Fertility Rates, The Environment, Misogyny and the Fate of the Human Race
When I was in college, we got into an argument in my philosophy class about celibacy. Specifically, about the clash between a morality built around lifelong celibacy, which a paper we’d just read had argued for, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which we’d discussed a few weeks earlier. The Categorical Imperative goeth thusly:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
It’s basically a fancy version of the Golden Rule. Act in a way that, if everyone acted that way, the world would function.
The collision between those two ideas resulted in several of us, including me, arguing that a philosophy that pushed celibacy as an ideal was fundamentally immoral. Because, using the Categorical Imperative, such a philosophy countenanced the extinction of the human race. And an extinct race cannot be moral.1 The teaching assistant countered that it was a spring and we were horny teenagers so we couldn’t understand the piquancy of the writer’s insights.
I’m not exaggerating that, by the way. It’s literally what he said.
I thought of this recently during a bit of foofaraw about the decline in birth rates. 2020 saw a sharp decline in fertility rates, which were already at historic lows. This is being blamed on the pandemic, although most people who blame the pandemic for it haven’t explained how a COVID-related drop in fertility showed up in less than nine months. We won’t know the impact of COVID until a) we’ve finished 2021, when most babies conceived in quarantine will be delivered; and b) we’re years down the road so we can see what, if any, effect COVID infections have on reproductive health.2
But the long-term decline in fertility rates has resulted in a growing concern among certain people. Developed countries are at fertility rates that are well below replacement level (approximately 2.1 children per woman). An aging and declining population makes it difficult to sustain a society and almost impossible to sustain growing retirement obligations.
I am definitely among those who find this to be something worth worrying about. There are many aspects of it — social, economic and moral — which I’ll get into below. I keep circling back to the mathematics: a shrinking population is a dying population. But let’s walk a bit.
Overpopulation, Global Warming and the Baby Bust
A lot of commentators have responded to the decline in fertility rates not with concern but with celebration. The drop in fertility, they claim, is a good thing, actually. Good for the planet, good for the human race, good for our future. We already have too many people, they say, and so a decline is the best thing that could happen to us.3
The supposed benefits of a declining human population have changed a bit. The standard line of “we can’t feed so many people” that population alarmists have been harping for decades still remains. But these days it is also linked to global warming. A declining human population will, supposedly, address both issues.
I don’t buy these arguments at all. Since the publication of The Population Bomb, which kicked off our ongoing wave of population concern, the overpopulation alarmists have had a track record of being amazingly, confidently and stunning wrong in their predictions. Fifty years ago, when the overpopulation hysteria really got going, the problem was supposed to be food. It wasn’t. The predicted mass food shortages of the 80s never materialized and we are currently feeding more people using less land than ever. before. First world agricultural technology, if universally deployed, could feed twice as many people as currently inhabit the planet. We don’t need to eat bugs. We don’t need to eat each other. All we need to do is use the technology we have and maybe even improve upon it.
Since the Soylent Green scenarios failed to happen, the overpopulation alarmists have turned to a different boogeyman: global warming. They cite estimates that every child born adds 58 tons of CO2 per year. But while global warming is a real concern, I don’t buy this either. Carbon emissions have been shrinking in the developed world for several years now while population has continued to grow (mainly thanks to longer lifespans and immigration). Moreover, carbon intensity — the amount of greenhouse gases produced per economic output — has been plunging. We are using less carbon-intense fuels, we are using more alternative energy and we are using more efficient technology. The argument that we needed population to decline so that we wouldn’t starve crashed and burned because of the Green Revolution. The argument that we need population to decline because of global warming will crash and burn with the same ferocity if we make a critical breakthrough on, say, nuclear fusion.
A related argument is that global warming is going to turn the Earth into such a hellscape that it would be cruel to bring children into that. I find that argument fundamentally wanting. Being born in bad circumstances might be preferable to not being born at all. Literally tens of billions of people have lived through far worse than the late 21st century is going to be. But I also find it wanting scientifically. Global warming is going to be bad. But it’s unlikely to result in an apocalypse unless we have wildly underestimated the temperature sensitivity of the planet. It is hard enough to predict the climate. Arguing that people should avoid having children because of third-order predictions about economics and society is madness. If you’re worried about the future, doing something about it today is going to be more useful than some kid’s hypothetical greenhouse gas emissions twenty years from now.4
I’m reminded of the argument a couple of weeks ago about whether we should cut back on meat to stave off global warming. I mean… it might make a difference. But the single largest contributor to global warming right now is not Americans having babies. Or eating meat. Or caring for their pets. It’s China belching fumes from coal plants like it’s going out of style. One seventh of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to their coal industry alone. And their swelling greenhouse gas emissions have continued unabated despite China having a notoriously brutal one-child policy which now has their population in decline and has created a generational crisis in that there are not enough children to support the elderly and not enough women — because of selective abortion — to provide partners for all the young men. Talking about kids or meat or pets in this scenario isn’t exactly re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic but it’s at least re-arranging the cushions in the lifeboats.
Frankly, a lot of this talk smacks of the misanthropy that has lurked in environmentalist circles for a very long time. “Humans are bad; therefore less humans are good” has been a running theme since The Population Bomb slithered into public consciousness. The book drips with distaste for human beings and the belief that a mass “die-off” would be the best thing that could happen. I’ve linked Ronald Bailey above. I have my disagreements with Bailey — I think he’s too optimistic, to be honest. But he’s spent thirty years documenting environmentalists hoping for the collapse of civilization, the mass die-off of the human race and a return to a “pure” primitive existence. One of my favorite demonstrations of this, going back to P.J. O’Rourke’s book, was the environmentalists who reacted to the brief promise of cold fusion not with celebration but with dismay that we might get out of global warming without having to make everyone poor.
I don’t find the arguments that fertility decline is great to be warranted at all scientifically. But I also think some of them reflect an opposition to fertility in general. And that ties into cultural ideas.
Are Babies Sexist?
Putting aside the scientific concerns, the really odd thing about this debate is the cultural clash it tends to instill. Part of that — quiverful types bemoaning the collapse of big families — is expected. But there has also been a backlash against the fertility rate concerns among progressives, who see concerns about fertility rates as intrinsically sexist and even racist.
A recent example flared into the public eye when one of our former writers — Elizabeth Bruenig — wrote a fairly innocuous column about her decision to have children at age 25.5 People have gotten mad, accusing her of being everything from a fundamentalist Christian to a “tradwife” (you can listen to her addressing the nontroversy at the end of this podcast). Amanda Marcotte — who has kinda made being wrong her thing — accused her of pandering to the fantasies of pathetic men. Because…men fantasize about giving up the single life at a young age? Not sure what that’s about.
The argument that concerns about declining fertility are intrinsically sexist crosses me as misguided. First of all, recent research indicates that one of the answers to our declining fertility may be more gender equality. According to this theory, fertility rates initially decline as women get more control over their lives. But once you reach a certain amount of equity, women feel free to have more children. There’s a very good argument that addressing declining fertility rates will advance progressive interests, not stymie them.
But there’s also this: women are having fewer children than they want. The average woman wants 2.7 children and is having 1.8. The reasons for this discrepancy are complex and multi-faceted. Some women simply never find a man they consider a suitable father. Some women want children but want their career more. Some women get started later in life so end up having fewer children than they’d planned. There’s an entire book to be written (and several have been) about this subject. But my point is that when women in a prosperous society want more children than they are having, that suggests that this discussion is more nuanced than a bunch of men thinking they should be barefoot, pregnant and in the… well, these days, the computer room? But, you know, still barefoot and pregnant.6
There have also been attempts to link legitimate concerns about declining fertility with white supremacy. The logic is that some racist morons have embraced the so-called “replacement theory”: that white people are slowly being replaced by brown and black people and this is bad. So if you are concerned about declining fertility, you also believe in replacement theory. Those of you who are familiar with how internet arguments tend to go will recognize the pattern:
1) Hitler liked art
2) You like art
Therefore:
3) You are Hitler.
The race argument doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny either. Yes, white fertility rates are below replacement level in the US. You know who else’s are? Black people. And Hispanics. Asian fertility rates are even lower than white people’s. The only ethnic group whose fertility rate is over replacement level is… Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. I mean, I don’t watch Tucker Carlson, but I don’t seem to remember replacement theory being about masses of Hawaiians over-running the mainland.
I simply find it absurd to argue that wanting people to have more children and wanting policy that encourages more children is necessarily sexist, racist or bigoted. Such encouragements can be twisted by bigots to bad purposes, sure. But bigots will twist literally any issue to support their worldview. Neither the concern itself nor the proposed solutions are necessarily bigoted.
Empty Rooms, Empty Cities
Most commentators have shied away from the social or emotional aspects of shrinking families, preferring to couch their concerns in demographics and economics. And while most of my post is about those things, I don’t have a problem with people saying that people are good, families are good, and more people is a good thing. I don’t have a problem with people saying children are a blessing and we should try to make it easier for people to enjoy that blessing.7 A few years ago, I was in Italy, which has seen fertility rates drop to 1.3 per woman, a level that simply can not sustain their welfare state. But what crossed me in Italy was not the demographics or the economics; it was the feel. Italy felt, frankly, like a dying country. Compared even to the US, there were very few children to be seen. And compared to a country with a fertility rate above replacement level, like Israel, it felt like a ghost town
I’m not a particularly clucky person when it comes to kids. I’m glad I had them and I enjoy being a parent. But I’m not about to run around brow-beating people who don’t want kids. And there are other writers here who far more qualified than I am to get into the emotional nuances of family decisions. But in the end, I keep returning to that discrepancy between the number of children women want and the number they are having. The desire for children has always been strong in our species. We would have gone extinct otherwise. One of the striking things I was once told by an archeologist was how often ancient ruins contain fertility charms, totems or prayers; the desire for children one can’t have has been a running them through human history.8 But I can’t imagine we’ve ever been to this point, where millions of women are wanting millions of children and not having them for various reasons. That is an immense amount of sadness in the world. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to rectify that. Whether we can or should do something about it is a different debate, of course. But looking at that and thinking, “something’s not right” crosses me as entirely reasonable, even setting aside the economic, social and scientific issues.
Look, I’m not here to tell anyone what life choices to make. If people don’t want kids, they’re not obligated to have them. It’s a perfectly reasonable life choice. But if people want kids, not having them because they are worried about overpopulation or global warming is allowing one’s life choices to be governed by hysterics, misanthropes and ideological axe grinders.9 This is not a way to run a culture.
What To Do
Now this is the point at which I’m supposed to suggest some sort of policy that would fix all this. But I’m sorry… I got nothing. Bruenig, who is to the Left of me, argues in her column that we need better support for families from government in the form of daycare and so on. And while that might help, it’s worth noting that many countries with much more robust safety nets and family support have lower fertility rates than we do. Republicans, being Republicans, think tax credits are the answer. And again, I’m sure that might help but I feel like the benefits, like that of increased subsidies for daycare, would be small. We should do these things. But let’s not kid ourselves and think free daycare or tax credits will get every woman to have the 2.7 children she wants rather than the 1.8 she’s having.
At this point, you might be saying, “Mike, that’s all fine, but you have kids so that’s why you support pro-natalist policies.” It might be a fair comp except: 1) I have supported such policies before I had kids and when it looked my chance of having kids was basically zero; 2) by the time anything is done on this subject, my kids will be adults; 3) and? The world must be peopled. Who do you think is going to support all the childless people in their frail dotage? Who do you think will be paying into Social Security and Medicare? Who will be creating the value in retirees’ stock portfolios? The entire reason countries are concerned about this issue is because they are going to have massive hordes of old people needing someone to support them. An economic pyramid scheme doesn’t work if it’s upside down. Babies or immigrants: you need one or the other and preferably both.
My pet theory is that a big help would be breaking the traditional “male” career line. For the last century, the ideal career was that you graduated high school or college, got a job, worked your way relentlessly up the ladder and kept working without ceasing until you dropped dead at your desk. And if you had a family, that was someone else’s responsibility. But as women have entered the work force and two-income and single-parent families have become more common, that’s become less and less tenable. We need more room for people to take a few years off to have a family. We need more room for people to get their career going when they’re in their 30s or older. Many years ago, I was in a hiring meeting and a very good candidate was dismissed because they were a few years older than the other candidates. “If they were any good,” one person said, “they’d already have this kind of job.” It enraged me. You never know what might have delayed someone’s career path. What mattered is that they were good and they were qualified.
What I’m getting at here is that I don’t think the solution lies in a government policy. That may help at the edges. But ultimately, we need to change as a society. And that’s not something that can be done from the top down. It’s something that has to change from the bottom up.
So ultimately, I think that the declining fertility rate is something to be concerned about. I disagree that concerns about it necessarily reflect bigotry or misogyny. But our power to do anything about it is extremely limited. Declining and aging populations may just be something we have to deal with, like it or not.
However, to conclude this topic on a ray of hope: maybe it’s pollyannaish of me, but I think that fertility rates are going to recover at some point, with or without government action.10 Maybe it will take some new technological innovation (such as the youth therapy in my novel). Maybe it will be some unexpected social change. Maybe it will be because people will, as a whole, realize that forgoing family for money is a poor exchange. But a species voluntarily limiting itself like this is not natural. And something that can not continue generally won’t.
- Of course, Kant himself never married, so …
- Several organization that study fertility are predicting an even bigger drop-off in 2021. But I think a year of COVID has taught us that prediction is hard, especially about the future.
- The expert cited by the Guardian article linked above says that 25 years ago, we worried about the population reaching 24 billion. I have no idea where this comes from. P.J. O’Rourke, when debunking overpopulation hysteria in his excellent 1994 book All the Trouble in the World pointed out that the projections for 2020 were 8.2 billion. 25 years later, this ended up being 600 million too high. Al Gore predicted 14 billion using numbers apparently pulled from his gluteus maximus. This was a wild overestimate and was seen so at the time.
- They also need to make up their mind. You can’t simultaneously claim that future generations will emit greenhouse gases at today’s level and that they will live in a Mad Max post-apocalyptic wasteland.
- Some of the less dumb critics have pointed out that 25 is close to the average age at which women have children. These people have apparently not read Bruenig’s article, where she talks about this. She is an educated woman in a profession where many people don’t have kids at all. For someone with a Master’s degree, like Bruenig, the average age for having a first child is 30 and climbing. In the world in which she lives, her decision was unusual.
- Although these days, barefoot probably means prosperity because you have a job you can work from home.
- Although my ‘children as blessing’ bona fides might take some serious hits around bedtime.
- And a big part of the Bible and other ancient narratives.
- Not having them because someone is “waiting for the right time” sounds good — and it often is good. As long as they realize there is no right time, just less wrong ones. My useless advice to people who wants kids to to have them when things are relatively stable and muddle through like everyone else has done for 100,000 years.
- Will and I have occasionally discussed whether the desire for kids is genetic and we are going through a period, thanks to birth control and prosperity, in which we are effectively selecting for those genes.
I agree, and as a fed I had some of the most generous family leave policies to work from when my three youngest kids were born. I could take all the sick leave I had, plus up to 6 weeks of non-paid family leave following each birth. No private company that I am aware of matches that. And if you look closely, the European Social Democracies where that is most common all do so because of governmental policy and legal mandate. Which is why . . .
won’t happen in our ultra capitalist society absent initially heavy handed government actions. You can’t even get corporations to allow highly productive people to continue working from the place they are most inspired in post-pandemic. You won’t get to the society you seek organically, else us Gen-X’ers would have made it happen.Report
Great piece Michael. To Philip’s point above I do think a little nudging from the state would be a good thing. Birthrates should be something states look at similarly to interest rates, i.e. something to be managed but with a very light hand.
Still I think you’re right about our culture. The tough choices women in particular face with respect to other priorities versus biological clock I think are pretty well worn in our discourse even if we’ve done little to address them. This is going to make me sound like a curmudgeon but I also think prolonged adolescence is getting to be a serious cultural problem. Now don’t get me wrong. Prolonged adolescence is good to the extent it cuts down on teenage pregnancies but it’s bad to the extent it has people pushing kids back to the edge of their fertility windows.
Like you I’m way too ‘live and let live’ to get overly exercised by the personal lifestyle choices of others but it’s never been easier to be peter pan. Throw our form of capitalism into the mix and you’ve got a potential for serious problems down the road. This actually made me think of a semi relevant college humor post I saw a couple years ago that describes human sexuality as one big missed high five:
https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DVeq4Oc8S7-I&ved=2ahUKEwji0I2X9trwAhX_EFkFHc6CBhgQwqsBegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3BvMXEgYZ3Gy83feZsKcj6Report
Although wouldn’t that be a bit poetic?Report
Agree with more family support. I have a friend, a fellow Engineer (we were in a lot of the same classes in college), who couldn’t find a suitable male partner, and who wanted a lot of kids, and who felt her window closing. So she picked a guy out of a book, got pregnant, quit her lucrative job to move back home with her parents (childcare, doncha know) and took a job as a math and physics teacher at a community college. She has no regrets, but it’s telling that she saw that as the only path open to her to have children.
And towards @InMD’s point, I wonder how much Peter Pan attitudes have when it comes to finding a suitable male partner?
Another thing I wonder about is, in all these studies regarding fertility, have they looked at actual fertility? Sperm counts, egg quality, etc. My wife and I went through 3 cycles of IVF because I have a low count (Dr. not sure if it’s related to my motorcycle accident, or the various and sundry things I was exposed to in the military) and she has severe endometriosis, which they suspect came from spending a childhood swimming in a river polluted by various industries.
And there is a stigma associated with using reproductive medicine, such a IVF (I’m less of a man because of low sperm count, she’s less of a woman because she couldn’t get pregnant naturally, using IVF is against God’s intent, etc. ad nausem BS). And Reproductive Medicine is often not covered by insurance. We paid out of pocket.Report
I suspect that’s part of it. My wife and I also went through IVF to try to get our second. If failed. But then he came about the old fashioned way.
We also started late, which is a factor in that.Report
In the literature, fecundity is the ability to have children, distinguished from fertility which is the actual production of children.Report
A useful distinction to know, thank you!Report
I’m all on board with making modest reforms and adjustments to allow people to have as many kids as they want to. I am left utterly kelvin cold about Douthatian style fretting over fertility rates and what dooms and decadences they may portend. The US is one of the most effective countries on the planet when it comes to importing young people from elsewhere, putting them to work and making them Americans. If birth rates in America remain below replacement level then all economic and logistical caviling is moot- we can and will import as many young folks as we need to meet those demographic and economic needs. If the fertility bust continues, and well it might, then the US will be in the catbird seat and I, personally, see much to be admired about a world where the family of nations are competing with each other to attract immigrants.Report
How modest and sane. That’s no fun at all.Report
That’s me, buzzkillin since ’04!Report
North you know that a lot of conservatives freak out over the kind of young people that are coming over. The issue is that the people who cry over declining birthrates also refuse to do anything like enact policies that would make it easier.Report
I am deeply dubious that policy alone can seriously boost birthrates- or at least not without a cost in either treasure or liberty that any polity with any brains in their heads would want to countenance.Report
I thought Saul meant “easier to immigrate”, and that’s (of course) a place where policy could have a large, beneficial effect.Report
I’m generally suspicious of government attempts to both increase and decrease the fertility rate. Nothing good comes from either. With the former, especially with right-leaning governments, you get something like the Handmaiden’s Tale. The later gets China’s Family Planning Policy with forced abortions and sterilizations. The fertility rate should be a very laissez-faire thing.Report
While I agree with your sentiment, the truth is, The Handmaid’s Tale is a work of fiction and I find it a bit silly when people invoke it as if it’s reality.Report
Don’t leave me hanging, what are some real-world examples that look like The Handmaid’s Tale, outside of the Islamic world?
ETA: or, you know, what Kristin said 1 minute before me.Report
Why exclude the Islamic world?Report
thankfully the integralists in the us will never get anywhere near the levers of power, so your examples will be more limited to iran and afghanistan in the last 50 years. and ultra orthodox judaism in the us, along with other heavily-restrictive (along gender lines) religious and cultural subcultures in the states.Report
Oh I concur about that but we’re not talking about examples that are likely or even threatening to come about, simply ones that exist. Felt to me like excluding one of the largest, most egregious and most prevalent RL examples of right wing handmaids’ tale sort of behavior was base stealing.Report
Typically we don’t use a term like “right-leaning” to describe Islamic countries. It’s fine if you do, although I think it would lead to more confusion than clarity. Also, separating government and culture is more difficult in sharia states, so I wouldn’t feel confident depicting an Islamic government as a population-growth driver. I’d need to look at the specific case.Report
I’ll readily grant that Islamic states don’t fit the economic right wing (libertarian) descriptor at all since they’re deeply prone to all kinds of massive and inept government involvement in the economy and are accordingly often basket cases.
That said, on the social policy level of religion being integrated into government, religious rules being enforced as government policy and the like I see no space at all between what the Islamic states get up to and what right wing integralists in the West would like (other than the label on the one religion that is identified as “true” is Christianity rather than Islam).Report
I’ll readily grant that Islamic states don’t fit the economic right wing (libertarian) descriptor at all since they’re deeply prone to all kinds of massive and inept government involvement in the economy and are accordingly often basket cases.
In fact, this is true of the far right in general. It’s a common misconception that the far right must be the polar opposite of the far left, and therefore as strongly pro-capitalist as the far left is anti-capitalist. In reality, far-right regimes and ideologues are typically centrist or even a bit left-wing when it comes to economics. Richard Spencer’s views on economics are much closer to Bernie Sanders’ than to Milton Friedman’s.
I’m not sure that the polar opposite of the far left actually exists in significant numbers.Report
Because including the Islamic World tends to create very big political fights. Many Western liberals are uncomfortable with pointing out the problems in Muslim majority countries because they believe, with cause, that it will lead to Islamophobia in the West.Report
Back in 2001, Margaret Atwood wrote about what inspired her to write A Handmaid’s Tale.
She concludes:
I always found the yelling about Handmaid’s Tale in the US to be vaguely tawdry. The whole “freedom and freedom from” quote is a great line, but it leads to essays about the bikini vs. the burqa and… well. I get tired.
I mean, like, while I appreciate that every single slope in the history of the world has been slippery, it also feels like Atwood invented a guy, made up the guy’s fantasies, then proceeded to criticize this guy she made up’s fantasies.
And so we have to watch out for every single Mike Pence out there. (He doesn’t even eat with women unless his wife is there too!)
And, meanwhile, it’s a lot tougher for a white chick to waltz over to Afghanistan while on holiday in Australia and pick up a chador at the market.Report
If you squint hard back at the moral majority days you can kinda sorta see what I think she was getting at. Even in 2001 political religious conservatism was still a force, though we now know that what looked like a real shot at ascendancy was actually death throes.
Now, when the de facto leader of said movement is a serial marrying and divorcing, porn star banging, hedonistic womanizer of the seediest variety… well… it’s just hard to see how we’d ever get there from here. Someone might rationalize how actually it is in fact a sinner that leads us there but those kinds of chaos theory arguments have never struck me as credible.Report
One could argue it was basically a kingmaking force in the 2004 election too but, yes, in hindsight what we thought was fierce combat was actually death throes and neither side realized it.Report
That’s how I see it, maybe with an exception for the abortion issue. Of course I think any objective person can appreciate that we haven’t seen the last word on that yet. However IMO that’s precisely because enough people outside of religious conservatives are so conflicted that it transcends many of the other lines, not because they’re winning hearts and minds.Report
Abortion is a funny thing because of Roe. Oddly it seems like there are non-zero odds that Roe falling might eventually lead to the ruin of the pro-life cause and the settling of the American position on abortion into lines much like what is practiced in much of the rest of the industrialized world. But the road to that outcome would be paved with the bodies of a heck of a lot of women along the way.Report
I agree on that as well.Report
In even the most severely puritanical societies, the top leaders are quite often the most hedonistic sort.
Moral strictures are almost never separate from a rigid social hierarchy in which there are different rules for the elite and little people.
So, yeah I can see how America can easily become a version of the Handmaids Tale or Hunger Games or any other dystopian scenario.Report
These are the kinds of arguments I don’t find credible. Yes, sometimes the ultra homophobic Bishop is secretly seeing male prostitutes. The commandant or the sheikh who preaches spartan living for the greater good lives in decadence behind the scenes. The key is that it is happening at least relatively in secret.Report
And the Communist elite always had their share of perks, etc. as well.Report
Yea but see my response to Chip. They toed the line in public.Report
Did they? Even with a controlled state press, I find it hard to believe that people didn’t know the higher-ups drove around in imported cars and had dachas on the Black Sea, or thought they had to stand in line for toilet paper.Report
I disagree. Can we find many (any??) examples of strict puritanical societies where the leadership elite wasn’t cheek deep in corruption and license by the terms of their own State principles? I’m not thinking of any.Report
And toeing the line in public doesn’t mean anything when the hedonism is widely known and accepted.
The average peasant has always known that the King/ Imam/ Bishop/ Party Leader is free to engage in licentiousness… that’s the point!
The ability to flaunt your detachment from the petty rules that govern the little people is what drives home the point that the King is the King, and you are not.Report
I concur.Report
Exactly.
And hell, if they do it smart, the average peasant happily agrees that the elite should enjoy those privileges.Report
I think you (and Mike and Chip and Oscar) are missing my point. Let me give you an example. The Catholic Church has engaged in all manner of hypocrisy and cover ups of various abuses and flouting of doctrine by the hierarchy. However it does not follow that any old heathen of today could become the Pope (yes, some nuance to this is required for past centuries).
To go back to our communist dictatorship example- a person who constantly flouts the tenants of communism will not get to be the premier. At best they may be useful for a time but eventually they get the gulag. But a premier who takes the spoils in a manner inconsistent with communist doctrine will be rationalized by other communists.
And keep in mind my comment was in reference to Handmaiden’s Tale. Our closest real life examples of this are in the Islamic world. None of those places, from Iran to Afghanistan, had theocratic rule brought in my hard partying, whoring secularists.Report
I think I get it but I’m still struggling to agree.
Christianity’s tenants focus on humility, sacrifice of self for the benefit of others, love of enemies and the like. Every significant Christian hierarchy has been climbed, pretty much entirely, by people who don’t adhere strictly (or, heck, even closely) to those doctrines. Has any Pope really lived in poverty so they could send the largess of their institutions to the poor? Could a Christian who truly adheres to these doctrines even ascend to the Papacy? I am very dubious. Those devout Christians would be busy being ascetics. Is this a secret? No not really, the Papacy drips with ostentatious wealth.
Islamic religious authorities? Same as the Catholics, maybe worse. Evangelical Christians? Mormons? Maybe not quite to the degree that Catholics do but they all live very comfortably.
It gets even worse with the Commies. Communism, flat out, doesn’t work as an economic system and as an ideology it’s fundamentally anti-hierarchical. So, all the Communist leaders had to manage that one way or the other- somehow getting a nonsensical economic system to produce economic output and climbing a hierarchy while deploring hierarchies. Absolutely the ones who lost their internal political games got shipped off to the gulags and it was never hard to produce sins against the proletariat they were guilty of (because they ALL were guilty of sins against the proletariat). It certainly was never a secret that the politically connected amongst the communists everywhere lived in luxury compared to their worker comrades.
And I’m certainly not going to even touch Feudalism.
But maybe I’m still missing your point?Report
My point was not to confuse hypocrisy with non-belief/non-group membership. The communist leaders who overthrew non-communist governments during the cold war were hypocritical and calculating but they were still communists. The ayatollahs were/are hypocrites, but they are still ultra conservative Muslims.
What I’m pushing back on is the idea that someone whose entire persona is an open rejection of a particular extremist ideology can still lead said extremist group to totalitarian (or close to it) control. Maybe that has happened but I am not aware of any historical example.Report
Ok, if you put it that way I suppose I follow. So they do those things and they’re still communists/Islamists/Catholics etc but they feel bad about it. Fair enuff.Report
Buddhist Tibet when it was actually a theocracy? The Taliban seems to have walked the walk as well. Same with at least the early leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.Report
I think this is something of a uniquely Protestant hypocrisy and even then not that much. A lot of puritanical ascetic clergy actually manage to walk the walk. I think a lot of the Islamist types really do live the harsh life style they want for others. Same with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy or Buddhist clergy. It’s the prosperity gospel of American Evangelical Christianity and a lot of the gaudy excess that leads us to believe differently.Report
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/5/16796892/trump-cyrus-christian-right-bible-cbn-evangelical-propaganda
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-right-worships-donald-trump-915381/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/donald-trump-church-photo-op-evangelicals
Your Mileage May Vary.Report
I find it about as convincing as I find the argument that Joe Biden is going to impose a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship of the woke due to the endorsement by the wokerati.
But look this is turning into a giant jack of Michael’s way more interesting post so I am going to leave it at that.Report
As a state level society, none yet. There are subcultures like the Evangelicals where this happens though.Report
re: “I’m generally suspicious of government attempts to both increase and decrease the fertility rate. Nothing good comes from either. With the former, especially with right-leaning governments, you get something like the Handmaiden’s Tale.”
OK, so you acknowledge that there aren’t any such cases. If it happens at the subcultural level, then it’s not governmental. But, are there even any subcultural examples? You mention Evangelicals – are there a lot of polygamous Evangelicals with backup breeding wives?Report
Falwell Jr.
Wait, that was the other way around.Report
Great piece! Really enjoyed it.
One of the fascinating things that many people are unaware of is the unbelievably severe social pressure on couples in many European countries to have very few, even no children. Some of my clients are being treated quite shabbily by friends, coworkers, family, and even medical professionals for having even just three children, which is a pretty normal number in the US. Even two is frowned upon in some circles.
We all have heard tell of gender selective abortions in Asia, but there are many of them occurring in Europe as well (and to a lesser extent in the US, but there’s less pressure to limit family size here). There’s not only a strong preference for few children, but a strong preference for girls – or at least ~A~ girl for the sake of “family balancing” – to such extent that some people are actually conceiving again and again trying for a girl and aborting males.Report
That is fascinating, so what is the reason for the Europeans looking down on electing to have kids? It seems like such an alien attitude to have from a North American context.Report
I’ve noticed a subtle trend among folks who opt* not to have kids, who seem to be growing in number in the states, of really looking down at children and those folks who brought them into the world. It is often couched in humor but I wonder if there is a bit more to it. It’s of the, “Yea, we would have invited you to the dinner party but it was adults only and, well, you know, you have those things at home,” variety. I don’t quite get it and I generally try not to let it bug me, but it does seem present. My hunch is that it is a form of push back on the assumption that they ought to be having kids and are therefore doing something wrong because they didn’t. But it seems misdirected. I wonder if these are connected.
* I recognize some of these folks may in fact want kids but for one reason or another are unable to and therefore do not and have made not having kids a part of their identity.Report
Maybe my reading comprehension is off, but is this strictly looking at America? If so, do we really need to fret about the fertility rate when we have more than enough immigration to keep our population growing?Report
we have more then enough immigration if you count the undocumented folks. Documented immigration is a fraction of that.Report
Fertility rates are dropping basically everywhere outside of Israel and have been for decades. We might actually reach a point in the medium future where illegal immigration dries up from Mexico and points south not so much because we build a wall or whatever, but because there’s less of an excess of populationReport
Having children is hard. Not having children has become easier and more pleasant for many people especially college-educated professionals in the DINK scenario or even living on their own. The thing that gets me confused is that the people who shit their pants about declining birth rates are also the ones who scream until they are blue in the face about how any sort of program or policy that makes having children easier is evil socialism that cannot be allowed.
Then again, the human condition might as well be “you can’t have it both ways but both ways is the only way I want it.”Report
The problem here is that between the high progressivity of the tax system and the huge amount of money that the government spends on universal and means-tested benefits, the majority of Americans are, on a whole-life basis, net tax recipients. That is, the government spends more on then than they pay in taxes. Just paying the government back for public school requires paying several thousand dollars per year in state taxes alone—how many people do that?
Because heredity is a thing (or, for heredity denialists, because high-earners tend to have high-earning children for whatever reason), the children of net tax recipients will, on average, be net tax recipients themselves. So a program that only encourages net tax recipients to have children will worsen the long-fun fiscal situation.
To actually improve the long-run fiscal situation, we need programs targeted at people who pay the most in taxes. So rather than a fixed child allowance of $3,000 per year, we might offer an 10% reduction in your total federal tax bill per child, starting from the third, up to a 30% reduction, or something like that. I’m not sure how viable this is, since maybe it would just give people tax cuts for children they were going to have anyway and not incentivize any additional children, but a fixed-dollar child credit has the wrong incentive structure. The only thing worse than that would be one that phases out at high incomes, so of course that’s what we actually have.Report
Stand on Zanzibar, written in the 60s, was about the horrors that would ensue when world population reached 7 billion.Report
Also, Heinlein’s If This Goes On— seems like an obvious precursor to The Handmaid’s Tale.Report
and it…wasn’t particularly wrong about how the world would turn! There’s been rather more miniaturization of electronics (and advances in signal processing) than Brunner expected, but that book is scary in how closely it matches what we’ve got today.Report
A lot of wrong guesses too, of course, No mandatory limits on family size, no genetic limits on who can have kids, no uniquely capable computers smarter than people are (it’s a common conceit in SF, but, really, if we can build one, we can build thousands).
But, sure, it’s an excellent book, and very prescient about endemic violence, the sexual revolution, and social media. It even predicts Viagra (not by name, of course.)Report
The average woman wants 2.7 children and is having 1.8.
Well, sure. Do you know what it costs to educate .9 of a child these days?Report
But, seriously, among the people I know with one child, the most common reason is the expense of raising them and in particular the cost of schooling.Report
I mean, fertility drops like a stone everywhere we have any sort of modern economy, even in places with heavy restrictions on women (see Iran and Saudi Arabia’s fertility rate over the past 30 years), and it becomes even more pronounced when women have somewhere close to equal access to education and the job market.
Because it turns out, and this isn’t a ding on women who have kids when they’re young, that having children in your 20’s is a drag on other parts of your life, in a variety of ways, especially for women, where even when they have jobs, all studies still show them dealing with a disproportionate part of the work of parenthood, there ya’ go.
The only country that seems to have bucked this trend is Israel (since Hungry’s attempts are failing pretty flat) and they have the ‘positives’ of a unified society that feels like it’s under constant threat and insane subsidies for a portion of the population.
Also, I have to push slightly back on the ‘women are having less kids than they want.’
Here’s the thing – people are optimistic in general, at times, so I think even if we had massive child care subsidies, either for the home or day care, free health care, monthly checks for parents, and a better work-life balance for parents, there’d still be a gap. Maybe a slightly smaller gap, but not as small as you think.
In short, yes, pass all the good stuff, but not because it’ll actually help birth rates all that much, but because it’s the right thing to do.Report
The other big part, especially in the United States, is that thank to our broken welfare state is that it makes it very hard to have kids and very easy and often pleasant not to have kids. There are lots of DINKs out there who live something as close to a responsibility free lifestyle without being a loaded trustfunder. Yes, they have jobs and could be laid off/develop a serious illness or injury concurrently but largely they get have significant discretionary income and free time to do what they want.Report
Sure, but it’s not like Sweden, France, or Denmark has a high fertility rate either, so while I think an expanded welfare state is Good, it’s not going to make people have a ton more babies.Report
I think the relationship between the welfare state or lack of welfare state and the fertility rate is pretty close to zero. Having a robust welfare state can help on the margins but the fertility rate seems to be more ideological and sociological, meaning what people think and how society is organized is important.Report
About the only significant variable affecting fertility rate that I’ve seen seems to be female education and wealth.Report
Yet, the fertility rate is going down in some placers that do really badly by those metrics like Saudi Arabia.Report
Female education, wealth AND legal rights.Report
Israel’s fertility is also high because of the Holocaust. A lot of this is about trying to recover lost numbers even if Jews elsewhere do not have the same philosophy about this.
Besides greater opportunities for women, people in the developed world and even less developed world have more of an opportunity to enjoy their youth since World War II than they did previously. There were always at least some twenty somethings in the big cities living life to the fullest but because life was closer to the bone for many people and society was still very traditional, not that many. After World War II, a massive increase in wealth and social liberalization made the enjoy your twenties life style more available. It turns out a lot of people really do want to do fun things when young rather than raise kids.
Kids are also a cost rather than a free source of labor these days. So that contributes to smaller families as dismal as it sounds.Report
I have a number of friends and acquaintances with ties to Israel. Most of them say that there’s a really strongly supportive culture and policy mix there in favor of having kids but, in fairness, I have heard some stories about how people who have less than three kids suffer from some pretty nasty cultural side eye. I wonder if it’s possible to get the one without the other though.Report
Israel has a very well-known pro-natal policy with both advocates and detractors from the usual camp.Report
My sister was doing her mom thing of nagging her 12 year old about picking up his clothes and cleaning his room, and he muttered darkly, “Yeah, that’s why you had kids, you just want someone to do your work for you!”
The idea of children being this endless source of free labor was so hilarious she had to sit down and let the gasps of laughter subside, before she could even get angry.Report
LOL. When society was much more rural and poorer, kids were absolutely a labor source for farms, mines, workshops. and many other places. It was why child labor was a thing.Report
I want to throw something out there in response to your second paragraph that I think gets short shrift and that I think is why Bruenig’s article touched such a nerve. People who are foregoing children by definition don’t know what they’re missing. Now again, I don’t judge and I mean that. Other people’s choices on this subject are something I deem none of my damn business.
But I’m being totally serious when I say becoming a dad is the best and most fun thing I’ve ever done. Yea it’s a lot of work and there are some big sacrifices but it hasn’t been the complete death sentence single/childless people can act like it is (and not for my wife either). This is where I acknowledge how lucky I am to have a great support structure, good job, etc. But because my wife and I waited until into our 30s we’ve now found ourselves in a position where our window for more is rapidly closing. We have to consider some assistance which raises a whole bunch of moral and financial quandaries for us that are way too personal to get into.
And look I loved my 20s! I partied my face off to the extent I could with hellish law school debt and not a lot of income coming out of the Great Recession. But if you told me I could trade the last, oh 2 years of that, to get started on where I am today, even with way less financial security, but have a good chance of avoiding what we’re dealing with now? I’d take it in a heartbeat. So again I don’t begrudge people riding the party wave forever (some of my closest friends are) but don’t take it as a given that their decision is really the happiest or even the most fun. It’s a very personal, and IMO not at all straightforward decision.Report
I agree that being a parent is a good thing. I am not a parent yet because of no partner but I kind of want children some day. I might be having them older than I would wish, I was hoping to get them popped out in the first half of my thirties, but what can you do. That being said,, we are seeing an increase in childless people for a variety of reasons and a growing number of humans seem to be making this choice.Report
Oh yea, I get the case for it and I don’t think there’s any one easy explanation.
And also I wish you luck in your search.Report
I wonder how much housing costs play into as well. If I am a DINK in a two bedroom residence, and I suddenly have a kid, I can make it work. Two kids? Now I kinda need a bigger place, but I have less disposable income…Report
A two bedroom residence for a family of four would be seen as ample space for a family within living history even in the most affluent countries. In a lot of the world, many people do with a lot less space even in really wealthy countries. The idea that small families or even big families need big amounts of space is really new one.Report
Sure, they can, but do people see it that way? I mean, in living history, people got by without internet, but these days access to it is seen as a public good.
If you didn’t live in a small house packed with family, would you necessarily want to do that?
Or maybe you are DINKs in a 1 bedroom in the city, and you have a kid. You’ll want a second bedroom pretty quick. Or maybe a safer, or more kid-friendly neighborhood (just because in living memory kids grew up in combat zones…).Report
I’m reminded of John Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia experiment. I’ve often looked at the dysfunction creeping into society, aberrant behaviors, and wondered that it mirrored that experiment closely, it doesn’t help that population collapse, the loss of desire to breed or even copulate, appears to be the next stage we are entering. (by observation only here, of course)Report