Who is to say children today will have children of their own tomorrow? People who are choosing not to have kids “leaving the gene pool” (you say it as if they are some filth to be done away with) doesn’t change anything.
Is that fashion going to remain, though? Everything goes out of style eventually. I think we are already seeing some cracks where people are starting to question why having children is so "wrong". Nothing happens overnight, but I'm not so sure the children today will grow up in that same environment.
But I see some change in sentiment around questioning what good is being rich if you can't enjoy it with your children. It is not happening overnight by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the tides are slowly starting to turn.
> No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false. The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing -- art as I called it -- were no longer sweet to me. "Family"... said I to myself. But my family -- wife and children -- are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.”
Once upon a time there was no choice if you wanted to survive yourself. The world was too much for the feeble man without their help. Indeed, the rich now have the luxury of relying on "corporations" to stand in for where children were once necessary. But then you're ultimately back to square one: Why should you love, guard, bring up, and watch the corporations?
There is no free lunch. You are going to put in the effort either way, but at least children might also provide some happiness along the way. The "corporations" seem to just draw ire. We didn't recognize that for a long time, but I do see a shift starting to take place.
Economics never prevents having children. As before, only the rich even get the luxury of choosing to not have children. But the rich could have children too if they so choose. Their fear of children making them look poor under the whims of today's fashion is an entirely self-imposed limitation.
Good for them if that's what they want to do. No judgment on anyone's personal life choices. But I maintain that an increasing number of people are starting to question if that is what is right for them. I agree that what is right for an individual is not universal. Some people will truly not want children, but many more feel pressured to not have children due to the prevailing fashion trends. I see change afoot among the latter group. Having children is slowly starting to become "cool" again.
I'm not sure how you could. The sentiment is only just starting to change as far as I can tell. It is too late for the current crop of young-ish adults. But I don't see the next generation, of what generation there is, coming up in the same environment where having children is demonized and seen as something reserved for the poor. For them, I fully expect having children will be the display of wealth; the "cool" thing to do.
We see over and over and over again that the rich use their resources to set themselves apart from the poor in some way and then the poor try everything they can to emulate them. It is a tale as old as time. In this instance we saw the rich start to afford the luxury to choose to have children, and poorer people have been on the quest to copy them ever since. But now we're nearing a critical mass where the world has become rich enough that even the poorest people are now able to start thinking about foregoing having children. That signals that the current fashion trend is on the outs.
I'm starting to see a shift towards "Look at how rich I am. I can afford to have children and you can't!" You even alluded to that same shift in a previous comment, so it seems you're seeing it too. And we should expect something of the sort as it is the natural progression of fashion.
Housing and transportation continue to dominate American household budget.
Now, I did read that somebody suggesting that it's not cost but density that reduces population fertility. I would wonder if that just means we need to provide more spaces for families within cities.
Children are resilient. Hell, we've raised children through terrible wars and famines. Being born into a relatively peaceful era and the wealthiest time in history is about as stable as it gets.
You may have a point that potential parents are putting pressure on themselves to be the perfect soccer mom and dads, carting their kids around in their Escalades, and then returning home to sleep in their mansions, and if they end up anywhere short of that they are not worthy of having children. But that's just part of the fashion du jour. Children don't need or even care for any of that.
> I did read that somebody suggesting that it's not cost but density that reduces population fertility.
I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that cost is a factor. Sure, there is that study that suggests it costs ~$10,000-20,000+ per year to raise a child, but when you look closely the cost is for things like buying a bigger house. You don't need a bigger house to raise children. Look at what American settlers raised children in: Tiny, single room log cabins. And they had, on average, eight children living in them!
The density suggestion is interesting, although I'm not sure it tracks. For example, the least dense US states, Maine and Vermont with only ~35% urbanization, have lower fertility than New York and California with ~90% urbanization. I expect what was noticed is merely correlationary as urbanization and the general ability to opt to not have children are both not realistic until a society reaches a certain level of wealth. In other words, the societies that are rich enough to opt to have few children are also more likely to be urbanized.
But humans are social creatures. And it hasn't been socially acceptable to have children in the modern age, at least not until you are into your 30s, at which point go ahead, society gives the green light (It will even start to cry: "Why haven't you had children yet???") – but by then, good luck having more than approximately one child before biology puts an end to the party.
The latter is often closely tied to the former. When things get rough, things can get ugly. Tensions build and emotions run hot which at best makes for a less-than-stellar environment for kids to grow up in and at worst can lead to violence or divorce. Many young adults experienced this first hand in their childhood and want to avoid inflicting these situations on any potential children of their own.
As such, a lot of people who’d otherwise be parents have held out because they fear these scenarios playing out. For most, the goal probably isn’t to be perfect or raise their children in the lap of luxury, but simply to wait until they’re reasonably confident that they’ve precluded financial disaster for the most part and that hardship and struggle won’t be commonplace.
I don’t think that’s bad or wrong, and in fact I feel is thoughtful and responsible. With all this in mind, if an individual or group wants to look at turning around birth rate numbers, they would do well to address the issues that prevent young adults from feeling financially secure in this way.
To be fair, that does appear to be happening, if slowly. The largest financial drain on young people, college, has shown decline over the past several years. There is still a lot of social entrenchment to overcome, though; like trying to convince marriage hopefuls that they don't need to buy an expensive diamond.
Were they? High-achiever families routinely demonize having relationships at 16 but then turn it around VERY QUICKLY after getting that college degree and want their children to get married and have kids before 30.
(That said many high achievers themselves don't actually want to have kids, despite family pressure to have kids at 30.)
You could almost call that a genocide... if the originator of that messaging authored it to cause a birth collapse. Throw in every public policy decision made to economically destroy single-earner households and it really almost starts looking like genocide (or democide?)...
My hunch is that the people who still decide to reproduce, despite all the reasons people who advocate for not having children talk about, likely have some sort of genetic predisposition for reproduction - a strong innate need.
After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the reproducers.
If allele A causes increased desire to reproduce than allele B, then in a society in which reproduction is viewed as an optional extra, all else being equal, allele A is likely to predominate allele B over time. Conversely, in a more traditional society in which everyone is subject to a strong social expectation to reproduce, allele A would have far less of an advantage over allele B.
An allele might lead to increased reproduction indirectly rather than directly. For example, if an allele makes a person more likely to be religious, and if religious people are more likely to have kids, then even though that allele does not directly impact desire to reproduce, it may be selected for due to its indirect impact on reproduction.
That's genetics; coming to culture: if subculture A puts higher emphasis on reproduction than subculture B, then all else being equal, in the long-run subculture A is likely to outnumber subculture B, irrespective of any genetic factors. However, defections from subculture A to subculture B may erase much of its innate demographic advantage. This suggests in the long-run, the most demographically successful subcultures will be those which combine sustained high fertility with sustained insularity (social barriers to defection to other subcultures)–which is exactly what we observe with groups like the Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews.
I suspect it was downvoted because that line suggests dismissal or contempt for people who don't have children.
There are many people across all generations who haven't had children (either by choice or because they were unable for various reasons), and their lifespans and social contributions are no more or less on average compared to people that do have children.
I didn't interpret the original comment as contemptuous of either opinion. But it is undeniable that both groups are sensitive about their choices (or unfortunate inability to choose differently).
1000 years ago some subset of people chose not to have children, and humanity did just fine, and that same group of so-called "non-breeders" still exists today. Therefore we can conclude it's not purely a matter of genetics. There are a huge number of reasons people make that choice. People even change their minds during their life. It's not just a YES/NO switch in your genetic code somewhere.
There have always been, and always will be, people who don’t have kids, for a whole host of reasons.
But that’s not the argument (or at least, not the steelman version of it, as opposed to the strawman one) - the argument is that if there are certain heritable traits that discourage people from having children, then all else being equal, natural selection will cause the frequency of those traits to decline over time, albeit often not to zero.
The all else being equal part is very important. In a society with strong social pressure to reproduce, a trait which makes people less likely to want children may not be strongly selected against - because the social pressure to reproduce means desire to have children only has a small impact on the odds of actually having them - whereas in a society which is much more individualist, it may have much more of an impact, so the selective pressure against that trait may be much stronger. And of course, a trait which produces less desire for children might nonetheless be selected for because it produces some other countervailing advantage
Still, I think the argument does have some weight - that in contemporary Western society where reproduction is far more of a voluntary choice than it once was, biological and cultural factors which encourage reproduction are going to be selected for to a much greater degree than they were in the less individualist societies of decades and centuries past, where less such encouragement was needed
On the one hand, you'd expect humans (animals) to have completely bred out all forms of infertility -- except that there are non-heritable causes of infertility. (In fact, all causes of infertility must be non-heritable, or at least not inherited! :)
On the other hand, it's surely true that characteristics which deprioritize or diminish the likelihood of reproduction are bred out, however incompletely. Whether it's a sense of taste that enjoys poisons, a risk-taking brain that kicks in before fertility, homosexuality (in males at least), or just not wanting children.
These characteristics are bred down to a sustainable level, obviously. But they are clearly not bred out fully, nor are they consistently bred "up".
In many traditional societies, there is strong social pressure for marriage and children, arranged and semi-arranged marriages, etc - such that a person’s sexual orientation may not make much difference to their odds of heterosexually reproducing. Some people might enjoy heterosexual reproduction and others might endure it but they’ll do it all the same. So that would limit the selective pressure against genes that increase the likelihood of homosexuality
In the mainstream contemporary West, if heterosexual reproduction doesn’t appeal to you, then you just don’t do it-so selective pressure against those genes may exist to a degree that it formerly did not. On the other hand, the new possibilities for non-heterosexual reproduction (such as IVF, sperm/egg donation, surrogacy) might counteract that.
It's a serious and interesting question as to why evolution tolerated/encouraged homosexuality in a small but significant proportion of the population. If you have the time, this article gives a good overview of the discussion [1].
Depending on your answer to that question - along with your views about how evolution affects modern humans another - it's natural to think about homosexuality will occur in future humans.
Could we have more, less or about the same of it? Will everybody be bisexual? How might medical fertility treatments affect the outcomes? It's an open field of ideas.
[1] https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-evolutionary...
The best answer I can think of is that sexuality is somehow very fragile for evolution to calibrate, so even natural selection isn’t powerful enough to select heterosexuality reliably.
But it’s hard to argue that persuasively with a biological basis which we don’t yet have.
Compared to the other evolutionary arguments for homosexuality it also doesn’t scale well to other non reproductive sexual behaviours.
The only exception I can think of is if you have some mutation they didn't. But in that case if you're aware of the mutation the consequences are likely to be awful, which is a great case for not having biological children.