Another rambling post...
I've been feeling pretty down lately about the state of the world. Climate change is progressing nicely and will result in a different kind of world. Don't want to speculate on the precise changes, but they are likely to make for a poorer world--in every sense of poor. The continued insecurity of the economy, the bitter and apparently immovable political and ideological divide--well, things just don't look good and I'm not feeling any sense that it's possible to change. I'll get over it--I'm too optimistic a person to stay in a funk for long and the reality is that, good or bad, things will change, I'll do my best to work for a better world, and then live with what comes--but in the meantime, I've been feeling down.
So at the benefit of Merry Wives of Windsor, we sat with two couples who are good friends of ours--about 10-15 years older than we are. We'd been talking about age and one thing that had occurred to me is that my feelings were related to age--both getting tired more easily and having seen how hard it is too make a difference. So I said something like "I've been feeling down and wonder if it's age or things are worse than they've been."
One friends immediately said things were much worse and dove into the environmental problems that face us, which led her to the 19702 and Zero Population Growth. (Parenthetically, these couples' parents have twelve children between them, with five from one family. These twelve children have fewer than twelve between them--and six of those belong one of the siblings. So, while there was a big bump with the first generation (and these are boomers, which have unusual birth patterns), the second generation is at ZPG--more or less, depending on whether I actually know all siblings and number of their offspring)).
I was silent. ZPG is a simplistic way to view problems for the environment created by humanity. And generally those who advocate it do so because they've already achieved some measure of success and security. I remember the arguments from when I was growing up and I bought them then--but the idea that ZPG would solve environmental problems ignores differences in the way people live. In the intervening years, we've become much more aware of these issues. (BTW, these friends live in large houses, have more than one car, etc. That is, their standard of living is very high--despite the few offspring they've produced. Which is not to say they should give up what they have; there are, I think, other possibilities.)
Then, finally I went and watched some of Hans Rosling's TED talks--a much more hopeful and sophisticated approach. Specifically, Religion and Babies (short version: religion does not affect the number of children families have), Global Population Growth (it's all about getting out of poverty), and The Magic Washing Machine (about why everyone wants one), and New Insights on Poverty. (His organization Gapminder, is worth checking out as well.) So--using some of what he says and my beliefs, here's my reaction.
Let's begin with the fact that I am a Jew. I am very mindful of the fact that the Holocaust wiped out a third of my people and completely destroyed the European Jewish culture--not all the Jews there died, but the culture effectively did. So I considered having more than two children very seriously--I believe that it is not unreasonable for Jews to repopulate. Which, btw, is difficult. Jews (in the US) are highly educated, marry late, and end up with lower than ZPG. So yeah, I'll take a pass for my people here. Now I've been told that all kinds of groups can use that same argument. Actually, not so much. But one interesting fact in the Religion and Babies talk: turns out that regions where birthrate is still very high are regions with high conflict and mortality (not only infant mortality--people dying from being killed). That is, I'm not the only whose reaction is--you kill my people, I'm gonna make more. And it does a lot to explaining the boomers (one could also argue that ZPG was a 60s response to the unusually large post-war families). Which means that, if you want to bring down the birthrate, find ways to reduce the conflict and create more stable societies.
How do you do that? Education, economic security, jobs and self-determination for women, etc. There are NGOs doing good work in these areas--be nice if we contributed to that as well.
So why do people have babies is times of high mortality? Here I'm going to guess. First, I suspect there's a biological imperative--living creatures want to reproduce--that is, find immortality in offspring. Not exactly news. And here is where I would put simply having kids because you want to. (Not saying that it's all biological determinism--not even sure what that means, but that I don't want to discuss the "I like kids and want to have them" response.)
But there's obviously more going on than that for people (I won't speak for other animals). The fact that, with education, economic security, jobs and self-determination, families (meaning women at least) have two or three children means that other things influence us as well--I don't really understand the biological imperatives--I've thought about this with regard to Jews and Judaism, which I use as an example.
First of all, I make the assumption that it's worth preserving Judaism--that is a culture, a way of life, and a worldview that should continue. While I have very personal reasons for wanting Judaism to survive, more generally I think that cultural and religious diversity is no different from ecological diversity--more choices are better. Or, to use the analogy of a rainbow, more colors allow for more nuance.
With that assumption, the question is: how do we pass on culture/religion? Obviously, having and raising children is one way--and people who have children generally make some attempt to do this. And you do need some minimum number of people to DO culture--speak the language, observe the rituals, learn the history, and enact the values. How many is necessary? I'm not going to guess. A smaller, more concentrated group will likely do better than a larger, more diffuse group--but not in every way. And, in today's world, maintaining homogeneity is a difficult so the distinction may be moot. Anyway, the point is that you need some number of children to maintain the culture.
A second way to maintain culture is to bring new people in--that is, to have converts. In the US, we call them immigrants. In religions, we call them converts.
In either case, as with reducing birthrate, you need to have a surrounding culture that encourages (either implicitly or explicitly) new people entering--which implies some cultural stability.
In any case, the point isn't to have lots of children for the sake of having children, but to have those children because the culture/religion is worth passing on.
Going back to ZPG, the other problem with the whole idea is the notion that we are in static situation--that we are DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED based on current technology, material culture, etc. One of the things I like about Rosling's talks are that he acknowledges the value of technology and the way that it has improved people's quality of life. We frequently (from our high-tech perch) take it for granted (watch the Washing Machine talk and see what I mean). So it's complicated--how do you enable/allow everyone in the world to have the goodies without destroying the world? Some resources are really finite. But others can be reused or used in different ways. Some material goods are simply ridiculous (humvee, anyone?), but others make real differences in people's ability to live. So numbers matter--but in double-edged way--and so does how we use what we've got.
Okay--I'm not completely jumbled and going to stop...
So at the benefit of Merry Wives of Windsor, we sat with two couples who are good friends of ours--about 10-15 years older than we are. We'd been talking about age and one thing that had occurred to me is that my feelings were related to age--both getting tired more easily and having seen how hard it is too make a difference. So I said something like "I've been feeling down and wonder if it's age or things are worse than they've been."
One friends immediately said things were much worse and dove into the environmental problems that face us, which led her to the 19702 and Zero Population Growth. (Parenthetically, these couples' parents have twelve children between them, with five from one family. These twelve children have fewer than twelve between them--and six of those belong one of the siblings. So, while there was a big bump with the first generation (and these are boomers, which have unusual birth patterns), the second generation is at ZPG--more or less, depending on whether I actually know all siblings and number of their offspring)).
I was silent. ZPG is a simplistic way to view problems for the environment created by humanity. And generally those who advocate it do so because they've already achieved some measure of success and security. I remember the arguments from when I was growing up and I bought them then--but the idea that ZPG would solve environmental problems ignores differences in the way people live. In the intervening years, we've become much more aware of these issues. (BTW, these friends live in large houses, have more than one car, etc. That is, their standard of living is very high--despite the few offspring they've produced. Which is not to say they should give up what they have; there are, I think, other possibilities.)
Then, finally I went and watched some of Hans Rosling's TED talks--a much more hopeful and sophisticated approach. Specifically, Religion and Babies (short version: religion does not affect the number of children families have), Global Population Growth (it's all about getting out of poverty), and The Magic Washing Machine (about why everyone wants one), and New Insights on Poverty. (His organization Gapminder, is worth checking out as well.) So--using some of what he says and my beliefs, here's my reaction.
Let's begin with the fact that I am a Jew. I am very mindful of the fact that the Holocaust wiped out a third of my people and completely destroyed the European Jewish culture--not all the Jews there died, but the culture effectively did. So I considered having more than two children very seriously--I believe that it is not unreasonable for Jews to repopulate. Which, btw, is difficult. Jews (in the US) are highly educated, marry late, and end up with lower than ZPG. So yeah, I'll take a pass for my people here. Now I've been told that all kinds of groups can use that same argument. Actually, not so much. But one interesting fact in the Religion and Babies talk: turns out that regions where birthrate is still very high are regions with high conflict and mortality (not only infant mortality--people dying from being killed). That is, I'm not the only whose reaction is--you kill my people, I'm gonna make more. And it does a lot to explaining the boomers (one could also argue that ZPG was a 60s response to the unusually large post-war families). Which means that, if you want to bring down the birthrate, find ways to reduce the conflict and create more stable societies.
How do you do that? Education, economic security, jobs and self-determination for women, etc. There are NGOs doing good work in these areas--be nice if we contributed to that as well.
So why do people have babies is times of high mortality? Here I'm going to guess. First, I suspect there's a biological imperative--living creatures want to reproduce--that is, find immortality in offspring. Not exactly news. And here is where I would put simply having kids because you want to. (Not saying that it's all biological determinism--not even sure what that means, but that I don't want to discuss the "I like kids and want to have them" response.)
But there's obviously more going on than that for people (I won't speak for other animals). The fact that, with education, economic security, jobs and self-determination, families (meaning women at least) have two or three children means that other things influence us as well--I don't really understand the biological imperatives--I've thought about this with regard to Jews and Judaism, which I use as an example.
First of all, I make the assumption that it's worth preserving Judaism--that is a culture, a way of life, and a worldview that should continue. While I have very personal reasons for wanting Judaism to survive, more generally I think that cultural and religious diversity is no different from ecological diversity--more choices are better. Or, to use the analogy of a rainbow, more colors allow for more nuance.
With that assumption, the question is: how do we pass on culture/religion? Obviously, having and raising children is one way--and people who have children generally make some attempt to do this. And you do need some minimum number of people to DO culture--speak the language, observe the rituals, learn the history, and enact the values. How many is necessary? I'm not going to guess. A smaller, more concentrated group will likely do better than a larger, more diffuse group--but not in every way. And, in today's world, maintaining homogeneity is a difficult so the distinction may be moot. Anyway, the point is that you need some number of children to maintain the culture.
A second way to maintain culture is to bring new people in--that is, to have converts. In the US, we call them immigrants. In religions, we call them converts.
In either case, as with reducing birthrate, you need to have a surrounding culture that encourages (either implicitly or explicitly) new people entering--which implies some cultural stability.
In any case, the point isn't to have lots of children for the sake of having children, but to have those children because the culture/religion is worth passing on.
Going back to ZPG, the other problem with the whole idea is the notion that we are in static situation--that we are DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED based on current technology, material culture, etc. One of the things I like about Rosling's talks are that he acknowledges the value of technology and the way that it has improved people's quality of life. We frequently (from our high-tech perch) take it for granted (watch the Washing Machine talk and see what I mean). So it's complicated--how do you enable/allow everyone in the world to have the goodies without destroying the world? Some resources are really finite. But others can be reused or used in different ways. Some material goods are simply ridiculous (humvee, anyone?), but others make real differences in people's ability to live. So numbers matter--but in double-edged way--and so does how we use what we've got.
Okay--I'm not completely jumbled and going to stop...