Anyway, I thought I'd post some links on a topic I've been thinking about recently - babies. I think it's impossible for a woman of childbearing age to acknowledge that she has ever thought of children with anything other than a shiver of horror without raising questions. So let me go ahead and answer that. I'm aware that I'm 28, and this would be a good time to consider freezing my eggs. But I don't want children. Not now, and maybe not ever. Which is an increasingly common opinion, at least among Europeans. The NY Times printed this article last weekend, and I've sort of been mulling it over ever since.
Apparently the decline population in Europe is related both to economic factors (it's too expensive to have children) and to a change in attitudes about the "natural" role of women (dear God, don't get me started). The birth rate in the U.S. is still around the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, and the authors suggest that it's mostly due to greater economic flexibility. Although perhaps it's also related to a more traditional view of the "natural" role of women. Ugh.
Meanwhile, Newsweek recently published this article. The basic premise is that people who have children are generally less happy that people who don't have children. Apparently evolutionary fitness does not equal happiness. I felt sort of vindicated by this, but people with children do report a greater sense of purpose in their lives. So, you know, that's something - especially if you care about western values.
The NY Times article points out that Europeans make up an increasingly small percentage of global population (increasingly small? does that make sense?), and suggests that the U.S. will be alone in representing western values throughout the world. The author of the article asks:
"Will ethnic Greeks and Spaniards become extinct, taking their baklava and paella to the grave with them, to be replaced by waves of Muslim immigrants who couldn’t care less about the Acropolis as a majestic representation of Western culture?"That "waves of Muslim immigrants" thing sound suspiciously racist to me. Actually, I generally find talk about "maintaining the integrity" of a culture to be more that a little racist/xenophobic, but perhaps it's because of the melting pot (or salad bowl, either way) ideal of American society (I said ideal. I realize that in practice it doesn't happen quite that way). Although I like baklava and paella, so I'd be sad if they became extinct. But I digress.
There's some debate as well over whether decline populations are a bad thing. From an ecological perspective, having fewer people is good, right? Fewer people means less strain on the planets resources. But it's difficult to imagine economic growth in societies where a decreasing number of workers are supporting an increasing number of elderly people.
Which brings me to the next link I'd like to share with you. This is from Radiolab's program on mortality. Check on the section entitled "Fountain of Youth." The second part of this clip is a report on caring for the aging in Japan. Currently the population of elderly in Japan is 21%, and should double in 40 years. The story goes on to report about the difficulty of caring for the elderly, now that throwing them off cliffs is no longer popular. The whole thing is very sad (until you get to the part about the seal robot, where it becomes creepy).
There are clearly no simple answers to the whole declining birthrate/aging population problems. And for an individual person (especially a woman of childbearing age) it's a lot of pressure. It's a good thing that I'm an American and don't have to worry that my offspring may be the only thing standing between the great civilizations of the past and the invading Muslim hordes. But you Europeans better get busy. Unless you want to be cared for by Paro.
7 comments:
why would you get a robotic seal when you could have a dog? since Nell and Pete just left for St. Louis, I think I'm going to go and get my dog to keep me company this week. They also took my car, which means I have to drive the truck around if I want to go anywhere.
I think this post is interesting. I especially think its interesting that the New York Times editors failed to suggest the word decreasing for increasingly small. I agree that fear of cultural preservation has those tinges of xenophobia. I was thinking another reason that America has maintained a replacement birthrate is the increasing population of first generation immigrants who have more children, until education/incomes decrease the returns to additional kiddos. So, if you aren't going to have any of your own children, do you want to divert some resources toward raising mine? You can help name the next one... tempting?
Now, what I meant to say is:
(1) I think that people are afraid of ceasing to exist and dying alone.
(2) I think that SOMETIMES unhappy people have babies to try and fix their crappy lives while SOMETIMES people who are very self-fulfilled don't see any reason to change things by adding a lot of diaper changing and heartache.
(3) I want a baby but I can't see any good reason to want one.
and (4) I find that my sister, who has two babies, likes to spend two hours talking about how much easier my life is than hers because I don't have a baby and then another two hours telling me about how I should have a baby. This makes me wonder if my sister loves me at all...
First of all, having recently been called a man-hater by someone I thought to be fairly liberal-minded, I enjoyed your unapologetic post that both blatantly disagrees with natural/cultural essentialism about women's roles and refuses to apologize for not producing more Mr. Little Red-White-And-Blue's to question why I don't just shut up and let them objectify my body and degrade my work to make their power feel safe and unchallenged.
Also, even if we do "slow economic growth" by not procreating, why is this a negative. It seems such growth only continues to fuel and reify the same competitive capitalistic economic patriarchy that forced us all into the natural domestic duties we are asked (at least on an ideological level) to fulfill today.
So, I say to you, I aplaud the fact that you don't feel maternalistic in the slightest when you come across drooling children who chew goldfish into a slobbery pulp and then, and only then, ask you to share.
Also, I'm confused about the relation of "purpose" and "happiness" and how these things are measured. Having recently been asked to rate both of those things on a number scale, I find that my ideas about life purpose or any statements about my overall happiness change from moment to moment.
My favorite post so far! I'm almost so inspired that I want to throw up my hands and chant second wave feminist mantras like "sisterhood is powerful" and "the personal is political!" --sp
hmmm. I think I might've been too flip in my first post. I still feel that dogs offer excellent companionship.
First of all, I should say that "increasingly small" was my fault, not the NYTimes. But these posts are written with very little editing - it's amazing they're as coherent as they are. "Decreasing" may have been the word I needed.
The dramatic worldwide demographic shifts that result from women having control of their own bodies are interesting. What better example of the-personal-as-political could you ask for?
The other thing that I've been thinking about is (assuming that the sole purpose of womanhood is not reproduction) why people want children. Innate biological drive? (maybe related to anaeromyxo's point 1) Societal expectations?
Anyway - I don't know how purpose and happiness were quantified. I only read the newsweek article, and didn't go back to the original story. Also, I'm sure that your sister loves you. It's just a complicated, competitive kind of love. And apparently the robotic seal is better than animals because it doesn't bite, scratch, and is hypoallergenic.
Post a Comment