I'm going to write this because having not been interested in social media most of my life, I understand that societal ramifications affect my day-to-day much more than a soft libertarian would like. My partner and I got married originally not wanting children, the idea was to travel, DINKS, but my biological clock started ticking at 30ish. It is real from a fully rational, pretty logical woman. As hard as some things have been, I wouldn't suggest it for everyone but it has been the most rewarding, life-changing, learning experience of my life. From the moment the nurses put that child to your breast, something in you changes. I know it doesn't happen to everyone. I know I would do anything to protect them. You worldview expands, sympathy for other people's children grows, It makes you so much more unselfish. I think the world needs that.
I wouldn't push anyone into it because I've met people that are not willing to be unselfish. That's not good for anyone's chilld. Live and let live.
I am in favor of family friendly public policy. However, the tools we have seem inadequate to the task of turning things around. While child rearing has turned from an asset in agricultural societies to a liability in post industrial ones, financial incentives do not seem to work at least at the levels they have been tried at.
I think the problem is cultural. Nothing short of a religious revival can fix this. Or maybe a catastrophe like getting hit by an astroid where the survivors would be fruitful. All the analyses seem to be at the national level. A breakdown by location might provide some insight. There are certainly anecdotes.
I put a lot of blame on capitalism and wanting more for ourselves being so ingrained in our culture and pushed on as constantly by media and politicians. The richer a county gets the more driven by consumerism it becomes. I keep buying stock in Carter’s thinking that it will at least mean revert but no signs yet. I love my summers in the Czech Republic where I feel I am back in my American 1970’s youth. The communists had a few things right, not many, but a few.
"We begin our lives with an incalculable debt. That we did not choose this debt is of no moral import—it is inherent to our existence. And we have only one way of repaying it: to work equally hard to bring about the next generation."
I appreciate your writing, but none of this follows. It is reasonable enough to say we have debt, but to concede we did not choose it strongly undermines the assertion that we have to repay it. That is like a slave being asked to repay the cost of meals provided to him, when he does not want to be receiving those meals in bondage in the first place. Moreover, the nature of the repayment is perverse, i.e. that we can never escape this debt except by bringing others into the exact same state of indebtedness, forever.
Even worse, there is zero substance to the idea that the only way to repay the debt for our own life is to create more life. This whole idea is pulled from thin air, requiring us to speculate wildly as to the motivations and desires of our ancestors, very few of whom, in my recollection, have written of a moral imperative for all future generations to continue to reproduce indefinitely.
Which brings us to an even more damning point - all of those ancestors are long dead. They can no longer be repaid for anything. Of course, you will say that they did great work (i.e. of building our world and enduring culture) and that work should be acknowledged, but that work has no subjectivity. It cannot receive acknowledgement any more than can a lump of clay. The only things that can receive any acknowledgement or repayment in a way that has value to the recipient rather than only the giver, are living people. To say we must honor our ancestors by reproducing (which they didn't ask for), is really to say we should gratify ourselves by engaging in a ritual that has value only to ourselves. It is the pinnacle of post-modern self interest.
This leaves us only with our living parents to honor by reproducing. If those parents do not request grandchildren, or take a principled stand that it is our choice whether to have children or not, then clearly the best way to honor them is to honor their wishes.
Finally, this argument leaves no space for all those throughout history, many of whom you presumably recognize as having led moral lives, such as monks, nuns, and ministers of some faiths, who have chosen not to reproduce. Allowing that such a choice can be moral, i.e. that their "debt" can be repaid in other ways, potentially opens the door to many other exceptions, and may undermine the whole concept entirely.
In short, the whole argument doesn't hold water, unless you make an explicit argument from authority, which (i) you have not, and (ii) we would then be free to disagree with, based on our assessment of whether your cited authority is valid (e.g. if you cite to Baháʼu'lláh, then we might be unconvinced).
I should add that I have children (multiple), my siblings (multiple) have children (all multiple), and I live in a community filled with children. I support family friendly policy and encourage others younger than me to have children. But it's not because I was born into indebtedness that I can only repay by putting others in debt.
"Each of us owes his life to the long line of ancestors stretching back beyond the beginnings of recorded history, most of whom made sacrifices we can hardly imagine . . ."
Not only that, but capital itself, upon which all modern democratic societies are built, is the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest. We must never forget that.
I would no more want grandchildren to have to suffer through the hellscape that awaits us as climate chaos fully manifests itself, as a result of our thinking everyone ‘deserves’ a fresh raspberry in the grocery store in the middle of winter, than I would being eaten alive by a shark.
The debt is never on the kids, always on the parents. And, as parents, the boomer generation has failed miserably. Some of the comments here, almost wishing for catastrophe so that the kids can ‘get their heads right’ about their breeding ‘responsibilities’ are as morally vacuous as the current rationalizations for genocide.
Yes, agree with Richard. Will probably take a very serious catastrophe for people to start having children. Happens after big wars throughout history. Populations increase after them.
Stuck in Reverse made me re visit my life as a regulatory safety man for a large multi state explosives and mining contractor. The level of regulation at the intersection of mining, transportation and explosives is unbelievable. I was and still am completely astounded at the immense number of regulations, rules, statues, standards and agencies involved.
To maintain compliance is a Herculean task almost beyond the scope of modern man. We have placed immense burdens on some of the most important parts of our economy.
Just in my little corner office I had BATF, MSHA, OSHA, DOT, EPA, Forest Service, Railroad Safety Board, multiple state and county regulators.
Each agency having volumes of rules, regulations and statutes that are required to be followed in any procedure no matter how trivial or complex, with the tacit understanding that failure will result fines, judgements, citations and or jail time for said safety man in the event of an accident or compliance failure. You really would not believe it if you knew.
A long-running frustration we liberals have with the conservative 'love of family' is that you seem to think it's something we *all* should be doing. I'm one of JD Vance's 'crazy cat ladies' - sans cats - and I've never regretted not breeding. I would have been a terrible mother. *It never appealed to me*. Pregnancy didn't look like much fun and what few childbirth videos I've seen look even less so. It was the *last* thing I wanted to do. Not everyone can fit into your neat round holes. Traditional conservative hypocrisy leaves me cold, too - esp Vance fighting IVF treatments while pissing and moaning about those of us who never popped out an overconsuming American. Yet, while he can't stand IVF treatments he doesn't want abortion either - so, like, every child an unwanted child? Where's the 'family values' in all of that? And let's not get into how little time so many fathers spend with their families - did you know rich and poor fathers see their kids the least? Poor fathers are working multiple jobs supporting the families, and rich fathers are waiting for a personal scandal to force them to resign to 'spend more time with their family'.
I don't completely discount the conservative push to get back to marriage and families - there are many good arguments for it, and I recognize the damage taking 'do whatever feels good' has done to society. I *support* the return to more traditional families. But it can't be like it was in the '50s when women did all the work and men got to quit after eight hours in the office. For all the obsession about working mothers and their effect on the families, no one's ever stressed about absent dads - married and residential or not. The liberal movement still liberated gay people to be gay and women like me who actually put *thought* into starting a family to recognize that you can make your mark on society without pushing out a baby. Not that you'll get much help from Republicans if you do - y'all would force a woman to have a baby, but give her nothing to raise that precious, precious life. Many of these kids wind up abused by families who don't want them, can't take care of them, and have no idea how to raise a kid because of their own dysfunctional backgrounds.
Marriage is good for taming young men at the time in their lives when they're most likely to run wild and get in trouble with the law, and yes, even not having bred or parented myself, I can see how it must be incredibly fulfilling for those who truly dedicated themselves to it. Raising another human being is an awesome responsibility and you really need to be up for the job. But if everyone thought like you all, the world would be more overpopulated than it already is (a billion still going to bed hungry) and if everyone thought like *us* the human race would indeed die out.
So you do need us. We're population control. Hey, *someone's* gotta cure cancer and find a response to climate change. It as well be geeky childless cat ladies as well as fathers who spend more time in the lab than with their children.
The problem with the liberal movement is it went *too far*. Let's move right a little on that one, but not so far 'women's work' was devalued (as it was back in the 'good ol' days') and for whom their work truly was never done. You boys ready to pitch in on the housework and child-rearring? We've been waiting forty years now for *that* unfulfilled marital campaign promise....
It’s an interesting thing, this fall in fertility. I think that this began in the 1960s as women first had widespread access to birth control and as women gained access to higher education and jobs. Much of our prior fecundity was therefore default. I also realize that part of it was cultural. Having said all that, a lot of people are poorly suited to be parents and I’d rather have fewer kids raised by competent parents. Still the falling birth rate and graying society does concern me. When people choose not to have children they are essentially opting out of building the future. They are pushing the “debt of past generations” onto those who will invest in the future.
We can stabilize and even significantly reduce our population and its inevitable adverse effects on the environment and other species and still have grandchildren (or at least a grandchild). Of course, the only acceptable approach in a free society is through voluntary measures. If we each choose to have one child and that child chooses to have one child the circle will be unbroken.
I'm going to write this because having not been interested in social media most of my life, I understand that societal ramifications affect my day-to-day much more than a soft libertarian would like. My partner and I got married originally not wanting children, the idea was to travel, DINKS, but my biological clock started ticking at 30ish. It is real from a fully rational, pretty logical woman. As hard as some things have been, I wouldn't suggest it for everyone but it has been the most rewarding, life-changing, learning experience of my life. From the moment the nurses put that child to your breast, something in you changes. I know it doesn't happen to everyone. I know I would do anything to protect them. You worldview expands, sympathy for other people's children grows, It makes you so much more unselfish. I think the world needs that.
I wouldn't push anyone into it because I've met people that are not willing to be unselfish. That's not good for anyone's chilld. Live and let live.
My daughter wanted two kids and son-in-law wanted none. They compromised on 1 and it turned out to be twins. :>)
I am in favor of family friendly public policy. However, the tools we have seem inadequate to the task of turning things around. While child rearing has turned from an asset in agricultural societies to a liability in post industrial ones, financial incentives do not seem to work at least at the levels they have been tried at.
I think the problem is cultural. Nothing short of a religious revival can fix this. Or maybe a catastrophe like getting hit by an astroid where the survivors would be fruitful. All the analyses seem to be at the national level. A breakdown by location might provide some insight. There are certainly anecdotes.
I put a lot of blame on capitalism and wanting more for ourselves being so ingrained in our culture and pushed on as constantly by media and politicians. The richer a county gets the more driven by consumerism it becomes. I keep buying stock in Carter’s thinking that it will at least mean revert but no signs yet. I love my summers in the Czech Republic where I feel I am back in my American 1970’s youth. The communists had a few things right, not many, but a few.
This is an issue where the personal really is political. How’s your family?
For our part, we only had two children; a third was not medically advisable.
However, our 8th grandchild is due in January – they’ve been coming alternately, one a year, like clockwork – so we’re all in.
"We begin our lives with an incalculable debt. That we did not choose this debt is of no moral import—it is inherent to our existence. And we have only one way of repaying it: to work equally hard to bring about the next generation."
I appreciate your writing, but none of this follows. It is reasonable enough to say we have debt, but to concede we did not choose it strongly undermines the assertion that we have to repay it. That is like a slave being asked to repay the cost of meals provided to him, when he does not want to be receiving those meals in bondage in the first place. Moreover, the nature of the repayment is perverse, i.e. that we can never escape this debt except by bringing others into the exact same state of indebtedness, forever.
Even worse, there is zero substance to the idea that the only way to repay the debt for our own life is to create more life. This whole idea is pulled from thin air, requiring us to speculate wildly as to the motivations and desires of our ancestors, very few of whom, in my recollection, have written of a moral imperative for all future generations to continue to reproduce indefinitely.
Which brings us to an even more damning point - all of those ancestors are long dead. They can no longer be repaid for anything. Of course, you will say that they did great work (i.e. of building our world and enduring culture) and that work should be acknowledged, but that work has no subjectivity. It cannot receive acknowledgement any more than can a lump of clay. The only things that can receive any acknowledgement or repayment in a way that has value to the recipient rather than only the giver, are living people. To say we must honor our ancestors by reproducing (which they didn't ask for), is really to say we should gratify ourselves by engaging in a ritual that has value only to ourselves. It is the pinnacle of post-modern self interest.
This leaves us only with our living parents to honor by reproducing. If those parents do not request grandchildren, or take a principled stand that it is our choice whether to have children or not, then clearly the best way to honor them is to honor their wishes.
Finally, this argument leaves no space for all those throughout history, many of whom you presumably recognize as having led moral lives, such as monks, nuns, and ministers of some faiths, who have chosen not to reproduce. Allowing that such a choice can be moral, i.e. that their "debt" can be repaid in other ways, potentially opens the door to many other exceptions, and may undermine the whole concept entirely.
In short, the whole argument doesn't hold water, unless you make an explicit argument from authority, which (i) you have not, and (ii) we would then be free to disagree with, based on our assessment of whether your cited authority is valid (e.g. if you cite to Baháʼu'lláh, then we might be unconvinced).
I should add that I have children (multiple), my siblings (multiple) have children (all multiple), and I live in a community filled with children. I support family friendly policy and encourage others younger than me to have children. But it's not because I was born into indebtedness that I can only repay by putting others in debt.
"Each of us owes his life to the long line of ancestors stretching back beyond the beginnings of recorded history, most of whom made sacrifices we can hardly imagine . . ."
Not only that, but capital itself, upon which all modern democratic societies are built, is the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest. We must never forget that.
I would no more want grandchildren to have to suffer through the hellscape that awaits us as climate chaos fully manifests itself, as a result of our thinking everyone ‘deserves’ a fresh raspberry in the grocery store in the middle of winter, than I would being eaten alive by a shark.
The debt is never on the kids, always on the parents. And, as parents, the boomer generation has failed miserably. Some of the comments here, almost wishing for catastrophe so that the kids can ‘get their heads right’ about their breeding ‘responsibilities’ are as morally vacuous as the current rationalizations for genocide.
We deserve our extinction.
Lighten up. Nihilism and/or catastrophism are part of the left's fundamentalist creed. Nobody needs to drink that Kool Aid.
I laughed out loud at your comment. Light enough for you?
Bipartisanwing? Kool Aid? You’re the fundamentalist here.
Carry on, sweet pea.
I voted for him for the first time and like the others you cite, it was really a vote for JD Vance.
Your comments on the NY Times grandparenting article are excellent!!
I would however drop the first word of "forward momentum).
stanley
Yes, agree with Richard. Will probably take a very serious catastrophe for people to start having children. Happens after big wars throughout history. Populations increase after them.
Stuck in Reverse made me re visit my life as a regulatory safety man for a large multi state explosives and mining contractor. The level of regulation at the intersection of mining, transportation and explosives is unbelievable. I was and still am completely astounded at the immense number of regulations, rules, statues, standards and agencies involved.
To maintain compliance is a Herculean task almost beyond the scope of modern man. We have placed immense burdens on some of the most important parts of our economy.
Just in my little corner office I had BATF, MSHA, OSHA, DOT, EPA, Forest Service, Railroad Safety Board, multiple state and county regulators.
Each agency having volumes of rules, regulations and statutes that are required to be followed in any procedure no matter how trivial or complex, with the tacit understanding that failure will result fines, judgements, citations and or jail time for said safety man in the event of an accident or compliance failure. You really would not believe it if you knew.
A long-running frustration we liberals have with the conservative 'love of family' is that you seem to think it's something we *all* should be doing. I'm one of JD Vance's 'crazy cat ladies' - sans cats - and I've never regretted not breeding. I would have been a terrible mother. *It never appealed to me*. Pregnancy didn't look like much fun and what few childbirth videos I've seen look even less so. It was the *last* thing I wanted to do. Not everyone can fit into your neat round holes. Traditional conservative hypocrisy leaves me cold, too - esp Vance fighting IVF treatments while pissing and moaning about those of us who never popped out an overconsuming American. Yet, while he can't stand IVF treatments he doesn't want abortion either - so, like, every child an unwanted child? Where's the 'family values' in all of that? And let's not get into how little time so many fathers spend with their families - did you know rich and poor fathers see their kids the least? Poor fathers are working multiple jobs supporting the families, and rich fathers are waiting for a personal scandal to force them to resign to 'spend more time with their family'.
I don't completely discount the conservative push to get back to marriage and families - there are many good arguments for it, and I recognize the damage taking 'do whatever feels good' has done to society. I *support* the return to more traditional families. But it can't be like it was in the '50s when women did all the work and men got to quit after eight hours in the office. For all the obsession about working mothers and their effect on the families, no one's ever stressed about absent dads - married and residential or not. The liberal movement still liberated gay people to be gay and women like me who actually put *thought* into starting a family to recognize that you can make your mark on society without pushing out a baby. Not that you'll get much help from Republicans if you do - y'all would force a woman to have a baby, but give her nothing to raise that precious, precious life. Many of these kids wind up abused by families who don't want them, can't take care of them, and have no idea how to raise a kid because of their own dysfunctional backgrounds.
Marriage is good for taming young men at the time in their lives when they're most likely to run wild and get in trouble with the law, and yes, even not having bred or parented myself, I can see how it must be incredibly fulfilling for those who truly dedicated themselves to it. Raising another human being is an awesome responsibility and you really need to be up for the job. But if everyone thought like you all, the world would be more overpopulated than it already is (a billion still going to bed hungry) and if everyone thought like *us* the human race would indeed die out.
So you do need us. We're population control. Hey, *someone's* gotta cure cancer and find a response to climate change. It as well be geeky childless cat ladies as well as fathers who spend more time in the lab than with their children.
The problem with the liberal movement is it went *too far*. Let's move right a little on that one, but not so far 'women's work' was devalued (as it was back in the 'good ol' days') and for whom their work truly was never done. You boys ready to pitch in on the housework and child-rearring? We've been waiting forty years now for *that* unfulfilled marital campaign promise....
It’s an interesting thing, this fall in fertility. I think that this began in the 1960s as women first had widespread access to birth control and as women gained access to higher education and jobs. Much of our prior fecundity was therefore default. I also realize that part of it was cultural. Having said all that, a lot of people are poorly suited to be parents and I’d rather have fewer kids raised by competent parents. Still the falling birth rate and graying society does concern me. When people choose not to have children they are essentially opting out of building the future. They are pushing the “debt of past generations” onto those who will invest in the future.
We can stabilize and even significantly reduce our population and its inevitable adverse effects on the environment and other species and still have grandchildren (or at least a grandchild). Of course, the only acceptable approach in a free society is through voluntary measures. If we each choose to have one child and that child chooses to have one child the circle will be unbroken.
XXX