There are so many variables in the population picture. For instance, in the more affluent cultures I read about, observers comment on an increase in the number of women deliberately having children sans domestic-partner. I wouldn’t guess what larger trend that might be part of, might contribute to. The lower birthrate in richer societies could turn out to part of sea-changes we can't yet limn, to very different organizations of birthing and birthrates, not just part of a steady decline of birthrates.
Most humans now live in economies that are deliberately organized to grow (it’s something about capitalism). In the long run, economies can’t keep growing (in the same ways/at familiar rates) as populations shrink. What inspires dread in me is the unplanned and almost entirely unforeseeable roiling of social, economic and political operations and structures that will come with broad changes in population and transformations to other ways of organizing production/consumption. The processes of outgrowing cultures of growth (versions of capitalism) will likely generate lots of pain.
I’m not thinking that human populations on earth will decline, by the processes that are now reducing our numbers, to the point that the species actually dies out. It seems to me a better guess that, unless the entire planet is poisoned (fatally for humans) by our chemicals or our bombs, some humans in some earthly locales will develop some sorts of continuing habitation…for at least a millennium or two to come. But...
...there is no law-of-the-cosmos that says there will always be human beings. It seems to me reasonable to believe that at some time in the future there will be no human beings. People have different feelings about that. That simple fact does not inspire in me dread, angst or grief. We are simply finite: individually and globally. That's life.
I very much appreciate Jacqueline's and Ann's remarks about the difficulty of predicting anything dependent on human choices. Acknowledging that uncertainty is wisdom. But there's an interesting basis in fact and in logic for the worry. Another time (probably mid-August) I'll look at how some countries are dealing with the issue within their own borders. (If decreasing poverty and more choices for women bring about a lower global rate, immigration will no longer be a solution.) It's also wisdom to start thinking ahead,
What has led to the decreased fertility rate is a set of very good things. Education for women, choices for families, even the lowering of infant mortality. I hope those living conditions spread still further across the globe. (Africa still has a fertility rate of over 4, largely because Africa remains poor.) But if they do, and the global fertility RATE -- not just population level -- continues to decline, we face a different set of problems.
Perhaps I am misguided in not being pessimistic about global decreases in fertility rate. The Chinese 1 child experiment was fairly quickly abandoned. Policies and goals change; a generation makes a difference. What is alarming to "rich" countries is that the population pyramid has become inverted; fewer and fewer young workers supporting more and more old people. Letting in young immigrant families would be a quick solution; I don't see middle class women going back to choosing to have several children, now that the choice is real. At the moment our policies are muddled; we forbid abortion but don't support the education and health of all children. We perpetuate poverty with policies that create an underclass that doesn't earn enough to pay the taxes that would support the retired generation(s). Getting off my soapbox now.....
I was so reminded of my mother's generation while reading this essay. My mother had a child a year (some died, and although she never could talk about it, their deaths were recorded in the family Bible). There was a long period between her second-to-the-last and her last child, because she discovered birth control, as you say, so this is all very familiar. Of course, the Church did not like that American women (in particular) had discovered birth control. I have to say that the old Catholics I know are pretty happy with their not-quite-as-huge families all around them, many taking very seriously their grandparenting roles and living good lives in their old age. I love these big happy families, maybe out of nostalgia.
I remember the debates about Malthus decades ago, the same ones happening now---some arguing that he was completely misguided, others not. I can't remember the details of these debates. The argument also ties in with the lunacy over immigration, hard to ignore that dimension. Japan, even though it is somewhat diverse, thinks of itself as homogenous and worries a lot about immigration, even though obviously needing immigration with the dramatic fall of its birth rate and people living into their 100s.
I share many of your sentiments here, and the sentiments of your friend who says, no problem! In other words, I am as confused as every thinking person. . . .
Women with education limit their fertility. I think the improvement in women's education worldwide is a good thing. Decreasing numbers of our species is good for the planet. My great niece is an environmental scientist. This is the reason she is choosing not to have children. Many in her generation feel it is wrong to bring children into a disastrously warming world. Their future. Their choice.
From Marilyn Frye:
Several thoughts pop up…(not very thought out):
There are so many variables in the population picture. For instance, in the more affluent cultures I read about, observers comment on an increase in the number of women deliberately having children sans domestic-partner. I wouldn’t guess what larger trend that might be part of, might contribute to. The lower birthrate in richer societies could turn out to part of sea-changes we can't yet limn, to very different organizations of birthing and birthrates, not just part of a steady decline of birthrates.
Most humans now live in economies that are deliberately organized to grow (it’s something about capitalism). In the long run, economies can’t keep growing (in the same ways/at familiar rates) as populations shrink. What inspires dread in me is the unplanned and almost entirely unforeseeable roiling of social, economic and political operations and structures that will come with broad changes in population and transformations to other ways of organizing production/consumption. The processes of outgrowing cultures of growth (versions of capitalism) will likely generate lots of pain.
I’m not thinking that human populations on earth will decline, by the processes that are now reducing our numbers, to the point that the species actually dies out. It seems to me a better guess that, unless the entire planet is poisoned (fatally for humans) by our chemicals or our bombs, some humans in some earthly locales will develop some sorts of continuing habitation…for at least a millennium or two to come. But...
...there is no law-of-the-cosmos that says there will always be human beings. It seems to me reasonable to believe that at some time in the future there will be no human beings. People have different feelings about that. That simple fact does not inspire in me dread, angst or grief. We are simply finite: individually and globally. That's life.
I very much appreciate Jacqueline's and Ann's remarks about the difficulty of predicting anything dependent on human choices. Acknowledging that uncertainty is wisdom. But there's an interesting basis in fact and in logic for the worry. Another time (probably mid-August) I'll look at how some countries are dealing with the issue within their own borders. (If decreasing poverty and more choices for women bring about a lower global rate, immigration will no longer be a solution.) It's also wisdom to start thinking ahead,
What has led to the decreased fertility rate is a set of very good things. Education for women, choices for families, even the lowering of infant mortality. I hope those living conditions spread still further across the globe. (Africa still has a fertility rate of over 4, largely because Africa remains poor.) But if they do, and the global fertility RATE -- not just population level -- continues to decline, we face a different set of problems.
Perhaps I am misguided in not being pessimistic about global decreases in fertility rate. The Chinese 1 child experiment was fairly quickly abandoned. Policies and goals change; a generation makes a difference. What is alarming to "rich" countries is that the population pyramid has become inverted; fewer and fewer young workers supporting more and more old people. Letting in young immigrant families would be a quick solution; I don't see middle class women going back to choosing to have several children, now that the choice is real. At the moment our policies are muddled; we forbid abortion but don't support the education and health of all children. We perpetuate poverty with policies that create an underclass that doesn't earn enough to pay the taxes that would support the retired generation(s). Getting off my soapbox now.....
I was so reminded of my mother's generation while reading this essay. My mother had a child a year (some died, and although she never could talk about it, their deaths were recorded in the family Bible). There was a long period between her second-to-the-last and her last child, because she discovered birth control, as you say, so this is all very familiar. Of course, the Church did not like that American women (in particular) had discovered birth control. I have to say that the old Catholics I know are pretty happy with their not-quite-as-huge families all around them, many taking very seriously their grandparenting roles and living good lives in their old age. I love these big happy families, maybe out of nostalgia.
I remember the debates about Malthus decades ago, the same ones happening now---some arguing that he was completely misguided, others not. I can't remember the details of these debates. The argument also ties in with the lunacy over immigration, hard to ignore that dimension. Japan, even though it is somewhat diverse, thinks of itself as homogenous and worries a lot about immigration, even though obviously needing immigration with the dramatic fall of its birth rate and people living into their 100s.
I share many of your sentiments here, and the sentiments of your friend who says, no problem! In other words, I am as confused as every thinking person. . . .
Keep writing
Women with education limit their fertility. I think the improvement in women's education worldwide is a good thing. Decreasing numbers of our species is good for the planet. My great niece is an environmental scientist. This is the reason she is choosing not to have children. Many in her generation feel it is wrong to bring children into a disastrously warming world. Their future. Their choice.
I'm grateful for this and other comments -- I've wanted this kind of discussion, of differing opinions, but haven't gotten it before.