I bought my best friend this funny guide for new dads (his daughter is 2 months old today) and my favorite part is an illustration of what you think a newborn will look like vs. what a newborn actually looks like. When most people think newborn, they're thinking of what 2-4-month-old looks like. Actual newborns look weeeeeeeeiiiiiird. lol. Of course the parents (and maybe grandparents, and close family) are like omg this baby is the most beautiful living being. I felt that way. And then now that mine are big, I look back at some of the photos where they had no facial muscle or body control and no fat on them and patchy hair and I'm like, oh yeah, that was the tiny-alien-frog-baby stage.
I loved my little alien creature! The creepy eyes, the almost grotesque conical head – horrifying and intensely strange that (if you're not unlucky) you still love it somehow in a way you can't fully expect, even when you know it'll (probably) happen anyways.
Thing #1 I would not mind if humans went instinct. We do not seem to be good for other living things or each other, so I disagree with you slightly there. Like, does the bad cancel out the good? I even wonder sometimes if humans are that great at all. After all, look at how some insects have survived. Humans are not only a blip but it could be argued we are destroying our own habitat and are an invasive species that should be stopped. We think what we do is great but no other animal would agree.
Thing #2 the only true pleasure and sense of purpose and meaningful moments in my life had to do with having and raising my kid. Nothing ever made sense to me until I was a mom. I'd go so far as to say this is the ONLY reason we're here because it's the only reason any animal is here. To reproduce, to survive. Isn't everything else just status building for that reason anyway? So there is a good chance I will leave this life believing that only having a kid and being a mother mattered to me and nothing else even came close.
I don't know really know how to reconcile these two things. I would say "you SHOULD" have kids because it's fucking awesome and for no other reason.
I dunno I mean human brains and bodies are incredible systems. I wouldn’t just dismiss us all out of hand. We are part of the natural world; just because we can think about it doesn’t make us Not Animals, and would you be cool with letting any other high level species die out? Nature can be cruel; we just have the added feature of being able to ruminate on the cruelty.
... and just because humans are capable of great cruelty and destruction of the planet does not mean we should be sentenced to extinction. That may be our eventual end, and we may have "earned it" to the extent that we made it an ecological inevitability. But as Erin says, we're part of the natural world. If you believe that the earth would be a better place without us one day, so be it. Until then, we're all here. So, um... get to fucking (whether procreative or not)?
"Thing #2 the only true pleasure and sense of purpose and meaningful moments in my life had to do with having and raising my kid. Nothing ever made sense to me until I was a mom."
Since I became a mom nothing makes sense, meaning has been scarce, and I feel bizarrely purposeless, despite (or because of) being overwhelmed with numerous little disparate purposes it seems impossible to fulfill. Amazing how varied the experiences of this are — and, it seems, not something ideology can force either way.
As Felicity said, "Well, it’s certainly a ballsy definition of 'happiness,' I must say—feeling increasingly, cripplingly guilt-ridden every second of every minute of every day" because you keep worrying you're failing this entire other human utterly dependent on you, "no matter how hard you try to play the ill-fitting maternal role properly, and no matter how much you abjectly accept that whatever successes or accomplishments that once bolstered your self-esteem are meaningless in the face of this one act..."
I love my kids. They're great. Never wish I didn't have 'em. Often wonder if I deserve to have 'em, and whether I can raise them properly. I suspect pro-natalist happy talk about each child only adding to the happiness total isn't meant just to guilt-trip the childfrees, but reassure parents that they're not failing their children simply by having them. Which works about as well as an Osteen Cube.
I'm amazed that prosperity-gospel pressure to not "negatively affirm" with self-doubt works as well as it does for so many people, since it won't work on me. I doubt that most people who find parenthood a natural fit get that way by positive thinking. But the happy talk does suggest positive thinking ought to be enough.
The prosperity gospel, with its "power of positive thinking", strikes again.
My three sons are 13, 8 and 3 (spaced by design). So we're simultaneously living through three distinct developmental stages. At this point in time, the hardest is the 3-year-old. Who is sweet and funny while also being in a phase of button-pushing and noise-making and general antisocial behavior. Of course, the swings from infuriating to adorable are nearly moment-to-moment, and thus mentally and emotionally exhausting. Last week I wrote this poem about motherhood. (In case you haven't read it, Kate Chopin's The Awakening is about a woman named Edna who feels trapped by her roles, and at the end swims out into the ocean, her fate left to the imagination, but the assumption is suicide.)
I’m not sure I’ve heard any pro-natalist utilitarian argument that claims “people are typically happy; more people -> more happiness.” Are there any good examples?
Anyhow, what you’re describing sounds a lot like Derek Parfitt’s “mere addition” paradox:
I've seen some philosophers simply accept the repugnant conclusion rather than give up straightforwardly aggregative utilitarianism. It's been a while since I took that Axiology seminar, so I don't have the papers on hand, but there's definitely a set of them like that. The effective altruism crowd come to mind. I'm not sure if your average person (or, indeed, your average pro-natalist) is dedicated enough to aggregative utilitarianism to commit to the moral imperative to create as much life as possible, though.
The big issue for me is that childbirth HURTS. Pregnancy hurts. It is physically exhausting in ways we didn't imagine before having children, and that's just before the baby arrives. We had one child and had to think long and hard before having a second one. After the second one it was clear there was no way my wife could go through all that again. In an imaginary world we'd love to have 12 kids, but not 12 pregnancies, and certainly not 12 deliveries. I can't imagine a moral imperative requiring someone to go through that.
... there's also the fact (if you believe what they say) that some women and couples would happily go through the pregnancy and birthing experiences as many times as possible and have little to no negative feelings about it. Not everyone feels the urge to procreate as strongly as those people. My wife and I are much closer aligned with your view; we just had our first child, and we're debating (with much ambivalence) whether to have a second. I suppose that means we're not "pro-natalists," per se. *shoulder shrug emoji*
Sometimes women have autoimmune conditions which go into remission during pregnancy, making pregnancy their healthiest, happiest time, and staying pregnant until their eldest child is old enough to help mind the other kids the best strategy for staying fit enough to actually parent. This is not true of every woman with every autoimmune condition, obviously.
For me, pregnancy was sickening and exhausting in ways I couldn't have imagined beforehand, and I considerable experience with sickness and exhaustion already.
Yep. I'm still on the fence about having children, and it's at least in part because my mom was permanently disabled by her second pregnancy. That's a hell of a lot to risk.
Plenty of times, everything goes fine, but when it doesn't...
Years ago I had this argument with a now-famous pro-natalist philosopher who made his point just as you describe. I pointed out that the lifetime (tau) of the species (or at least the high-population version of it) was also a major factor and that overloading the carrying capacity would probably crash that, in addition to creating a lot of misery. He honestly had forgotten to multiply by tau.
One could make the argument that a pro-natalist world is a more humane world. A world where it's possible for a middle class family to have 3 or even 5 kids and provide for them in a socially acceptable manner is one very different from our own.
Not necessarily. My reading of Freddie's piece is that he's only addressing the concept of procreation as a moral imperative, irrespective of whether or not society consciously and deliberately builds a world where it is easier to bear and raise children. That's were egalitarian and redistributive policies come in. A "pro-natalist" society might increase the probability we'd end up with such a "pro family," more equal society because more people would demand and fight for it, but I don't believe it to be a certainty. Obviously I can't speak for Freddie, but if I had to guess, he'd probably agree that one does not necessarily follow the other...
I think that pro-natalist policies are a macro thing like GDP or BMI. If the policies create a social safety net to nudge up the national average of kids per family then it’s working. When applied individually the arguments don’t work as well outside of the nudge of one more kid. Max absurdism at the individual level leads you to the realm of the Duggar’s or Jeffords cult
I have three kids and I’m frankly exhausted. I’m glad I have them. But they’re also a mess and expensive and selfish and at various times like small sociopaths —and I’ve got good ones! I don’t think the moral argument holds up.
I'm not sure this is serious so I'm just going to say a few things not well thought out. If you are writing about monogamous people then there are physical limitations for women. (I'm one). Maybe men don't focus on this, but so many women die in child birth. It's risky. Birth rates drop when people can control reproduction because it is risky and taking care of the children isn't easy. Yes, they bring happiness (usually) but few people have the physical capacity or wealth to have as many as they might want. Some societies have figured this out--multiple spouses. I met an accomplished woman with 4 children (from another culture). When she was asked how she had written so much while taking care of her 4 children? She answered, "O, my dear, the other wives do that." Currently, in the U.S.,with "by the seat of our pants" childcare (as we've seen in the pandemic) all mothers, even mothers with partners, struggle to carry on day-to-day living. Much better/different societal arrangements would need to be made if women had as many children as they wanted (even if they were physically able). Higher educational opportunities and less regulation by religious cultures are factors. Women have also reduced larger families as there simply was not an alternative to continuous pregnancies before safe birth control. Among us in the U.S. are religious groups--Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons-- for whom larger families are culturally supported. Mitt Romney has 5 sons and 24 grandchildren (maybe more--some by adoption and some by surrogacy). The number of children a woman has depends on her health, her social support, her finances, her emotional capacity. A child takes all one's energy. While it may make no intellectual sense, that little creature steals the intellectual sense and becomes the mother's heart and it never goes away even when the child is grown. I suppose each of us has the happiness we need from having a child--and most of us (with birth control) can decide how much of this kind of happiness we want (or don't want). The non-child bearing spouse (if there is one) is a factor as well. If that person is supportive a mother could have more. I don't have any observations about IVF except that those I know who have used this method to have children are usually well-prepared. Adoption is supported to some extent by tax-credits, but that's just a small amount of tax $$ at the time of adoption and no other support except what support is given any person raising children. If society gave support there would likely be more children by each mother, but since it doesn't there can't be an answer to this.
I love everything you’ve said here but I particularly love “o my dear, the other wives do that.” I’ll be using that. “Are you going to do laundry?” O my dear, the other wives do that! “What you making for dinner?” O my dear, the other wives do that!
"Some societies have figured this out--multiple spouses. I met an accomplished woman with 4 children (from another culture). When she was asked how she had written so much while taking care of her 4 children? She answered, 'O, my dear, the other wives do that.'"
I believe People of Praise, the intentional community SCOTUS judge Barrett is from, does similar childcare sharing, though without polygamy.
Mary Pezzulo, who has nearly every reason to loathe the charismatic Catholic movement she grew up in, still remembers the help around the house young mothers got fondly:
I got just close enough to one warm, fuzzy intentional community in college to research joining. The background info I found gave off a culty vibe, so I scarpered. I still sometimes wonder what life, especially family life, in a good intentional community might be like. Plenty of stories of what life is like in the bad ones, of course — though whether one seems good or bad might depend on where in the pecking order you are.
Thank you, this was new to me. The isolation of young parents is hardly discussed but very difficult. An intentional community w/o religion would be wonderful to imagine. So much work done alone over and over.
Love everything you wrote here. My doctor told me if I had given birth during another time I would have died. Modern medicine and birth control has changed the lives of women more than any political movement ever could. And yet even today, raising children is so... much.... work for women, including the mostly female childcare workers, many of whom receive poverty or just-above-poverty-level wages.
I can’t fully commit to the idea of unlimited abortion choice but I will say this: I could also never think it is my right to force another woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth. In another time I would’ve died as well, perhaps with all three of my kids.
I nearly died with mine, but for being near a university teaching hospital. The most famous child birth mother death scene is probably in War & Peace. I can't think of another in the last century. It's really hidden from popular culture today--the risks. And to Tolstoy's credit, the death of Liza was not just a plot line for Bolkonsky's waltz with Natasha.
You are right, the dangers of child birth are and have been hidden from popular culture. I loved how the movie The Girl With the Pearl Earrings portrayed childbirth during that time. The fear of death in childbirth was quiet but emanating. I don't often see this in film.
"The simple moral pro-natalist case (as opposed to the economic case) goes like this: human beings are the source of happiness or, if you want to be fancy, utility. Humans create more happiness for other humans, and also experience happiness themselves, so expanding the stock of humans expands the amount of happiness/utility."
Some children grow up to be serial killers or genocidal psychopaths or presidents of the United States. I call bullshit.
I think the crude pro-natalist case pitched to selfish childless coastal people like myself (think Ross Douthat, etc) is more like: the one thing we know we are here to do is have children, and because of this, having children will enrich your life in ways you can’t even imagine. To that end, one kid = you “get it”, but is kind of the bare minimum. Two to four kinds is probably ideal for all sorts of reasons because you get maximum joy/fulfillment while having a somewhat reasonable situation (and helping that replacement rate!). More than that you are spreading your time and resources too thin (less ideal for the kids) and not gaining as much enrichment, although in old age you’d be stoked to have tons of kids. Not sure I’ve heard the “more is better no matter what” argument.
Yeah I mean a lot of people are saying some version of this in email, but my problem is that it ends up with a kind of penny ante parsing of how many kids is optimal based on XYZ.... And that gets into this point where you're not really advocating for more kids in general anymore, right? You're saying "people with the right family composition and economic outlook should have more kids, up to a certain point that we calculate with a complex formula." All of the elegance and simplicity of the pro-natalist argument seems to have been lost, and we're back in the muddle where we usually are, which is to say some people should have some kids, and maybe more, depending - which is what we're already doing.
I’m all for the tax credit, but the idea that the US will ever *incentivize* children financially is laughable.
Our childcare costs alone are $580 per week. Our son is a huge financial hit expected to last til he’s 22 (at least), and our lives are a lot more stressful because we are trying to raise him while working long hours without much time off. (My partner got one week of parental leave…unpaid. I got unpaid FMLA and used some sick days.)
We love the little guy, but we can’t imagine having two.
The US is one million miles away from making parenthood attractive from a financial perspective. We should help parents with costs because it’s the right thing to do, but anyone who expects these credits to result in more births is delusional.
In CA the childcare workers have unionized. The state is going to subsidize childcare..maybe a pass through to parents? or to the workers? I don't know anyone who this will affect or help but maybe it will help you. And there is a lot of invisible support from extended family but everyone doesn't have extended family.
I myself have concocted a nuanced opinion on this topic that takes into account the particulars as well as the broader context, ranging from personal finance to evolutionary psychology, all very cutting edge, but also resonant with the wisdom of the ages
There are some very strong arguments about WHY we have kids (evolution, fucking) and some very weak ones FOR having kids (great example of the is-ought distinction in action). But even amongst the weak arguments, the ones referring to utility are probably not the way to go (for all the nitpicky reasons that utilitarian arguments are so easily dismantled, even if utilitarianism as a whole is so consistently convincing). Probably the best justification comes from the Hegelian/Marxist/Weberian camp. The modern world, with its division of labor and wall-to-wall bureaucracy leaves each of us extremely alienated from the genuine humanity that many of us crave. Becoming a parent makes us slaves, with our children serving as bondsmen. And it is only through this relationship of bondage that we are able to muster the strength to forge some measly connection back to our own sense of humanity.
Historically, yes, the argument was "have as many kids as you can," because until 1900, north of 25% of infants died within their first year, and north of 45% died before before age 15. Globally. Worldwide. By 1950, that dropped to a bit over 15% before age 1 and over 25% before age 15. Now, it's a bit under 3% before age 1 and under 5% before age 15. So really, even just maintaining the population meant that the average woman needed to have something like 4-5 kids. Filter out those who didn't/couldn't/died first, and this means that women who did have kids must have had, on average, more than 4-5 each.
While infant and childhood mortality was so high, nobody really needed to worry about things like cumulative resource use or population growth. Just wasn't an issue. If you didn't have as many kids as possible, there just wouldn't be anyone within a few generations. Today? Yeah, lots of things are going to need to be reevaluated.
Seriously, I'm increasingly convinced that a majority of what are viewed as intractable social/political problems that have emerged in the last century or so (as distinct from those that have existed forever, e.g., "People tend to be assholes if they think they can get away with it.") are to a significant degree simply functions of scale. Solutions that worked with a global population of 150 million don't work with a global population in excess of 6 billion. Going to have to figure that out one way or the other.
Babies are kind of inherently creepy to me though very small tots are extremely cute
we were all one once.
I bought my best friend this funny guide for new dads (his daughter is 2 months old today) and my favorite part is an illustration of what you think a newborn will look like vs. what a newborn actually looks like. When most people think newborn, they're thinking of what 2-4-month-old looks like. Actual newborns look weeeeeeeeiiiiiird. lol. Of course the parents (and maybe grandparents, and close family) are like omg this baby is the most beautiful living being. I felt that way. And then now that mine are big, I look back at some of the photos where they had no facial muscle or body control and no fat on them and patchy hair and I'm like, oh yeah, that was the tiny-alien-frog-baby stage.
> Actual newborns look weeeeeeeeiiiiiird. lol.
I loved my little alien creature! The creepy eyes, the almost grotesque conical head – horrifying and intensely strange that (if you're not unlucky) you still love it somehow in a way you can't fully expect, even when you know it'll (probably) happen anyways.
"Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older they judge them; sometimes they forgive them."--Oscar Wilde.
Thing #1 I would not mind if humans went instinct. We do not seem to be good for other living things or each other, so I disagree with you slightly there. Like, does the bad cancel out the good? I even wonder sometimes if humans are that great at all. After all, look at how some insects have survived. Humans are not only a blip but it could be argued we are destroying our own habitat and are an invasive species that should be stopped. We think what we do is great but no other animal would agree.
Thing #2 the only true pleasure and sense of purpose and meaningful moments in my life had to do with having and raising my kid. Nothing ever made sense to me until I was a mom. I'd go so far as to say this is the ONLY reason we're here because it's the only reason any animal is here. To reproduce, to survive. Isn't everything else just status building for that reason anyway? So there is a good chance I will leave this life believing that only having a kid and being a mother mattered to me and nothing else even came close.
I don't know really know how to reconcile these two things. I would say "you SHOULD" have kids because it's fucking awesome and for no other reason.
I dunno I mean human brains and bodies are incredible systems. I wouldn’t just dismiss us all out of hand. We are part of the natural world; just because we can think about it doesn’t make us Not Animals, and would you be cool with letting any other high level species die out? Nature can be cruel; we just have the added feature of being able to ruminate on the cruelty.
... and just because humans are capable of great cruelty and destruction of the planet does not mean we should be sentenced to extinction. That may be our eventual end, and we may have "earned it" to the extent that we made it an ecological inevitability. But as Erin says, we're part of the natural world. If you believe that the earth would be a better place without us one day, so be it. Until then, we're all here. So, um... get to fucking (whether procreative or not)?
I don't know about "sentenced" to extinction. I'm just saying it would not be that bad.
The planet will live on without us, that’s for damn sure.
I do agree. Well said.
"Thing #2 the only true pleasure and sense of purpose and meaningful moments in my life had to do with having and raising my kid. Nothing ever made sense to me until I was a mom."
Since I became a mom nothing makes sense, meaning has been scarce, and I feel bizarrely purposeless, despite (or because of) being overwhelmed with numerous little disparate purposes it seems impossible to fulfill. Amazing how varied the experiences of this are — and, it seems, not something ideology can force either way.
As Felicity said, "Well, it’s certainly a ballsy definition of 'happiness,' I must say—feeling increasingly, cripplingly guilt-ridden every second of every minute of every day" because you keep worrying you're failing this entire other human utterly dependent on you, "no matter how hard you try to play the ill-fitting maternal role properly, and no matter how much you abjectly accept that whatever successes or accomplishments that once bolstered your self-esteem are meaningless in the face of this one act..."
I love my kids. They're great. Never wish I didn't have 'em. Often wonder if I deserve to have 'em, and whether I can raise them properly. I suspect pro-natalist happy talk about each child only adding to the happiness total isn't meant just to guilt-trip the childfrees, but reassure parents that they're not failing their children simply by having them. Which works about as well as an Osteen Cube.
I'm amazed that prosperity-gospel pressure to not "negatively affirm" with self-doubt works as well as it does for so many people, since it won't work on me. I doubt that most people who find parenthood a natural fit get that way by positive thinking. But the happy talk does suggest positive thinking ought to be enough.
The prosperity gospel, with its "power of positive thinking", strikes again.
My three sons are 13, 8 and 3 (spaced by design). So we're simultaneously living through three distinct developmental stages. At this point in time, the hardest is the 3-year-old. Who is sweet and funny while also being in a phase of button-pushing and noise-making and general antisocial behavior. Of course, the swings from infuriating to adorable are nearly moment-to-moment, and thus mentally and emotionally exhausting. Last week I wrote this poem about motherhood. (In case you haven't read it, Kate Chopin's The Awakening is about a woman named Edna who feels trapped by her roles, and at the end swims out into the ocean, her fate left to the imagination, but the assumption is suicide.)
The Awakening
On a Sunday afternoon in summer
is when I feel most desperate:
the house a shambles,
everyone so confidently entitled
to their relaxation—not just a relaxing,
but an unbuttoning, letting all their wants
and base impulses hang out,
candy wrappers fluttering, toys
tossed harum-scarum on the floor.
Nobody minding that their
relaxation is my nightmare.
My tenuously tethered world, this house,
where order and cleanliness are
my Everest: wanted so badly
but only ever glimpsed.
On this Sunday afternoon in summer
a literary memory emerges;
an idea takes form.
Like Edna Pontellier, I leave
my family and head toward the water,
hers being the ocean,
mine a 10-foot round, 30-inch deep
Intex Prism Frame pool.
As I step into the water’s cool comfort,
I realize I am not like Edna,
not really. I do not feel enslaved
to or by my children,
merely harassed. Relentlessly, true,
but it’s not their fault.
Their young brains cannot yet fathom
mine, this massive forest of neurons
created by grief, and pain, and joy.
Still, the water calms me. Like Edna,
I remain until my arms ache
and give out, except
instead of swimming away from life,
I am scooping acorns into a net,
which have tumbled into the pool
during last night’s storm.
I’m giving all my energy to the task,
feeling all my resentment fade
into delicious fatigue, like Edna did.
Only my aim is not to disappear,
but to clear the water, so that later
they might join me.
I’m not sure I’ve heard any pro-natalist utilitarian argument that claims “people are typically happy; more people -> more happiness.” Are there any good examples?
Anyhow, what you’re describing sounds a lot like Derek Parfitt’s “mere addition” paradox:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
I've seen some philosophers simply accept the repugnant conclusion rather than give up straightforwardly aggregative utilitarianism. It's been a while since I took that Axiology seminar, so I don't have the papers on hand, but there's definitely a set of them like that. The effective altruism crowd come to mind. I'm not sure if your average person (or, indeed, your average pro-natalist) is dedicated enough to aggregative utilitarianism to commit to the moral imperative to create as much life as possible, though.
The big issue for me is that childbirth HURTS. Pregnancy hurts. It is physically exhausting in ways we didn't imagine before having children, and that's just before the baby arrives. We had one child and had to think long and hard before having a second one. After the second one it was clear there was no way my wife could go through all that again. In an imaginary world we'd love to have 12 kids, but not 12 pregnancies, and certainly not 12 deliveries. I can't imagine a moral imperative requiring someone to go through that.
... there's also the fact (if you believe what they say) that some women and couples would happily go through the pregnancy and birthing experiences as many times as possible and have little to no negative feelings about it. Not everyone feels the urge to procreate as strongly as those people. My wife and I are much closer aligned with your view; we just had our first child, and we're debating (with much ambivalence) whether to have a second. I suppose that means we're not "pro-natalists," per se. *shoulder shrug emoji*
Sometimes women have autoimmune conditions which go into remission during pregnancy, making pregnancy their healthiest, happiest time, and staying pregnant until their eldest child is old enough to help mind the other kids the best strategy for staying fit enough to actually parent. This is not true of every woman with every autoimmune condition, obviously.
For me, pregnancy was sickening and exhausting in ways I couldn't have imagined beforehand, and I considerable experience with sickness and exhaustion already.
Yep. I'm still on the fence about having children, and it's at least in part because my mom was permanently disabled by her second pregnancy. That's a hell of a lot to risk.
Plenty of times, everything goes fine, but when it doesn't...
Years ago I had this argument with a now-famous pro-natalist philosopher who made his point just as you describe. I pointed out that the lifetime (tau) of the species (or at least the high-population version of it) was also a major factor and that overloading the carrying capacity would probably crash that, in addition to creating a lot of misery. He honestly had forgotten to multiply by tau.
One could make the argument that a pro-natalist world is a more humane world. A world where it's possible for a middle class family to have 3 or even 5 kids and provide for them in a socially acceptable manner is one very different from our own.
Not necessarily. My reading of Freddie's piece is that he's only addressing the concept of procreation as a moral imperative, irrespective of whether or not society consciously and deliberately builds a world where it is easier to bear and raise children. That's were egalitarian and redistributive policies come in. A "pro-natalist" society might increase the probability we'd end up with such a "pro family," more equal society because more people would demand and fight for it, but I don't believe it to be a certainty. Obviously I can't speak for Freddie, but if I had to guess, he'd probably agree that one does not necessarily follow the other...
I think that pro-natalist policies are a macro thing like GDP or BMI. If the policies create a social safety net to nudge up the national average of kids per family then it’s working. When applied individually the arguments don’t work as well outside of the nudge of one more kid. Max absurdism at the individual level leads you to the realm of the Duggar’s or Jeffords cult
I have three kids and I’m frankly exhausted. I’m glad I have them. But they’re also a mess and expensive and selfish and at various times like small sociopaths —and I’ve got good ones! I don’t think the moral argument holds up.
As a fellow parent I think that final sentence sums it up nicely.
I'm not sure this is serious so I'm just going to say a few things not well thought out. If you are writing about monogamous people then there are physical limitations for women. (I'm one). Maybe men don't focus on this, but so many women die in child birth. It's risky. Birth rates drop when people can control reproduction because it is risky and taking care of the children isn't easy. Yes, they bring happiness (usually) but few people have the physical capacity or wealth to have as many as they might want. Some societies have figured this out--multiple spouses. I met an accomplished woman with 4 children (from another culture). When she was asked how she had written so much while taking care of her 4 children? She answered, "O, my dear, the other wives do that." Currently, in the U.S.,with "by the seat of our pants" childcare (as we've seen in the pandemic) all mothers, even mothers with partners, struggle to carry on day-to-day living. Much better/different societal arrangements would need to be made if women had as many children as they wanted (even if they were physically able). Higher educational opportunities and less regulation by religious cultures are factors. Women have also reduced larger families as there simply was not an alternative to continuous pregnancies before safe birth control. Among us in the U.S. are religious groups--Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons-- for whom larger families are culturally supported. Mitt Romney has 5 sons and 24 grandchildren (maybe more--some by adoption and some by surrogacy). The number of children a woman has depends on her health, her social support, her finances, her emotional capacity. A child takes all one's energy. While it may make no intellectual sense, that little creature steals the intellectual sense and becomes the mother's heart and it never goes away even when the child is grown. I suppose each of us has the happiness we need from having a child--and most of us (with birth control) can decide how much of this kind of happiness we want (or don't want). The non-child bearing spouse (if there is one) is a factor as well. If that person is supportive a mother could have more. I don't have any observations about IVF except that those I know who have used this method to have children are usually well-prepared. Adoption is supported to some extent by tax-credits, but that's just a small amount of tax $$ at the time of adoption and no other support except what support is given any person raising children. If society gave support there would likely be more children by each mother, but since it doesn't there can't be an answer to this.
I love everything you’ve said here but I particularly love “o my dear, the other wives do that.” I’ll be using that. “Are you going to do laundry?” O my dear, the other wives do that! “What you making for dinner?” O my dear, the other wives do that!
I'd just had a baby and could not figure out how I was ever going to do anything else again. That line has stayed with me all my life.....
It's brilliant in so many ways, on so many levels.
"Some societies have figured this out--multiple spouses. I met an accomplished woman with 4 children (from another culture). When she was asked how she had written so much while taking care of her 4 children? She answered, 'O, my dear, the other wives do that.'"
I believe People of Praise, the intentional community SCOTUS judge Barrett is from, does similar childcare sharing, though without polygamy.
Mary Pezzulo, who has nearly every reason to loathe the charismatic Catholic movement she grew up in, still remembers the help around the house young mothers got fondly:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/steelmagnificat/2020/03/12398/
I got just close enough to one warm, fuzzy intentional community in college to research joining. The background info I found gave off a culty vibe, so I scarpered. I still sometimes wonder what life, especially family life, in a good intentional community might be like. Plenty of stories of what life is like in the bad ones, of course — though whether one seems good or bad might depend on where in the pecking order you are.
Thank you, this was new to me. The isolation of young parents is hardly discussed but very difficult. An intentional community w/o religion would be wonderful to imagine. So much work done alone over and over.
Love everything you wrote here. My doctor told me if I had given birth during another time I would have died. Modern medicine and birth control has changed the lives of women more than any political movement ever could. And yet even today, raising children is so... much.... work for women, including the mostly female childcare workers, many of whom receive poverty or just-above-poverty-level wages.
I can’t fully commit to the idea of unlimited abortion choice but I will say this: I could also never think it is my right to force another woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth. In another time I would’ve died as well, perhaps with all three of my kids.
I nearly died with mine, but for being near a university teaching hospital. The most famous child birth mother death scene is probably in War & Peace. I can't think of another in the last century. It's really hidden from popular culture today--the risks. And to Tolstoy's credit, the death of Liza was not just a plot line for Bolkonsky's waltz with Natasha.
You are right, the dangers of child birth are and have been hidden from popular culture. I loved how the movie The Girl With the Pearl Earrings portrayed childbirth during that time. The fear of death in childbirth was quiet but emanating. I don't often see this in film.
Thank you I will look for that film.
And also Beauvoir's The Second Sex. transcendence and immanence.
The only one I can think of is Sybil in Downton Abbey. Haven’t seen “Girl with…”
Yes. That was harrowing. But do you know of any that the male population might read/know?
Ha!!!! Good question. I did get my husband and best friend into DA but they’re the exception rather than the rule. I can’t think of any in that case.
My husband wouldn't. I did.
Hey! I loved Downton Abbey.
"The simple moral pro-natalist case (as opposed to the economic case) goes like this: human beings are the source of happiness or, if you want to be fancy, utility. Humans create more happiness for other humans, and also experience happiness themselves, so expanding the stock of humans expands the amount of happiness/utility."
Some children grow up to be serial killers or genocidal psychopaths or presidents of the United States. I call bullshit.
"or"
I think the crude pro-natalist case pitched to selfish childless coastal people like myself (think Ross Douthat, etc) is more like: the one thing we know we are here to do is have children, and because of this, having children will enrich your life in ways you can’t even imagine. To that end, one kid = you “get it”, but is kind of the bare minimum. Two to four kinds is probably ideal for all sorts of reasons because you get maximum joy/fulfillment while having a somewhat reasonable situation (and helping that replacement rate!). More than that you are spreading your time and resources too thin (less ideal for the kids) and not gaining as much enrichment, although in old age you’d be stoked to have tons of kids. Not sure I’ve heard the “more is better no matter what” argument.
Yeah I mean a lot of people are saying some version of this in email, but my problem is that it ends up with a kind of penny ante parsing of how many kids is optimal based on XYZ.... And that gets into this point where you're not really advocating for more kids in general anymore, right? You're saying "people with the right family composition and economic outlook should have more kids, up to a certain point that we calculate with a complex formula." All of the elegance and simplicity of the pro-natalist argument seems to have been lost, and we're back in the muddle where we usually are, which is to say some people should have some kids, and maybe more, depending - which is what we're already doing.
I’m all for the tax credit, but the idea that the US will ever *incentivize* children financially is laughable.
Our childcare costs alone are $580 per week. Our son is a huge financial hit expected to last til he’s 22 (at least), and our lives are a lot more stressful because we are trying to raise him while working long hours without much time off. (My partner got one week of parental leave…unpaid. I got unpaid FMLA and used some sick days.)
We love the little guy, but we can’t imagine having two.
The US is one million miles away from making parenthood attractive from a financial perspective. We should help parents with costs because it’s the right thing to do, but anyone who expects these credits to result in more births is delusional.
I don't think people realize how difficult it is. I see young parents and applaud them for their courage and grace.
In CA the childcare workers have unionized. The state is going to subsidize childcare..maybe a pass through to parents? or to the workers? I don't know anyone who this will affect or help but maybe it will help you. And there is a lot of invisible support from extended family but everyone doesn't have extended family.
I myself have concocted a nuanced opinion on this topic that takes into account the particulars as well as the broader context, ranging from personal finance to evolutionary psychology, all very cutting edge, but also resonant with the wisdom of the ages
That unfortunately this margin is too narrow to contain?
alas, yes
There are some very strong arguments about WHY we have kids (evolution, fucking) and some very weak ones FOR having kids (great example of the is-ought distinction in action). But even amongst the weak arguments, the ones referring to utility are probably not the way to go (for all the nitpicky reasons that utilitarian arguments are so easily dismantled, even if utilitarianism as a whole is so consistently convincing). Probably the best justification comes from the Hegelian/Marxist/Weberian camp. The modern world, with its division of labor and wall-to-wall bureaucracy leaves each of us extremely alienated from the genuine humanity that many of us crave. Becoming a parent makes us slaves, with our children serving as bondsmen. And it is only through this relationship of bondage that we are able to muster the strength to forge some measly connection back to our own sense of humanity.
Historically, yes, the argument was "have as many kids as you can," because until 1900, north of 25% of infants died within their first year, and north of 45% died before before age 15. Globally. Worldwide. By 1950, that dropped to a bit over 15% before age 1 and over 25% before age 15. Now, it's a bit under 3% before age 1 and under 5% before age 15. So really, even just maintaining the population meant that the average woman needed to have something like 4-5 kids. Filter out those who didn't/couldn't/died first, and this means that women who did have kids must have had, on average, more than 4-5 each.
While infant and childhood mortality was so high, nobody really needed to worry about things like cumulative resource use or population growth. Just wasn't an issue. If you didn't have as many kids as possible, there just wouldn't be anyone within a few generations. Today? Yeah, lots of things are going to need to be reevaluated.
Seriously, I'm increasingly convinced that a majority of what are viewed as intractable social/political problems that have emerged in the last century or so (as distinct from those that have existed forever, e.g., "People tend to be assholes if they think they can get away with it.") are to a significant degree simply functions of scale. Solutions that worked with a global population of 150 million don't work with a global population in excess of 6 billion. Going to have to figure that out one way or the other.
I had never even heard of "pro-natalism". I thought people just decided whether they wanted to have kids or not.
I guess I need to get out more.