostly seen by the young as boring and burdensome. For most kids and teens, their grandparents may be a nice source of cash or gifts, but not people they want to hang out with much. There are lots of exceptions, I'm sure. But in general, spending time with one's elderly parents or grandparents doesn't seem to be particularly popular.

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 6:19 PM

"Maybe two if you really liked the first one (and are introspective enough to know if you really liked the first one)."

Funny, we're exactly the opposite. Our 18 month-old daughter is so much fun (happy, pretty, very well-behaved, with an amazing sense of humor) that we're leaning towards not having any more because he/she couldn't possibly live up the the example that his/her big sister set.

Posted by Joe | February 27, 2008 6:29 PM

WVNG's comment illustrates the fact that birth control - which fundamentally decouples sex and childbearing - will eventually bias evolution toward people who intrinsically enjoy raising kids.

Birth control doesn't decouple sex from childbearing, people do. Birth control facilitates the process.

And, by the way, men don't have to "decouple" through birth control. They've decoupled from childbearing the old fashion way for a long time.

Posted by Freddie | February 27, 2008 6:30 PM

I'm relieved to see that several people have poked convincing holes in my vision of a 75% female future. But now there's this!

Mr. Noah: birth control - which fundamentally decouples sex and childbearing - will eventually bias evolution toward people who intrinsically enjoy raising kids.

I can see no way around this irrefutable dystopian logic. We're going to be overrun. By other-directed altruists, or people with an overdeveloped sense of cuteness, or both.

The future is looking dark, my friends.

Posted by Ted | February 27, 2008 6:32 PM

It is interesting to note that the people who cry foul about a population dearth are also social conservatives who detest women's rights, abortion, gay rights, relaxation of sexual taboos, etc. Social liberals, who are for that, tend to think population dearth are exaggerated or completely wrong (i.e. population bomb).

I suspect that these pre-determined social views have more impact on what side of the coin you are than people let on.

Posted by Babbler | February 27, 2008 6:33 PM

Having kids tends to change who you hang out with. And all that free time is now kid-centric. Yeah, and it costs a boatload. But the ages from 2-6 or so are truly golden. At least they were for this dad. And all the other years have been pretty damn good as well. But as the only breeder in the family I cannot lay claim to being happier, only different.

Posted by Nat | February 27, 2008 6:38 PM

Funny, we're exactly the opposite. Our 18 month-old daughter is so much fun (happy, pretty, very well-behaved, with an amazing sense of humor) that we're leaning towards not having any more because he/she couldn't possibly live up the the example that his/her big sister set.

Heh. My wife and I feel the same way about our son.

Posted by Al | February 27, 2008 6:38 PM

Ted,

Is your use of "eudaimonic" a tribute to the late William F. Buckley, who was known for his prodigious vocabulary? Nice touch.

Matt's point about the benefits of having children for old people is, IMO, exemplified by the trend of Jewish spinsters in Manhattan to adopt little girls from China. This way, they will have someone to care about them (if not for them) in their old age. There could also be a utilitarian benefit here, as their daughters will grow up to offer some (high-IQ) genetic diversity to the Jewish dating pool in New York, helping to keep diseases such as Tay-Sachs at bay.

Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 6:40 PM

Mixner,

I think you drastically overstate the case here. First, the grandkids may eventually not "hang out" with the grandparents but that comes much later. From infant until roughly the beginning of the teens, children usually don't mind hanging with the grandparents and many like to because they are typically more spoiled at grandpa and grandma's than at home.

Second, the adult kids who have a good relationship with their elderly parents will interact with them quite often such as Sunday dinners, (forgive the gender typing) shopping with mom and outdoor, sport events or other activities with dad.

Granted these are not every day occurrences but they do not have to be to give a significant boost to one's happiness in the golden years. Even an elderly person with limited contact with his kids and grandkids (holidays, special events) who often feels depressed and neglected that contact is so infrequent may be far happier and more satisfied than the childless old person. The person with few and far between contact gets something but the childless individual gets nothing and may deeply regret that fact.

Don't forget that the elderly spend a great deal of time with each other (the one group least likely to be bored by the old) and so most have friends and every day activities apart from their grown kids and grandkids. But controlling for the satisfaction of those activities, I would bet the ranch that childless elderly are less happy and satisfied than their breeding peers. And I am just talking about the ones that never had kids, obviously not the ones who had offspring that died before them.

Posted by UofAZGrad | February 27, 2008 6:41 PM

Re: WVNG's comment illustrates the fact that birth control - which fundamentally decouples sex and childbearing - will eventually bias evolution toward people who intrinsically enjoy raising kids.

Except of course that "enjoying children" is not a genetic trait and so cannot be inherited. Don't believe me? Here's an example close to home. My father was one of six children. Of those six children were born 2 children, 3 children, 5 children, 2 children, 0 children and 0 children respectively. In other words none of my father's generation of siblings matched their parents' total, and only one came close. That also disproves any notion that large families culturally influence their offspring to have large families.

Posted by JonF | February 27, 2008 6:57 PM

One thing I have to add as well that applies mostly to Grandmothers. I've seen this personally quite often and I have no doubt that statistics will bear this out. When the first grandchild is born there is not only an enormous amount of happiness for the first grandchild but also an extended period of time where the grandparent is indispensable to their adult child while he/she is learning the ropes of parenthood.

I would say that this period of time is a very happy and satisfying for most new grandparents who get to enjoy a newborn as well as the position of respect and deference that comes from someone constantly asking for your advice and opinion. It does not last to be sure, but however you measure happiness it has to include extended periods of sustained joy and relevance. And, again, however long it lasts, the childless folks never get to experience this Renaissance.

Posted by UofAZGrad | February 27, 2008 6:58 PM

Grad,

Some data would be nice. Even if young kids like going to grandma's house, grandma may not get to seem them much if they live in a different city or state. And I am skeptical that infrequent contact with family would do much to increase grandma's happiness. It seems to me that things like having a husband or partner, a circle of regular friends, being in good health, and having activities that keep her busy are likely to be much more important.

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 6:59 PM

I am childless and happy. Most of the people in history who I admire were also childless. A preference for solitude is rare in Anglophone culture compared to nearly all the others; but there are still plenty of us who do prefer it and are not wrong to prefer it or unhappy.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 27, 2008 7:12 PM

UofAZGrad -

That would be true for grandparents who have the kind of relationships with their children that would lead them to be seen as a source of advice. I would guess that there are plenty of new parents whose thoughts are more along the lines of "I hope I don't screw up this kid as bad as my parents screwed me up."

Posted by Ted | February 27, 2008 7:15 PM

I'm not overly worried. I've got 4 godchildren and some 24 cousins who are rather procreative - that should suffice if I ever get the urge to mind children.

Posted by novakant | February 27, 2008 7:36 PM

Ted,

I quote you Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." Also, even if believe your parents "screwed you up" because they did this, that or the other thing. Those are memories you have of parental choices made when you were out of toddlerhood.

A newborn is a whole different animal and even someone who doesn't know a thing about giving a child proper self-esteem can show you the trick to burping a crying infant. There are simply hundreds of practical things you will not know as a new parent that someone with experience (even if they are otherwise a bad parent) will know.

Of course, we are just talking in averages here and many counterexamples exist on both sides. But I think the overwhelming majority of people turn to their living parents for help and advice when they become new parents. Not the only source of help and advice to be sure. It is something I have personally witnessed and while I cannot provide a single point of data to support my suppositions I would not hesitate to bet a great deal on my impressions. What's the over/under on grandparent satisfaction with a newborn?

Posted by UofAZGrad | February 27, 2008 7:44 PM

Why is the chance for loneliness greater when you are older. I have a great relationship and have no kids and do not want them. I turn 37 in March. I plan enjoying my life in the same way at 70 as
I do now. It is likely my significant other will die long before that because she has a heart defect. I will find keep finding friends and exploring interest until I die, and children do not need to play any roll.

I'm happy for those who like having kids but the idea that kids make someone happy is similar to the idea that having religion makes someone happy. You put yourself in a position to be happy or no.

Posted by Gully | February 27, 2008 7:45 PM

Except of course that "enjoying children" is not a genetic trait and so cannot be inherited. Don't believe me? Here's an example close to home.

Except that anecdotes prove nothing. ;-)

If there's absolutely zero genetic component to enjoying child-rearing, then you're right...in the short term, at least. But who's to say no mutation will emerge that makes people enjoy being around kids more? The lower fertility rates get, the more statistical pressure there is on nature to produce such a mutation.

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 27, 2008 7:52 PM

Everyone wants a baby...nobody wants children (especially teenagers)....everyone wants grandchildren.

Posted by robertl | February 27, 2008 8:14 PM

"having a solid relationship with grownup kids"

hahahahahahaha - yeah like that's common.

Hey - I like kids, and would be happy to have my own (but and 40 I'm not holding my breath) but I don't believe in anyway that children are a source of happiness any more than marriage is. Happiness is your own damn responsibility - don't expect it or require it from others.

Posted by girlarchitect | February 27, 2008 8:14 PM

Funny, we're exactly the opposite. Our 18 month-old daughter is so much fun (happy, pretty, very well-behaved, with an amazing sense of humor) that we're leaning towards not having any more because he/she couldn't possibly live up the the example that his/her big sister set.

---

Heh. My wife and I feel the same way about our son.

So do we! Some days.

But to Matthew Yglesias: spoken like someone who doesn't have kids. Pain in the ass "roughly offset" by happiness? You're clueless, man. So was I once. Raising a child is easily the most meaningful and fulfilling thing life has to offer. If nothing else, it makes you appreciate what your parents did (or didn't do) for you.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:17 PM

Bill,

Raising a child is easily the most meaningful and fulfilling thing life has to offer.

For you, maybe. For most other parents, apparently not.

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 8:26 PM

girlarchitect writes:

I don't believe in anyway that children are a source of happiness any more than marriage is. Happiness is your own damn responsibility - don't expect it or require it from others.

It's of course very true that children aren't a "source" of happiness in the sense of simple cause and effect (have kids, get happiness). No reasonably involved parent would dream of framing it as you suggest (i.e. "require" happiness from their kids). What children undoubtedly do provide, or rather demand, though, is a new perspective on one's own life, sense of self, sense of purpose, ego, etc. Everyone crosses that threshold when they have a child. Bad parents try to pretend they haven't and cling to their old selves; good parents embrace the change and discover a kind of fulfillment that wasn't possible for them before. they may have been moved in other ways, but not in this particular way. Being moved is not to be equated with being happy, but it's certainly an opportunity.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:33 PM

Matt:

Well said.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 27, 2008 8:36 PM

For you, maybe. For most other parents, apparently not.

Most? I dunno, I'm not as cynical as that. Whether one finds it meaningful or not in the positive sense, it's undeniably meaningful in the literal, neutral sense. Having a child means an awful lot, is fraught with meaning -- you've brought a life, unasked, into the world who is totally utterly dependent on you for survival and anything good it can hope to get. Nothing else duplicates the responsibilities and (potential) rewards of parenthood. And nothing else can make you appreciate your own parents fully.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:38 PM

Mixner nails it.

Bill, as a parent, I know where you're coming from, but the sense of know-it-all-ness that you're giving off must really put off those who can't or don't want to try having kids.

Posted by Barry | February 27, 2008 8:41 PM

Having kids has to be a net negative for most of the population. Lost $$$$. Lost time. Lost personal extracurricular activities and development. Like Matt says, a pain in the ass. And what is this talk of needing or wanting them around in old age? You don't have friends? People you can bowl with, play cards with, laugh and drink and carouse with? Travel, sail, bike, climb mountains, go on cruises, attend sport events with? You have to have people around 20-30-40 years your junior to enjoy life? Geez, give me a break. You really relate to someone that gives you a blank stare when you ask "Guess who died today? William F Buckley."?

Posted by steve duncan | February 27, 2008 8:42 PM

Having kids has to be a net negative for most of the population. Lost $$$$. Lost time. Lost personal extracurricular activities and development. Like Matt says, a pain in the ass. And what is this talk of needing or wanting them around in old age? You don't have friends? People you can bowl with, play cards with, laugh and drink and carouse with? Travel, sail, bike, climb mountains, go on cruises, attend sport events with? You have to have people around 20-30-40 years your junior to enjoy life? Geez, give me a break. You really relate to someone that gives you a blank stare when you ask "Guess who died today? William F Buckley."?

And yet, someone took the time to raise you (presumably).

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:45 PM

Bill, as a parent, I know where you're coming from, but the sense of know-it-all-ness that you're giving off must really put off those who can't or don't want to try having kids.

Au contraire, it's the people without kidswho are acting like off-putting know-it-alls, from my perspective. I don't know it all, but I certainly do know what it's like to both not have kids, and to have them.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:47 PM

And yet, someone took the time to raise you (presumably

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No Bill, wolves did it.

Posted by steve duncan | February 27, 2008 8:49 PM

Well, steve, that's at least a good deal cleverer than negating your own existence by essentially accusing the people who brought you into the world and raised you into the intelligent interlocutor you are today, of acting against the interests of society.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 8:54 PM

Bill, I think the "interests of society" might be best served if about 99% of the population skipped having children for one generation. The species would survive albeit in vastly reduced numbers. The stress on the planet would be relieved. Staring at the passage of peak oil would be moot. I'm sure there are probably dozens of negative ramifications to such an event but again, the species would survive. And no, I don't view my parents having brought me into the world and raising me to be some sort of gift or service to society. It just happened. Dumb luck for me. Glad to be here. Be gone again soon enough. So what.

Posted by steve duncan | February 27, 2008 9:02 PM

Most? I dunno, I'm not as cynical as that.

Yes, most. It has nothing to do with cynicism. It just requires you to abandon the arrogance of insisting that your personal experience is representative of parents in general. The scientific evidence that has been cited here suggests that, far from being "the most meaningful and fulfilling thing life has to offer," having children usually has only have a small effect on happiness, and a negative one.

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 9:13 PM

Ah, a starry-eyed idealist. Maybe you should devote your mental exertions to more practical implementable solutions, over the "skip a generation" brainstorm.

And no, I don't view my parents having brought me into the world and raising me to be some sort of gift or service to society.

Neither, I'm sure, do they, nor do I. It isn't what I meant to suggest, at any rate.

It just happened. Dumb luck for me. Glad to be here. Be gone again soon enough. So what.

Well, this wasn't a metaphysical discussion, just a back and forth about the supposed benefits of experiencing parenthood. But come on, it's only "so what" when you're the only person concerned. You aren't. If your parents loved you enough to raise you, then chances are they'd also give up their lives for you. So what indeed. Would you do the same for anyone else? If you had kids, you would, and you'd have a new perspective on their "so what."

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 9:16 PM

Yes, most. It has nothing to do with cynicism. It just requires you to abandon the arrogance of insisting that your personal experience is representative of parents in general. The scientific evidence that has been cited here suggests that, far from being "the most meaningful and fulfilling thing life has to offer," having children usually has only have a small effect on happiness, and a negative one.

Meaningful and fulfilling are synonyms to happiness. Sorry if I implied they were; you shouldn't either. "Happiness" is a silly, vaporous concept. Yes, let's all measure our day-to-day contentment levels and then extrapolate about some profound and agonizing responsibility like raising children. right back at you with the arrogance charge.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 9:20 PM

Um, I meant AREN'T synonyms.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 9:22 PM

I had one kid who was awesome and we waited 3 years and then worked on having a second.

First, I think 4 years apart is great separation. Second, we'd probably be thinking about a third right now (our daughter is 3) if not for other issues.

Posted by dbt | February 27, 2008 9:23 PM

"But later in life, having a solid relationship with grownup kids and their children seems low-cost and hard-to-replace. Loneliness is very hard on people."

Given the prospect that even the most decent adult children are liable to sell you out to the nearest nursing home at the earliest possible opportunity can they reasonably be said to be a more fulfilling investment than a couple of new dirt bikes, a properly tweaked 4x4, a Maserati 3500 Spyder in immaculate condition? If you go into the woods with a Buck Mark and a tin pan you will almost always find gold - at least around here. Is my little niece smiling at me because she likes me or because she just shit her pants?

Posted by Linus | February 27, 2008 9:24 PM

Is my little niece smiling at me because she likes me or because she just shit her pants?

Talk about completely missing the point.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 9:30 PM

and this:

Given the prospect that even the most decent adult children are liable to sell you out to the nearest nursing home at the earliest possible opportunity can they reasonably be said to be a more fulfilling investment...

Does it strike you as at all odd that you're assessing parenthood in entirely materialistic terms?

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 9:33 PM

Re: The lower fertility rates get, the more statistical pressure there is on nature to produce such a mutation.

If nature is sufficiently god-like as to produce mutations to order, then perhaps Nature also realizes that there are too many humans on the planet as it is and will conspire to keep our fertility dropping. (That's not entirely a snark: excess populations do tend to show fertility drop-offs; what's happening with humans these days is entirely natural and normal even if we don't entirely understand the mechanisms)

Meanwhile, desire alone does not lead to children. Several other factors must mesh, notably one's biological fertility (many people simply aren't that fertile and have to work really hard at having kids-- though doubtless the working is fun!) And you also have to have the material wherewithal to afford to bring kids up. Indeed, this latter factor, something uniquely modern as children were one a net economic plus for a family, works strongly against large families perpetuating the pattern over generations, as they would rapidly exhaust by subdivision any inheritances and be unable to provide subsequent offspring with the sorts of advantages (e.g., college educations) that would enable them to climb high enough on the income ladder to afford large families themselves.
And are there any examples out there of large families perpetuating themselves generation after generation? If so, the effect should have swamped the entire human population long ago and we should all be genetically disposed to having large families. But obviously, we are not.

Re: I will find keep finding friends and exploring interest until I die, and children do not need to play any roll.

A caution to young people who imagine they can have the same sort of social life indefinitely. You can't. I'm forty and I'm learning this lesson even though I'm gay and my demographic is famous for its socialibility. Making friends gets harder and harder as you grow older. For one thing, many people your age will be busy with their spouses, careers and, yes, children.

Posted by JonF | February 27, 2008 9:35 PM

Bill,

You have presented no evidence that raising a child is "the most meaningful and fulfilling thing life has to offer" for anyone but yourself. The evidence that has been cited here suggests that having children tends to decrease people's happiness. While that may be "meaningful" (in the same way that, say, a toothache is "meaningful"), I doubt most people would claim to be "fulfilled" to any degree by a loss of happiness.

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 9:40 PM

Bill,

This newly minted dad is with you. Your line about having a new appreciation for your own parents rang true for me.

Cheers.

Posted by mantooth | February 27, 2008 9:44 PM

Well, Mixner, no doubt you and I are both filtering the "evidence" through our own predispositions. you're right, I don't present evidence (though I have a lifetime of the anecdotal variety). I certainly am of the opinion there are far too many terrible parents in the world, who could only be made less happy by the responsibility of kids.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 9:45 PM

I'm amused by the demographic distribution on this comment thread. I think it's running about 50% people with children, and 50% people without.

Surely a greater proportion of adults in society at large have had children (or grandchildren)? But, presumably, they tend not to have time to post comments on political blogs at 9 p.m.!

Posted by Ted | February 27, 2008 9:57 PM

The difference between 2 to 3 children and 1 to 2 children is the difference between a stable population and long term extinction. Sounds like a big deal to me. The matter of fact ignorance of you non-quants is simply breathtaking. Of course, there is considerable variation in TFR's across the population: hip, edgy, urbanites like Matt and Megan with their 600 sq. ft. apartments and their cats are the "Shakers" of our age, while the future belongs to the Mormons, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews. Mazel Tov!

Posted by Exponential Decline | February 27, 2008 10:16 PM

Bronze-age tribes, small bands of humans in a huge and hostile world, longed for continuous increase in population and dominion. The bronze age is two thousand years dead, but the fossilized ideas of those days still direct and motivate many people today.

The living world cannot afford the human population that already exists. Far better to increase our efforts to educate and empower the women of Muslim societies, of patriarchal societies of all religions, of our own society; for when this is done, birth rates fall to replacement levels or below. Not always, but often enough.

Posted by joel hanes | February 27, 2008 10:34 PM

"Exponential Decline" professes to be worried about human numbers inexorably declining toward extinction due to insufficient reproduction. I don't see that as a problem we're actually facing at this moment; rather the reverse. And somehow I'm confident that if the continent ever starts seeming empty, large families will once more be in vogue.

Posted by joel hanes | February 27, 2008 10:41 PM

The difference between 2 to 3 children and 1 to 2 children is the difference between a stable population and long term extinction. Sounds like a big deal to me.

It might be a big deal if it continued over the long term, meaning many decades. And it might be a big deal in certain countries after a shorter period of time, not because of the risk of "extinction," but for demographic reasons. Some developed countries with TFRs below replacement level are already taking steps to encourage their citizens to have more children. But over the long term, who knows what will happen? Maybe in 50 years medical science will have advanced to the point where average life expectancy has reached 150, and a TFR of 1 to 2 would start looking a lot more attractive.

Posted by Mixner | February 27, 2008 10:44 PM

"The living world cannot afford the human population that already exists."

Nonsense.

"Far better to increase our efforts to educate and empower the women of Muslim societies"

What did you have in mind specifically? Translating the Feministing blog into Arabic? Building Halal abortion clinics in our Gulf protectorates?

Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 10:52 PM

I just re-watched Ron Howard's movie "Parenthood" for like the 4th time the other nite, and there are perhaps only a couple of comments on this thread that make points that aren't touched upon in it in profound ways. I think it's a highly underrated movie, a work of genius masquerading under a popular audience lite veneer. The overrall message, the ending especially, is skewed family=happiness and even stresses the point Matt is trying to make, but it is very balanced, it goes deeply into the "hellish stresses" roller coaster side as well. The recommendation is coming from someone whose a bit more prejudiced to the "hellish" interpretation, as I'm not a roller coaster fan, grew up the eldest of 5 sibs under bickering parents (themselves from families of 7 sibs each) and there's only 1 grandchild, now mid twenties in age herself.

Posted by artappraiser | February 27, 2008 11:00 PM

We're coming perilously close to fishing out the oceans.
Our atmospheric effluent is pushing us into a vast experiment in global climactic change.
These seem like affordability signposts to me.
There are others.

As for empowering women: I think that teaching girls to read would be a good start, in the places where that's currently not common. In our own society, I think that the process has become robust and self-reinforcing.

Posted by joel hanes | February 27, 2008 11:06 PM

Mixner says . . .

"Maybe in 50 years medical science will have advanced to the point where average life expectancy has reached 150, and a TFR of 1 to 2 would start looking a lot more attractive."

Please take to heart my snarky comment about non-quants and pick up a math book or do a Sudoku or something. Or maybe try a simple exercise: add 2 fractions by hand, then check your work with a calculator. I have every confidence.

To your larger point: the equilibrium TFR (about 2.1 for developed countries) is essentially independent of life expectancy. I mean, you could lower it from 2.1 to 2 (the absolute lower bound) by raising to 1 the probability that a woman reaches child bearing age, but this would have a tiny impact on life expectancy. And what kind of world would this be anyway? With a rapidly aging population and a barren farm system: one enormous gomerfest stuffed with Rio Rancho mature (but active) "adults only" golf communities. Sweet.

Posted by Exponential Decline | February 27, 2008 11:17 PM

As a parent of 2 children under the age of 3, I have to say it's a gigantic pain in the ass, but I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. I come down on Bill's side of this.

artappraiser,

I love that movie. It was great when I saw it as a child, and it's even better since I've become a parent.

Grandma: You know, when I was nineteen, Grandpa took me on a roller coaster.

Gil: Oh?

Grandma: Up, down, up, down. Oh, what a ride!

Gil: What a great story.....[clearly wasting his time]

Grandma: I always wanted to go again. You know, it was just so interesting to me that a ride could make me feel so frightened, so sick, so excited, so scared, so safe, and so thrilled, altogether! Some didn't like it. They wanted to go on the merry-go-round. That just goes around. Nothing. I like the roller coaster. You get more out of it. Well, I'll be seeing you in the car. [leaves]

Karen: Your Grandmother is a very smart lady.

Gil: Yeah, a minute ago I was confused about life. Then Grandma came in with her wonderful and effecting roller coaster story. Now everything is great again.

Karen: I happen to LIKE the roller coaster, okay? As far as I'm concerned, your grandmother is brilliant.

Gil: Yeah if she's so brilliant why is she sitting in our NEIGHBOR'S CAR?!

Finally, for those with demographic nightmares, you'll be happy to know that we are currently in a baby boomlet

Bucking the trend in many other wealthy industrialized nations, the United States seems to be experiencing a baby boomlet, reporting the largest number of children born in 45 years.

The nearly 4.3 million births in 2006 were mostly due to a bigger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics. That group accounted for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. births. But non-Hispanic white women and other racial and ethnic groups were having more babies, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22670983/

Posted by Just Karl | February 28, 2008 12:10 AM

Exponential Decline,

No, a total fertility rate of 1 to 2 would not produce extinction- where do you get that from? It would produce a temporary population decline which would continue until the fertility rate rose above replacement level again. (By the way, replacement level on a global level is actually 2.35, not 2.1).

It's an widely observed truth in studying living organisms that birth rates are higher when population density decreases, and lower when population density is high. Populations are generally modeled by either a logistic curve (in which fertility decreases with increasing population) or by oscillating cycles in which fertility is also density dependent. Fertility rates tend to vary in such a way to push the population towards its carrying capacity. It looks like you're the one here who needs some quantitative training. Please read an introductory population ecology textbook.

Posted by Hector | February 28, 2008 12:50 AM

"The nearly 4.3 million births in 2006 were mostly due to a bigger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics. That group accounted for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. births."

Oh, that sounds promising: your Social Security checks will depend on tax receipts collected from those children of the second-lowest achieving ethnic group in America. How will high school dropouts, busboys, and landscapers afford to pay for the pensions of retired white collar workers? Methinks the welfare state will suddenly get less popular among Hispanics when they starting having to pay for it.

Posted by Harry | February 28, 2008 12:53 AM

Exponential,

Please take to heart my snarky comment about non-quants and pick up a math book or do a Sudoku or something.

Okay. Then please take to heart my serious comment that you don't know what you're talking about.

To your larger point: the equilibrium TFR (about 2.1 for developed countries) is essentially independent of life expectancy.

Assuming "equilibrium TFR" is supposed to mean the TFR required to maintain a stable population size over a particular period of time, it obviously varies according to average life expectancy. Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by Mixner | February 28, 2008 1:11 AM

Re: The difference between 2 to 3 children and 1 to 2 children is the difference between a stable population and long term extinction.

If that trend continued indefinitely, maybe. But does anyone really think this small family trend will continue for generations, let alone centuries? The world just doesn't work that way.

Re: Bronze-age tribes, small bands of humans in a huge and hostile world, longed for continuous increase in population and dominion.

I'm not sure this is true. In the past people tended to have large families because they wanted to be sure that at least some children would survive. For most of history the childhood mortality ranged from 1/2 to 2/3. That's a pretty strong motivator for having six kids.

Re: I think that teaching girls to read would be a good start, in the places where that's currently not common.

Are there are any countries where female illiteracy is much higher than general illiteracy? I'm not doubting that that is possible, but I've never heard such places mentioned in the modern world.

Re: With a rapidly aging population and a barren farm system: one enormous gomerfest stuffed with Rio Rancho mature (but active) "adults only" golf communities

If we are going to double or triple life expectancy one would hope that we also slow down aging. There would be little point to it if we all spend our last 70 years as 80 year olds. And you should do some math too: if life expectancies double or triple, that will cause an increase in the absolute numbers of living humans even if fertility is below replacement. Population numbers depend on both birth and death rates.

Re: Oh, that sounds promising: your Social Security checks will depend on tax receipts collected from those children of the second-lowest achieving ethnic group in America.

Someone is going to be making money and hence paying taxes whether it's Hispanic busboys or or some other group: Indian-American software engineers, maybe, or Chinese-American doctors?

Posted by JonF | February 28, 2008 6:43 AM

When I think of having children, I only seem to look at them in terms of how they will limit & reduce my young freedom (and I'm almost 28), but then I look at all the steps & sacrifices my own wonderful parents (who I have a great relationship with) took to bring me and my brother into this world and raise us and begin to feel incredibly guilty about that & I think rightly so.

Posted by DRR | February 28, 2008 6:59 AM

So 25 years ago everybody knew the population explosion was going to continue until we were all swamped in a mass of starving humanity, and now we know the place is collapsing till the last aging old coot looks over the ruins of humanity....

Prediction: 100 years from now, the FedWorldPopBu will analyze current trends, predict how many and what genetic types will be necessary; take cell samples from the calculated desired sections of the population, and produce the correct number of healthy happy babies from creches run by robot nannies.

Of course, since they'll be as good at predicting this as the current Fed, things will be as screwed up as ever....

Posted by MikeN | February 28, 2008 7:30 AM

When I think of having children, I only seem to look at them in terms of how they will limit & reduce my young freedom (and I'm almost 28), but then I look at all the steps & sacrifices my own wonderful parents (who I have a great relationship with) took to bring me and my brother into this world and raise us and begin to feel incredibly guilty about that & I think rightly so.

I don't think rightly so. Granted some parents want their kids to feel guilty, but your great relationship with yours no doubt discounts that possibility. You can't repay them, of course, but having kids would sort of put you on the same level with them. One of the more poignant aspects of parenting, hackneyed as it is to mention, is the asymmetry of feeling between parent and child. The child begins to appreciate the asymmetry more as he matures, but will never fully appreciate it until he has his own kids. Then you'll realize how much your parents actually love you - not because of how many sacrifices you'll be making, but because it just comes with the territory. You'll never love anything in the world as unconditionally as you will your own offspring, and I think going through life without experiencing that kind of love, by choice, is a missed opportunity. JMO.

Posted by Bill | February 28, 2008 7:37 AM

Bill - I'm with you 100% Once you have children, it changes your life. In my case, for the better.

Posted by Pan | February 28, 2008 8:08 AM

“Is your use of ‘eudaimonic’ a tribute to the late William F. Buckley, who was known for his prodigious vocabulary? Nice touch.”

Not it wasn't.

Matt is making a specifically hedonistic argument—and, in spite of various mistranslations (or misleading translations) of εὐδαιμονία as happiness, Aristotle's argument in Nicomachean Ethics depended upon εὐδαιμονία better understood as something more like "extended well-being". Matt is arguing that having children will leave one less lonely, and more happy, in one's senior years. That is a simple utility argument of pleasure.

Aristotle takes great pains to define eudaimonia as a very abstracted sense of well-being. For example, he asks: would you prefer that your distant descendants be happy rather than not? He tries to bring attention to bear upon the ways in which we can imagine something being better for our souls that go beyond the simple signals of pleasure, physical or emotional. That is εὐδαιμονία.

What's notable about Buckley's erudition and vast vocabulary was that he would have been unlikely to confuse Yglesias's argument as an “eudaimonic” argument, even were he to needlessly (as he often did) drop a five-dollar word and cultural reference into a conversation.

If you're going to do it, get it right. Not that Yglesias, though with his Harvard philosophy degree, was probably aware of this error by his commenter, Tim. Harvard's not quite what it was in Buckley's days. On the other hand, Buckley was a fascist-loving conservative and Matthew Yglesias is not. That's something.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | February 28, 2008 8:09 AM

Buckley of course went to Yale, so no surprise that he was far more erudite than Matt.

Posted by vanya | February 28, 2008 8:32 AM

Mixner:

Sorry dude, you're quite simply wrong. The TFR depends entirely on the probability that women get to and survive their child bearing years. Some sample TFR's will perhaps make the point,

USA = 2/.949 = 2.1
Tanzania = 2/.728 = 2.75
Germany = 2/.953 = 2.1
World = 2/.866 = 2.31

(Note: All figures from CIA website)

A hypothetical population in which everyone lives to age 15 with certainty, has exactly 2 children, then promptly dies will be stable, have a TFR of 2, and a life expectancy of about 17 years or so.

And yes, the lurid term "extinction" is an exaggeration. In fact, even populations with TFRs well below replacement will have sub-populations with robust TFRs, so the population will decline for awhile as the "Shaker" segment dies off before ultimately resuming its upward march. Like I said, the future belongs to groups like the Mormons, Evangelicals, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews rather than those presently perusing the style section of the NY Times.

Hector:

So you think that population growth vs. density experiments with bacteria and catfish and the like readily extrapolate to human behavior. Ok. Please tell me you don't work in pharmaceutical research. Thanks.

Posted by Exponential Decline | February 28, 2008 8:38 AM

A few random thoughts:

First, my wife and I are actually also in the position of having one child we absolutely adore (a son about to turn two), and we are wondering if it is a good idea to roll the dice again. We haven't made a decision, although I will note one of our considerations is whether we think our son would like a sibling (he seems like he might).

Second, it would obviously be overinterpreting these studies to conclude that on balance, all people would be better off not having children. There are clearly both good and bad aspects of having children (and a lot of the negative effects actually come from having the later children in multi-children scenarios), and the average net result is so close that it is very likely many people are on the net positive side. On the other hand, of course for the same reasons it is not the case that all people would be better off having children.

Accordingly, the problem as I see it is that it is hard to get good information in advance about on which side of this close issue you personally will fall. That is why I have concluded that the best approach is to delay the decision as long as practical, in order to give yourself as much time as possible to settle into a certain personality, relationship, and lifestyle, and then to introspect about how a child would or would not fit into your life in a beneficial way. And even if you then decide you want children, you likely should start with one child rather than committing to a plan to have multiple children.

Finally, the theoretical lower bound of the replacement rate is actually just over one, as long as that one is a girl (the "just over" part is for the very few boys that population would need to make this work). The reason the current number is just over two is because that is what we currently need to get the one girl.

But I really am not concerned anyway. Yes, in some extremely distant future the human species may die out if we permanently slip under the replacement rate. But I tend to think the best policy is to let the distant future take care of itself, as long as what we do now isn't locking them into anything (and merely choosing to be below the replacement rate now does not create lock in). Moreover, I suspect the human species is likely to die out in its current form anyway (although maybe with some descendents in some other form)--that is just the way of things. And I am not personally convinced the human species is so perfect as to merit immortality.

Posted by DTM | February 28, 2008 8:55 AM

Having kids has to be a net negative for most of the population. Lost $$$$. Lost time. Lost personal extracurricular activities and development. Like Matt says, a pain in the ass. And what is this talk of needing or wanting them around in old age? You don't have friends? People you can bowl with, play cards with, laugh and drink and carouse with? Travel, sail, bike, climb mountains, go on cruises, attend sport events with? You have to have people around 20-30-40 years your junior to enjoy life? Geez, give me a break. You really relate to someone that gives you a blank stare when you ask "Guess who died today? William F Buckley."?

There are so many ways to respond to this. How old are you? You'll notice as you get into your middle and late twenties (if not sooner) that your friends all move away and become less important in your life. You'll note too, that you're advocating being a free rider in your old age, who lives on the sweat of the young, other people's young, that is. You'll also note that if you're like most 60 year olds, not to mention octogenarians, you'll be in no shape, pace all the TV pharmaceutical ads showing "active seniors" to be climbing mountains or do much carousing. Finally, morally speaking, a life of such unabashed selfishness is not truly satisfying, and to the extent that it is satisfying, is evidence of moral defect.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | February 28, 2008 8:58 AM

TheOtherCyrus is of course right, but I still think it's missing the point to counter materialist reasons for not having kids with materialist reasons for having them. The real reward of parenthood is parenthood itself. The experience of loving someone who is totally helpless & utterly trusting and reliant and innocent, and of coming to understand how much someone once loved you in the same way, is the point. As someone who had a child only after both his parents had died, I feel especially sentimental about this.

Posted by Bill | February 28, 2008 9:13 AM

Daughters, from age 12-25 or so, are a pain in the bazoo. Sons, who aren't of the Neanderthal class, in the same age span, are a joy. Comparatively speaking.

Being a parent, regardless, of either sex, is worth it many times over. If only for the necessity, from time to time, to exist for something other than one's self.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 28, 2008 9:16 AM

As a 66 year old grandparent my wife and I think the best sign that we were good parents is that we are now true friends with our adult children.

Posted by spencer | February 28, 2008 11:00 AM

> Re: Bronze-age tribes, small bands of humans in a
> huge and hostile world, longed for continuous
> increase in population and dominion.

I'm not sure this is true.

I was thinking specifically of the explicit promises made by God to the Hebrews.

Posted by joel hanes | February 28, 2008 11:03 AM

> I think that teaching girls to read
> would be a good start, in the places
> where that's currently not common.

Are there are any countries where female illiteracy is much higher than general illiteracy?

Afghanistan.
Pakistan, especially in the NW Tribal Province.
Many nations in Africa.
Data here

Posted by joel hanes | February 28, 2008 11:09 AM

Exponential,

Sorry dude, you're quite simply wrong. The TFR depends entirely on the probability that women get to and survive their child bearing years.

Since life expectancy obviously affects both the number of women who reach their child-bearing years and the length of time women live after giving birth to their children, it is obviously relevant to the TFR needed to maintain a stable population. You really are utterly clueless. Dude.

Posted by Mixner | February 28, 2008 11:50 AM

Exponential,

No, I do research on plants. So nothing related to people.

It seems like the burden of proof is on you-- why would you expect that human beings would _not_ exhibit density dependent fertlity? And by assuming that instantanous fertility rates can be extrapolated out to zero or infinity, you're the one who is being more innumerate than anyone else in this thread.

Populations don't usually grow exponentially for any length of time, they either grow logistically, or they grow and decline in cycles.

If countries as diverse as Vietnam, Guyana, Iran, South Africa, and Chile can have reduced their fertility rate from quite high to below replacement level in the las few decades it seems silly to think that fertility rates for a populaion will hold constant for any length of time.

Posted by Hector | February 28, 2008 12:25 PM

i find it funny when lefties who almost certainly believe quite strongly in evolution seem to think -- or express opinions that suggest -- that evolution didn't select for people who like having kids and/or are satisfied by it. preference for offspring, by definition, has to be about the most important genetic trait.

Posted by dj superflat | February 28, 2008 2:06 PM

btw, i get that you get the same result via preference for sex (which is much more effective when it's harder to tie the sex directly to the kid nine months later).

Posted by dj superflat | February 28, 2008 2:09 PM

"i find it funny when lefties who almost certainly believe quite strongly in evolution seem to think -- or express opinions that suggest -- that evolution didn't select for people who like having kids and/or are satisfied by it."

Sweet Jeebus what a horrid mishmash of intellectual commitments.

I don't think anyone wants to get into the strong argument against there being a genetic influence to preference for children, but just consider this: If preference for having children were "the most important genetic trait", everyone but a few mutants would have children.

(and no, I don't want to discuss G or g either)

Posted by Brian | February 28, 2008 5:33 PM

“Buckley of course went to Yale, so no surprise that he was far more erudite than Matt.”

For some reason, I was thinking that Buckley went to Harvard Law or something. I admit I'd forgotten that so much of Buckley's persona was wrapped up in being a Yalie.

I've just been very disappointed with Matt and his philosophy degree. I knew people who'd transferred to my small liberal arts college from Harvard—one friend who notably said he wanted a much more challenging education—but...still. It would have been nice for Matt to pounce on Ted's needless and erroneous display of erudition. But Yglesias just Isn't That Guy. We're lucky if he remembers the difference between "it's" and "its".

I still read him, though. Probably because I agree with him most of the time, which is almost certainly the worst motivation possible.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | February 28, 2008 5:33 PM

dj superflat,

Strange things can happen when you take a species out of the original environment in which it evolved. And that is what is basically happening: human beings in developed countries are living in an environment quite unlike the one in which we originally evolved.

By the way, I don't know for sure if this is true, but someone once told me that as far as we can tell from the available evidence, the birth rate in urban areas has been below the replacement rate pretty much across time and place, for as long as there have been urban environments. Note, by the way, that urban environments are a very recent development in terms of the history of our species: roughly speaking we have been around about 200,000 years, and until 10,000 years or so ago we were pretty much just hunter-gatherers.

Assuming that factoid about birth rates in urban areas is true, that would support the hypothesis that the human birth rate is in part a function of the environment, and that birth rates inconsistent with evolutionary theory can arise to the extent we currently live in an environment much unlike the environment our species occupied for 95+% of its history. Again, though, in general this should not be too surprising.

Posted by DTM | February 28, 2008 6:15 PM

Re: i find it funny when lefties who almost certainly believe quite strongly in evolution seem to think -- or express opinions that suggest -- that evolution didn't select for people who like having kids and/or are satisfied by it. preference for offspring, by definition, has to be about the most important genetic trait.

I see no evidence whatsoever that something like that is a genetic trait that evolution can select on. First off, as I mentioned above, if that were true, that trait would have come to dominate the whole species millennia ago. It's not like the human species just fell off the turnip truck. So how do you explain the fact that we aren't all pre-programmed to have 12 kids?
On the larger question I can allow that very general personality traits may have genetic components: homosexuality, substance abuse, agressiveness etc. But not very specific, individualistic traits. If human beings were that robotic we wouldn't be human. Our personalities are simply too fluid be that rigidly cotrolled. Finally evolution does not always select for massive breeding. Indeed, you'll have trouble explaining humankind again if you think that. Ten kids may sound like a lot, but compared to many other creatures it's paltry. My partners' cat birthed 14 kittens in just 18 months time (at which point I insisted we get her fixed). She could have aesily birthed three times that many. So why has natural selection allowed humans to have such small litters? Obviously other factors imposed themselves on our evolution that precluded us breeding like rabbits. And indeed, there are other species for whom this is true. Some living things prosper by spitting out as many offspring as time and circumstance allow. But others prosper by having rather few offsping but lavishing care and resources on them. We humans have taken the second path, and those who satisfy themseles with but 1 or 2 children have taken it to the extreme. No reason why their lineage should die out when evidence is that strategy tends to work quite well in nature. It isn't rabbits that stand on top of the creation heap after all. It's us low fertility, slow-to-breed humans.

Re: the birth rate in urban areas has been below the replacement rate pretty much across time and place, for as long as there have been urban environments.

Not quite true. For most of history urban death rates exceeded urban birth rates so that cities maintained their populations only through continued immigration from rural areas.

Posted by JonF | February 28, 2008 7:24 PM

JonF,

I'm not sure I understand the difference between what you said and what I said. The replacement rate is the birth rate necessary to maintain a stable population, and it is true that the replacement rate is generally a function of the mortality rate (which is why the replacement rate today is around 2.1 in developed countries, but considerably higher in developing countries). So, saying the birth rate in urban areas is too low in light of the mortality rate in urban areas to sustain the population in urban areas (without new inflows) is the same thing as saying the urban birth rate is below the replacement rate.

Posted by DTM | February 28, 2008 8:32 PM

"But later in life, having a solid relationship with grownup kids and their children seems low-cost and hard-to-replace. "

You know what will also make old people happy? Not having a planet that is so fscked up that it can only support about 2 billion people, because it'll be the old ones that get tossed onto the ice floe first.

What's the use? Every day we hear more environmental bad news, and yet even the supposedly intelligent people like Matt aren't willing to admit that the basic problem is overpopulation. We're freaking doomed.

Posted by Maynard Handley | February 29, 2008 12:17 AM

As the parent of 5 kids, I have a suggestion.

Since we have a pay as you go social security system, perhaps we could base future social security benefits on how many kids and grandkids any given retiree has added to the economy. I guarantee the birth rate goes up.

Now excuse me I have to go get a hug from my 2-year old.

Posted by Rory | February 29, 2008 1:35 AM

"What's the use? Every day we hear more environmental bad news"

I felt this way once. So I majored in environmental sciences at my land grant college, which had been one of the first to award that degree. And then, during a core class in a lecture hall, someone asked the dean of the department -- an elegant old scientist -- about global warming. I expected the dean's response to be something along the lines of Handley's alarmism. Instead, he paused thoughtfully for a moment and then recalled how hot it had been in the summer of 1934. That was the beginning of an epiphany for me.

For men like that dean, environmental problems -- real ones, like polluted water and air -- weren't bogeymen useful for scaring non-scientists into Malthusian panics, but challenges to be overcome using their ingenuity. In every generation there are those who think the world is going to hell in a hand basket, but in every generation also there are men like that dean, scientists and engineers who quietly keep the rest of us alive with their competence and diligence.

Posted by Fred | February 29, 2008 2:18 AM

As a mom of a 3 and 5 year old, I find these discussions of children and happiness so interesting. There is no doubt that life is harder with my two kids. There's more stress in the marriage. Less nice nights out and far less time for me. A haircut now feels like a luxury, and many days are a race against time. But I get many benefits that make it all worth it. Am I happier? I guess it depends on how you define happiness, but I'm so thankful for my kids every day. It is so amazing watching them develop. But like much of life, being stress-free isn't the same as being fulfilled and satisfied.

Posted by Jenny | February 29, 2008 2:34 AM

"Everyone wants a baby...nobody wants children"

Disagree. One of the reason I don't want children is it most likely would require me having a baby first. The idea of marrying and adopting a 5-year-old occasionally strikes me as appealing.

Admittedly I have some sort of weird baby-disconnect that maybe makes me a freak. It's just I like being able to talk, learn, teach, etc with other people. Babies don't really do any of that stuff. You can't get much sense what they're thinking or feeling either. It's like they're these cute incontinent little extraterrestrials.

Anyway it's possible parents would be happier with a new car than a child, but I don't really think of happiness as the be-all or end-all of everything. I'm happy most of the time and most of the time it's meaningless. To me real joy comes from the things that last and go beyond myself. For me that's not going to be kids. I don't have the temperament or desire for that. However I'm glad that for others it can be kids. (Reason is the magazine of Libertarians and Randians so this would be nonsensical from its perspective)

Posted by Thomas R | February 29, 2008 7:07 AM

"For me that's not going to be kids."

I should clarify that I mean it's not going to be my own kids. I've got eight nephews and two nieces. I try to be a good uncle and I'm glad kids are in my life.

Posted by Thomas R | February 29, 2008 7:11 AM

Thomas R.,

Re: It's just I like being able to talk, learn, teach, etc with other people. Babies don't really do any of that stuff. You can't get much sense what they're thinking or feeling either

Well, to be fair, you can tell when they're feeling happy, and when they're feeling sad, and you can try to make them smile and coo as much as possible. That's one of the nice things about babies...they're relatively easy to please!
And they do actually start learning things faster than one would realize.

I'd personally like to have three, although that's presumibly a reasonable ways in the future.

Posted by Hector | February 29, 2008 8:01 AM

Sweet jumping Christ, the economism and materialism on display in this thread is well and truly depressing. I don't have kids and I don't know whether or not I ever will (my partner and I go back and forth), but I'd have to agree with Bill that the point of having kids isn't "happiness." Nothing that's eminently worth doing is about happiness; or at the very least happiness isn't the bottom line.

Bill is right when he says that having a child is one of the most meaningful experiences in life "in a neutral sense." Bringing a life into the world is meaningful; it won't necessarily make you happy, and it often makes people miserable at various points in their child's life. Lots of meaningful, worthwhile things cost much in terms of time, energy, and free time. Having a kid is just one; the same can be said of building a city or trying to implement reforms in the public sphere or painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Do you think that writing Hamlet made Shakespeare "happy" in the way that playing cards or going to hockey games makes some people (me included) happy?

Please. Happiness isn't everything. Meaning can't be quantified, and to demand empirical "evidence" for something like meaning, fulfillment, and love is a vulgar, stupid, machine-thinking error.

Posted by MortimerPeacock | February 29, 2008 9:39 AM

I think voluntary childlessness represents an evolutionary dead end and is God's way of filtering out unhelpful mentalities. In particular, the extinction of rich/liberal/self-aborbed people is a socially useful event.

Posted by Jack | February 29, 2008 9:52 AM

Mortimer:

Yes. The happiness bots are depressing me.

BTW everyone, I am an orthodox Catholic with three kids and counting! See you in the next generation!!

Posted by Charles | February 29, 2008 10:05 AM

Well, let's not be too hard on the happiness bots, shall we? After all, life, liberty, and all that...

Besides, I don't think anyone's idea of happiness is exclusive of meaning, reward, contentment, and the like (in this thread). Of course I also think that's a reason to be hugely skeptical of the idea of measuring happiness. I don't know how well social science researchers do this overall, but the very few instances that I have read left me very unimpressed.

Bottom line: If more elderly had a strong social network to rely on, then instances of depression would be far less rampant in that population. That's a good thing in human, social, economic, and any other terms you care to mention. Family can potentially be a big part of that.

Posted by Brian | February 29, 2008 11:48 AM

Mortimer,

Sweet jumping Christ,

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Nothing that's eminently worth doing is about happiness; or at the very least happiness isn't the bottom line.

Really? What is it "about" then? What is "the bottom line?" Why isn't the pursuit of happiness "eminently worth doing?"

Bill is right when he says that having a child is one of the most meaningful experiences in life "in a neutral sense." Bringing a life into the world is meaningful;

Lots of things are "meaningful." Happiness is "meaningful." You're not saying anything important here.

You seem to have in mind some higher purpose or goal or value than happiness, to which you think we should all aspire, yet you seem unable to explain what it is.

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 12:21 PM

"In particular, the extinction of rich/liberal/self-aborbed people is a socially useful event."

Hence the zeal to import poor people from abroad who will vote in support of liberal policies.

Posted by Fred | February 29, 2008 3:23 PM

"Babies don't really do any of that stuff. You can't get much sense what they're thinking or feeling either."

I dunno. That hasn't been our experience so far - 5 months in.

Posted by Knemon | February 29, 2008 5:16 PM

This forum seems to be almost entirely male, and would read very differently if women played a larger role. One factor I'd like to mention -- by way of explaining why so many people have kids when it doesn't seem to make them happy -- is the level of social opprobrium visited upon those who choose not to reproduce, especially women. Some might scoff at the idea that peer pressure still plays a role, but there are many reasons our species lives on and this is a big one. As a 36-year-old woman, recently married, who hems and haws mightily over this issue, I observe that many people seem to have kids reflexively, without giving much thought to what childrearing entails. They then find themselves in a whirlwind of play dates and baby soccer games, indeed a whole new social life that totally excludes non-parents -- forcing non-parents, in turn, to realize what awaits (exclusion) if they fail to get on the merry-go-round. A decision not to have children makes a louder-than-intended social statement, and not a wholly acceptable one. I wrestle with the fact that, if my husband I decide not to have children, we will have to work very hard to maintain a social life because most people we know will soon disappear into the American parent vortex. This is depressing and unfair, and I know from living abroad that it's not true in other, less obsessive cultures.

Posted by Maria | February 29, 2008 5:38 PM

Re: I think voluntary childlessness represents an evolutionary dead end and is God's way of filtering out unhelpful mentalities.

Interesting that you judge centuries of monks, nuns, celibate clergy, various virginal saints and Jesus himself as evolutionary dead-ends whom God wanted to filter out of the population.

Posted by JonF | February 29, 2008 7:04 PM

"You seem to have in mind some higher purpose or goal or value than happiness, to which you think we should all aspire, yet you seem unable to explain what it is."

I don't know how Mortimer would explain it, but at least in part I'd think of it in terms of doing something for others and/or something that makes my existence more a positive than a negative force.

A person who just gets high, plays videogames, and dies in a bus accident at age 22 may have led a happy life. However it's basically meaningless with nothing deeper than physical pleasure. A person who had a positive impact on the raising of a child is doing something less pleasurable, but that can be quite rewarding.

Even from a total non-altruist egoistic utilitarian kind of viewpoint things that improve your long-term survival chances, even if they don't make you happier, might be worth it. A person who lives to be 80 would likely have more happy-years than the 22 year old mentioned above. If having children increases the support system in later years it's beneficial as Matt states.

Posted by Thomas R | February 29, 2008 10:42 PM