Indeed, looking at other replies here - people are "too lazy" to have kids, "too immature" to have kids, have "excuses" not to have kids... the reality is that not having kids is a decision one is continuously called to justify and defend against attack in ways other life choices are not.
Indeed, looking at other replies here - people are "too lazy" to have kids, "too immature" to have kids, have "excuses" not to have kids... the reality is that not having kids is a decision one is continuously called to justify and defend against attack in ways other life choices are not.
Yes, which is why I find the "why don't you have kids" question infuriating. I had that put to me for several years (in my first marriage) and for many reasons my ex and I never had kids together. But we both had kids in our 2nd marriages. I have friends who can't have kids and others who have chosen not to, and others trying desperately so to have a 2nd child. I find the pro-natalist position to be infuriating at times.
Having kids is pretty fundamental to civilization and life in general. Literally every single one of your ancestors had kids. If any of them had not done so, you would not exist.
Not everyone can or should have kids, and there are certainly people who choose not to for very valid reasons. Considering the baseline importance to society, I think it's more than appropriate to ask the question from the perspective of assuming people want/will have kids. The alternative would be to stigmatize having children. If that ever caught on society would fall apart within a generation.
Having kids is fundamental from the 20,000ft view of a species propagating itself. But having kids does not mean one's life is more valued than the childless. I have 2 kids but I don't go around asking people why they're not breeding at appropriate levels to make sure the GDP growth is appropriately maintained.
This comment did strike something in my mind: Do you think it appropriate to reflect the impact of childlessness in, say, Social Security taxes? My family is (rather, will be) definitely a net contributor so I'm not going to be exactly unbiased here, but it does seem that society needs fresh blood to pay the taxes and support those who are past their productive earning years.
Sure; I'm up for higher taxes in general, especially if they fund e.g. medical fees for pregnancy, birth and early childhood so people don't have to consider the possibility of going bankrupt when deciding whether to be a parent, or maybe education so teachers don't have to spend their subsistence-level salary on stationery, rather than yet another misguided adventure in the middle east.
I find it ironic that there are ton of people out there that are very pro-birth and pro-natalist but not very pro-child or pro-family when it comes to supporting policies to make it easier to raise children. Especially in the U.S.
If we, as a society, are concerned about the long-term viability of SS to pay out full benefits beyond 2035 then it has to be done via changes to that tax code. Someone making over $142K a year should be paying SS taxes on their full income.
There are plenty of ways to address SS aside from insisting that increased birthrates solve the problem.
I mean if one is not concerned about the future negative impacts of climate change on humanity then why be concerned about the future negative economic impacts of a smaller population of the same said future humanity.
I'm not saying that increased birth rates will solve the problem, but increased taxation and increased birth rates will be necessary without some rather onerous solutions.
A fairly simple solution that seems reasonable would be to raise the full retirement age to 70 or 72. Again, sounds OK since SS started when life expectancy was 65 and it's now almost 80 so why not? Well, the problem there is that people retire much, much earlier on average than they expect. The expect to work until 65 or 67 but on average retire earlier...several years earlier. So kicking the can on age won't solve it.
I also am skeptical as to the soak-the-affluent strategy. Notice I didn't say rich - the rich make money through capital gains or even more so through unrealized capital gains captured through completely tax-free debt for cash flow purposes. SCOTUS has formally stated that OASDI (Social Security) is not in fact insurance but just another tax, so we do have legal cover to hike rates. The problem is that the wealthier are the most adept to tax avoidance whereas the working and middle classes take it on the chin. Social Security is a regressive tax, and I can't think of any way to make it less regressive.
All this is before we get to your point: If TFR is below 2 (it is) and workforce participation is declining (ditto).... how exactly are we going to raise the money to keep SS's solvency? The rhetorical question answers itself but just in case it's not clear: We aren't.
If I were progressive, I'd be much more inclined to raise money in other ways and just bluntly say it's a redistribution of unfair distribution of wealth. Trying to make SS balance is really a sucker's game unless you're willing to do it on the backs of those who need it most.
Aside from increasing immigration, which an aging population seems disinclined to accept at this moment and people delaying having children for all the various reasons we have, then we have to ask ourselves if we're willing to raise revenue to ensure that those who rely on SS to get them through their end years. I think we could restructure tax policies whereby capital gains taxes could be increased with that going to fund SS.
I mean, we could get into a philisophical debate about manual labor has been economically degraded in order for stockholders to see massive profits w/ low tax burdens.
If I had my way, I'd reduce the military budget by 1/3 and pump that into policies that are supportive of young families and retirees that are reliant upon SS to make ends meet. It wouldn't solve the issue completely but it could fill gaps.
I'm perfectly fine with a libertarian "do what you want" approach. I would prefer, for society-level reasons, that we err on the side of having children being the "natural" approach. The default position, if you will. If it's the default position, then people will naturally ask about situations where someone isn't following the default. There can be a society where neither having nor not having children are considered a default, but I worry about the longevity and health of such a society.
My reasoning is more than I would like to get into here, so if you want to leave that as my personal preference I am fine with that.
That sounds very reasonable, but it still feels like there's a bit of a gap between asking questions about not following the default and asserting that someone is just too lazy or immature to.
It's always a pendulum, where we may go too far to one side or too far to the other. In any situation where a behavior is considered "normal" there will be people who harass others who don't do it. That's true for both left and right positions, such as gay rights, climate change, support for the military or police, etc.
Scott's article is about people harassing others for having children, due to concern about global warming. I don't think that should happen either, but here we are.
Right, because having children is seen as a duty. A duty to your country, your family, your species, your parents, your society, and in some sense a duty to your future children themselves.
It's not the only life choice that other people will nag you about, there's plenty of others. If you're an able-bodied man during WW2 then people are going to nag if you don't choose to join the war effort. And if you live in 2021 and are forever throwing your disposable coffee cups into the landfill rather than the recycling you'll get nagged about that too.
I have a sense that if you are an able-bodied young person with good genes then you have a duty to have children, if only to balance out the dysgenic effect of all the bad-gened individuals who breed like rabbits.
Quite apart from the deeply worrying description of people as having "good" and "bad" genes, can you see why "bad-gened individuals who breed like rabbits" is an oxymoron, at least from the point of view of the genes in question?
Seriously, the species is not going to die out because some people are exercising the choice that their parents largely didn't get. Everyone going on about how people need to breed so we can get cleverer people to solve world problems - how about helping other countries whose already-existing people are not getting the resources (education, medical etc) they need to make good use of their already-existing talents? (and no, not by forcing anything on other countries, but eg cancelling the debt they "owe" to various Western powers would be an excellent start, as would enabling poorer countries to get a decent amount of Covid-19 vaccine).
Most countries owe some debt somewhere. ItтАЩs not clear at all that debt cancellation is going to produce the outcomes you suggest. And the west does in fact send lots of aid to the poorest parts of the world.
That's all debatable, but in any case it was just an example. My point is that far more talent is being lost daily due to high death tolls from disease, poverty and war than could be created by encouraging rich Westerners to have more children.
Many, perhaps all heterodox positions attract such pressure when they become apparent to peers.
A couple of examples -
I was vegetarian as a teenager (some years ago). When they found out, other kids would just suddenly take it on themselves to argue about it.
A few years ago, I saw a comedian do a set about how it's hard not to drink alcohol because of how much bystanders would try to persuade them. (The comedian also thought this was alcohol-specific.)
Indeed, looking at other replies here - people are "too lazy" to have kids, "too immature" to have kids, have "excuses" not to have kids... the reality is that not having kids is a decision one is continuously called to justify and defend against attack in ways other life choices are not.
Yes, which is why I find the "why don't you have kids" question infuriating. I had that put to me for several years (in my first marriage) and for many reasons my ex and I never had kids together. But we both had kids in our 2nd marriages. I have friends who can't have kids and others who have chosen not to, and others trying desperately so to have a 2nd child. I find the pro-natalist position to be infuriating at times.
Having kids is pretty fundamental to civilization and life in general. Literally every single one of your ancestors had kids. If any of them had not done so, you would not exist.
Not everyone can or should have kids, and there are certainly people who choose not to for very valid reasons. Considering the baseline importance to society, I think it's more than appropriate to ask the question from the perspective of assuming people want/will have kids. The alternative would be to stigmatize having children. If that ever caught on society would fall apart within a generation.
Having kids is fundamental from the 20,000ft view of a species propagating itself. But having kids does not mean one's life is more valued than the childless. I have 2 kids but I don't go around asking people why they're not breeding at appropriate levels to make sure the GDP growth is appropriately maintained.
This comment did strike something in my mind: Do you think it appropriate to reflect the impact of childlessness in, say, Social Security taxes? My family is (rather, will be) definitely a net contributor so I'm not going to be exactly unbiased here, but it does seem that society needs fresh blood to pay the taxes and support those who are past their productive earning years.
Sure; I'm up for higher taxes in general, especially if they fund e.g. medical fees for pregnancy, birth and early childhood so people don't have to consider the possibility of going bankrupt when deciding whether to be a parent, or maybe education so teachers don't have to spend their subsistence-level salary on stationery, rather than yet another misguided adventure in the middle east.
I find it ironic that there are ton of people out there that are very pro-birth and pro-natalist but not very pro-child or pro-family when it comes to supporting policies to make it easier to raise children. Especially in the U.S.
If we, as a society, are concerned about the long-term viability of SS to pay out full benefits beyond 2035 then it has to be done via changes to that tax code. Someone making over $142K a year should be paying SS taxes on their full income.
There are plenty of ways to address SS aside from insisting that increased birthrates solve the problem.
I mean if one is not concerned about the future negative impacts of climate change on humanity then why be concerned about the future negative economic impacts of a smaller population of the same said future humanity.
I'm not saying that increased birth rates will solve the problem, but increased taxation and increased birth rates will be necessary without some rather onerous solutions.
A fairly simple solution that seems reasonable would be to raise the full retirement age to 70 or 72. Again, sounds OK since SS started when life expectancy was 65 and it's now almost 80 so why not? Well, the problem there is that people retire much, much earlier on average than they expect. The expect to work until 65 or 67 but on average retire earlier...several years earlier. So kicking the can on age won't solve it.
I also am skeptical as to the soak-the-affluent strategy. Notice I didn't say rich - the rich make money through capital gains or even more so through unrealized capital gains captured through completely tax-free debt for cash flow purposes. SCOTUS has formally stated that OASDI (Social Security) is not in fact insurance but just another tax, so we do have legal cover to hike rates. The problem is that the wealthier are the most adept to tax avoidance whereas the working and middle classes take it on the chin. Social Security is a regressive tax, and I can't think of any way to make it less regressive.
All this is before we get to your point: If TFR is below 2 (it is) and workforce participation is declining (ditto).... how exactly are we going to raise the money to keep SS's solvency? The rhetorical question answers itself but just in case it's not clear: We aren't.
If I were progressive, I'd be much more inclined to raise money in other ways and just bluntly say it's a redistribution of unfair distribution of wealth. Trying to make SS balance is really a sucker's game unless you're willing to do it on the backs of those who need it most.
Aside from increasing immigration, which an aging population seems disinclined to accept at this moment and people delaying having children for all the various reasons we have, then we have to ask ourselves if we're willing to raise revenue to ensure that those who rely on SS to get them through their end years. I think we could restructure tax policies whereby capital gains taxes could be increased with that going to fund SS.
I mean, we could get into a philisophical debate about manual labor has been economically degraded in order for stockholders to see massive profits w/ low tax burdens.
If I had my way, I'd reduce the military budget by 1/3 and pump that into policies that are supportive of young families and retirees that are reliant upon SS to make ends meet. It wouldn't solve the issue completely but it could fill gaps.
Why is stigmatizing having children the alternative? Why do we have to attach stigma to anything?
I'm perfectly fine with a libertarian "do what you want" approach. I would prefer, for society-level reasons, that we err on the side of having children being the "natural" approach. The default position, if you will. If it's the default position, then people will naturally ask about situations where someone isn't following the default. There can be a society where neither having nor not having children are considered a default, but I worry about the longevity and health of such a society.
My reasoning is more than I would like to get into here, so if you want to leave that as my personal preference I am fine with that.
That sounds very reasonable, but it still feels like there's a bit of a gap between asking questions about not following the default and asserting that someone is just too lazy or immature to.
It's always a pendulum, where we may go too far to one side or too far to the other. In any situation where a behavior is considered "normal" there will be people who harass others who don't do it. That's true for both left and right positions, such as gay rights, climate change, support for the military or police, etc.
Scott's article is about people harassing others for having children, due to concern about global warming. I don't think that should happen either, but here we are.
Right, because having children is seen as a duty. A duty to your country, your family, your species, your parents, your society, and in some sense a duty to your future children themselves.
It's not the only life choice that other people will nag you about, there's plenty of others. If you're an able-bodied man during WW2 then people are going to nag if you don't choose to join the war effort. And if you live in 2021 and are forever throwing your disposable coffee cups into the landfill rather than the recycling you'll get nagged about that too.
I have a sense that if you are an able-bodied young person with good genes then you have a duty to have children, if only to balance out the dysgenic effect of all the bad-gened individuals who breed like rabbits.
Quite apart from the deeply worrying description of people as having "good" and "bad" genes, can you see why "bad-gened individuals who breed like rabbits" is an oxymoron, at least from the point of view of the genes in question?
Seriously, the species is not going to die out because some people are exercising the choice that their parents largely didn't get. Everyone going on about how people need to breed so we can get cleverer people to solve world problems - how about helping other countries whose already-existing people are not getting the resources (education, medical etc) they need to make good use of their already-existing talents? (and no, not by forcing anything on other countries, but eg cancelling the debt they "owe" to various Western powers would be an excellent start, as would enabling poorer countries to get a decent amount of Covid-19 vaccine).
Most countries owe some debt somewhere. ItтАЩs not clear at all that debt cancellation is going to produce the outcomes you suggest. And the west does in fact send lots of aid to the poorest parts of the world.
That's all debatable, but in any case it was just an example. My point is that far more talent is being lost daily due to high death tolls from disease, poverty and war than could be created by encouraging rich Westerners to have more children.
I don't think this is actually true.
Many, perhaps all heterodox positions attract such pressure when they become apparent to peers.
A couple of examples -
I was vegetarian as a teenager (some years ago). When they found out, other kids would just suddenly take it on themselves to argue about it.
A few years ago, I saw a comedian do a set about how it's hard not to drink alcohol because of how much bystanders would try to persuade them. (The comedian also thought this was alcohol-specific.)