Mark, the only child issue eventually boils down to the "nature vs. nurture" debate, doesn't it? Multiple kid families can be just as dysfunctional and selfish as single child families, can't they? Likewise with socialization, no? Personally, I think the parents have a lot more to do with those things than whether a child is an only child or has multiple siblings.
Don't know how relevant it is, but a friend of mine had her first child last year and when I went to visit her she was so tired and stressed looking. The child would NOT go to sleep and cried an awful lot. She shared with me that she was just so overwhelmed with the responsibility she now had. "I have this life, this soul, this little human being and Randy and I are totally and utterly responsible for what kind of person she becomes." It IS a huge responsibility and, especially after watching too much Dr. Phil , it's one not enough people take that seriously. Being married to a police officer, I can share the "bad" side of parenting and how some people should not be able to have babies. I used to think we should all be born sterile and have to pass a parent test of some kind, apply to be able to have children.
I'm interested in your earlier statements about Muslims growing in European countries and the decline in reproduction among native Europeans. In America, at least about 4 years ago when I was doing demographic research, Indians were expected to overtake the Black and Hispanic populations within ten years. Do you think we should be having larger families for the purpose of maintaining a majority (a la power)? It would certainly shift the influences and culture, wouldn't it? This sort of ties in with my thread in Politics about how a country loses its freedoms like what we have here in the US.
Evan, I'm fascinated when you share about your experiences in Africa. I think it's tres cool that you've been able to live, work and learn with them. I'm sure if we ever met face to face, I'd be wanting to hear all about your experiences in much greater detail than this type of forum lends itself to. :)
The overriding principle is community/village first, and family in context of that community. They see marriages in light of what they contribute to the community and as such the leaders and elders have a say in such matters. Producing children is paramount to a marriage union there. You'll not see divorce for any reason except not bearing children. There, the a#1 reason for a marriage union is to produce children. #2 is probably to insure that those children are productive memebrs of the community. I'm not sure if happiness figures into the mix.
Evan, it must be fascinating to be able to observe different cultures firsthand. Someday, I would love to be able to do that. However, I am not sure different equates with better or, for that matter worse. I see the benefits in the lifestyle you presented above. I also see a downside. Self-sacrifice to a point is a good thing. However, if self-sacrifice results in a long and miserable life, then it is too extreme.
I think a balance is required somewhere when it comes to prioritizing community needs v. individual needs. I am in no way saying we have found that in this country, I'm just thinking it is a necessary element. At some point, if the bulk of the community is unhappy because of the sacrifices the individuals must make in order for the community to survive, it would seem to me the community would ultimately self-destruct. Likewise, if the community is sacrificed too often in the pursuit of individualism, the community would ultimately self-destruct.
To take our Western worldview of personal choice and self-fulfillment and attempt to apply it to biblical concepts causes a dissonance not easily remedied.
I am not sure I follow here. Isn't the Bible written to apply to all days, times, and ages? Isn't our western cutlure a part of those days, times, and ages? Are you suggesting that personal choice and self-fulfillment were not a part of God's plan?
Evan, it must be fascinating to be able to observe different cultures firsthand. Someday, I would love to be able to do that. However, I am not sure different equates with better or, for that matter worse. I see the benefits in the lifestyle you presented above. I also see a downside. Self-sacrifice to a point is a good thing. However, if self-sacrifice results in a long and miserable life, then it is too extreme.
Certainly. Every culture seems to have their inherent balance between these sometimes competing interests. My experience is that, although many live lives of what we would consider suffering, the general level of "Happiness" is much greater. I've often puzzled over this. One thing I could offer is that there isn't such anxiety over life choices that need to be made. I'm sure there's more. However much we recoil at their lack of choice, I've found they recoil equally at the thought of 'doing your own thing' in many areas.
But the point is that there were SO MANY people with whom this struck a nerve. Not just Clay. When one personalizes a theoretical argument and say that the general principle must be good or bad because of personal experience, it becomes difficult to argue that general point one way or the other. Because if you advance a philosophical point that is contrary to the anecdotal, experiential point raised by the other poster, it may be perceived that you are attacking that poster and that poster's experience. And so there is a high possibility of a fundamental discontinuity in the argument that would create a dissonance that could result in nothing but hurt feelings.
and the rest of your post
what the he ll ? mark, does doctrinal mean you can't speak plain english ?
hi dancing. i found your posts refreshing and saw no hostility at all
and what i said in my one post was just how i felt about the subject (oh god feelings are no guarantee for doctrine)
btw, i would tell the pope and a council of bishops or priests or whatever the same thing
i've lived this crapola doctrine, so i think i can add value
even if i can't do the anecdotal thingy
ps. i'm not upset, no buttons right now
i guess if we start talking about priests molesting children, i might pop a few :)
There was no philosophical point which is a contradiction of terms.
Philosophical and point.
And there is plenty of statistical evidence.
Not only proving that special interest groups do harm.
But also the way in which the bible is being used to tell people what to do.
And why is this automatically thought to be about one having a lot of offspring as in littlepeople of whom they are responsible for. Lack of spiritual sight and hearing.
So if one doesn't have a lot of kids, then their is shame? And can't speak with the 'enemies' at the gate? Not happy?
Ever even read what it says?
Psalm 127
1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 2It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. 3Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Anecdotal-
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal evidence is often called a testimonial and is banned in some jurisdictions. The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than the typical example.
In all forms of anecdotal evidence, objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.
Mark, I think it could still be a valid and interesting discussion. I don't see how drawing from personal experience and/or refuting or discussing personal experience has to turn into button pushing or fighting. It all depends on how it is presented. I drew on personal experience. Ask me questions, challenge me. I don't mind. And even if I did get a bit hot under the collar about something, it will pass and is no big thing.
I find this: Face it, the question of having children, not having children, having one child, having a bunch of children, and so on...if one really examines the question, it really deals with fundamental questions of ontology (the study of existance). It alludes to the questions of "What is my place in the universe?" and "Why am I here?"
especially interesting. I was thinking about this very thing while I was driving. I was considering what my life would be like right now if I didn't have children. The money I would have, the freedom to come and go as I please, the reduced stress because I wouldn't be faced with the many challenges parents face today. I was also thinking about how empty and void of purpose my life would feel. How all that "stuff" that I would have would mean nothing in the grander scheme of things. Of the little things kids say and do that are such a tremendous reward for the effort put forth in raising them.
Abigail,
I sympathize with what your comments.
Modern society places us in an interesting position, as you alluded (to make indirect reference) in your post. We, as members of a society, place a high value on material abundance and on personal liberty. There is a cute little quip (a witty saying) that I remember seeing on a t-shirt years ago that said "He who has the most toys, wins."
That presents an incredible amount of pressure on individuals and couples. While I know there are exceptions...I think we can agree that, since World War II, western (steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions) society (a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests) has, by in large, become increasingly materialistic. How has that tendency affected the mores (the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of that society? And how do those societal mores affect the individual values inculcated into the individuals and couples impacting the processes used in deciding to conceive, bear, and rear a child (or children)?
When one really analyzes the questions above, the ultimate (arrived at as the last result) antecedent (a preceding event, condition, or cause) condition comes down to the basic ontological (relating to or based upon being or existence) question I raised earlier: "Why am I here?"
You, from your anecdotal experience, demonstrate this dichotomy (a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities) through your experience: you have personal freedom and wealth if you remain childless...but that freedom is accompanied by emptiness...the converse (reversed in order, relation, or action) is true with your decision to rear children.
The ultimate (in my opinion) irony is that, in today's society, children are, in some cases by some people, viewed as material possessions (consider some child custody cases we see these days).
The key point, though, is that I don't as much question the couples' motivation in making their decisions as question the societal mores that shape their values that, in turn, influence those decisions. The couples are making the right decisions for themselves and likely for their children (they'd be horrible parents anyway). But what caused that couple to take that decision? (And, more to the point, what causes a number of couples to take similar decisions?)
By the way, the definitions provided in parentheses are an attempt to reach out to those who have accused me of playing "confuse a cat" (an allusion (indirect reference) to a 1969 Monty Python comedy skit) through the use of an overly-developed lexicon (the vocabulary of a language, an individual speaker or group of speakers, or a subject ) when writing in Doctrinal. It may make it a bit more more cumbersome but hopefully less confusing.
Mark, the only child issue eventually boils down to the "nature vs. nurture" debate, doesn't it? Multiple kid families can be just as dysfunctional and selfish as single child families, can't they? Likewise with socialization, no? Personally, I think the parents have a lot more to do with those things than whether a child is an only child or has multiple siblings.
Don't know how relevant it is, but a friend of mine had her first child last year and when I went to visit her she was so tired and stressed looking. The child would NOT go to sleep and cried an awful lot. She shared with me that she was just so overwhelmed with the responsibility she now had. "I have this life, this soul, this little human being and Randy and I are totally and utterly responsible for what kind of person she becomes." It IS a huge responsibility and, especially after watching too much Dr. Phil , it's one not enough people take that seriously. Being married to a police officer, I can share the "bad" side of parenting and how some people should not be able to have babies. I used to think we should all be born sterile and have to pass a parent test of some kind, apply to be able to have children.
I'm interested in your earlier statements about Muslims growing in European countries and the decline in reproduction among native Europeans. In America, at least about 4 years ago when I was doing demographic research, Indians were expected to overtake the Black and Hispanic populations within ten years. Do you think we should be having larger families for the purpose of maintaining a majority (a la power)? It would certainly shift the influences and culture, wouldn't it? This sort of ties in with my thread in Politics about how a country loses its freedoms like what we have here in the US.
Evan, I'm fascinated when you share about your experiences in Africa. I think it's tres cool that you've been able to live, work and learn with them. I'm sure if we ever met face to face, I'd be wanting to hear all about your experiences in much greater detail than this type of forum lends itself to. :)
Belle,
As I tried to say to Abigail, above, the decision to have children is a purely personal decision. What concerns me is the mores of a society that shape the individual decision-making process that result in the childless family or the single-child family by choice. No, I am not advocating that couples should decide to rear large families as a patriotic measure.
What concerns me is that society has changed, that it has become utterly ego-centric and materialistic in nature. That society influences, to one degree or another, all the members of that society. Part of the effect of that societal change is the tendency toward smaller and smaller families... Part of the effect of that societal change is the tendency toward upward mobility (How can I better myself and have a more prestigious, better-paying, physically less strenuous job...a bigger, better house in a better area...and so on)
(I am hardly saying that I am not a part of that trend...so please don't think I'm trying to stand in judgement...these are observations...)
But both those two effects noted above are, in large part, the cause of the mass immigration that has influenced both Europe and the US. There are fewer and fewer natives in both countries to do the work needed to maintain the economy and the infrastructure of those countries. The demographics of both countries are changing...the average age of native born residents is growing older. As a result, there are simply not enough young people (more importantly there are not enough young people willing) to do the hard work needed to maintain the infrastructure of the economy and to do the needed physical labor. We have outsourced much of the hard manufacturing work that is needed by industry to other countries. Both Europe and the US. We have imported labor to do much of the hard work needed to create and maintain infrastructure in this country (agriculture, construction, maintenance).
Is the trend reversable? Honestly, I doubt it. I sincerely believe that within 50 years, Europe will be a Muslim continent (by and large). I also believe that Spanish will be the principal language used within the US somewhere around that time. And I don't think there is anything that could be done about it at this juncture.
As you point out, it is not right to tell a couple whether to have children or not and how many to have. If the couple doesn't feel called to have those children, there's little that can be done. After all, it's not like our societal mores are going to change to value large families...
It's a bit like reading The Amplified Mark, or possibly The Annotated O'Malley
Isn't the commisission of the Bible to multiply and fill the Earth? Apparently, this has been done (like Word Over the World). In fact it could be argued that it is overfull. With 6 billion people on the planet now, and experts saying, at best, it could be stabalized at 9 million, the demographics of not just nations, but the whole planet, has to be managed to avoid disaster. Its not only age that has to be managed, but the consumption rate of individuals or groups. 9 billion westerners would consume a lot more than 9 billion third world inhabitants.
Biblical mandates of a full quiver have to be looked at as old wineskins that would only get us into big trouble if adhered to.
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
Statistical evidence may determine how typical something is. However, it also leaves a lot of information out, often including the why something is typical. In addition, statistical evidence is not always based on scientific principals, but can and often is slanted toward the bias of the individuals/group doing the research. If a person is predisposed to a certain position, I have no doubt they can find statistics on the internet to support it. They will also be inclined, consciously or unconsciously, to disregard or ignore those statistics that do not support their premise. For instance, I have no doubt there is accurate information to support the premise that people are having fewer children today than they did 100 years ago. However, I would guess that there is also statistical information that would support the premise that fewer children die of childhood diseases and fewer women die in childbirth (in our country - which is what this discussion is about). Based on that, I could surmise that we no longer need to have as many children in order to promulgate our species or society. However, that does not mean that no longer needing as many children is actually the reason why people are choosing to have fewer children.
Likewise, the need for a college education in order to earn the income necessary to support a family.
While I know there are exceptions...I think we can agree that, since World War II, western (steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions) society (a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests) has, by in large, become increasingly materialistic. How has that tendency affected the mores (the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of that society? And how do those societal mores affect the individual values inculcated into the individuals and couples impacting the processes used in deciding to conceive, bear, and rear a child (or children)?
and
But what caused that couple to take that decision? (And, more to the point, what causes a number of couples to take similar decisions?)
I very much believe that our materialistic lifestyles have a negative impact on our society in many, many ways. Does it effect the individual's values and impact the decision of whether to have children and how many children to have? I am sure it does. But, I think it is only one factor out of several that impact the decision of whether or not to have children and how many to have.
The loss of the extended family (which I see as even more detrimental to our society) probably also has a bearing on how many children people decide to have. [Warning, I'm going into the anecdotal again :D]. For me, (recognizing I may not be typical), the decision to stop at two wasn't purely about economics. Certainly, economics played a role - I don't want to have children if I cannot afford to provide them with food, cothing, shelter, and necessary medical care. However, it had far more to do with the realization that I did not have it in me emotionally, mentally, or physically, to spend another 2 or more years of sleepless nights followed by long, isolated days changing diapers and wiping noses. I stayed home with my boys until they were old enough to go to school and I don't regret one minute of that time with them. However, it was also a very very difficult time for me. I found that I am a much better parent if I have some time away from home, working at a job I really enjoy doing. I need the mental challenge and the socialization. I am fortunate (and most certainly atypical) in that I work for wonderful people and I am able to schedule my work around my children's needs. I can take them to school and be there with them after school.
However, if my circumstances had been such that I had extended family close by, my decision may have been different. The days would not have been so long and isolated if I had a mother, grandmother, aunt, cousin, or sister who was also home all day. Then there would have been another adult to share the duties, to have adult covernsation with etc. I could have been happy at home cooking, cleaning, playing with kids, if I didn't have to do it alone.
In addition, the need for a college education in order to earn a living wage may also impact a couple's decision to have a larger or smaller family. In our day, it is nearly impossible to earn a living wage without one. I don't expect that I will be able to finance my children's college education 100%. Already, though they are still in elementary school, we talk about the need to work hard and do well in school so that they will qualify for scholarships. We also talk about why a college education is so important and the long term impact of not having one. Of the difference between being unable to put a nutricious meal on the table (or even being able to afford a table) verses being skilled enough to earn a living wage. And notice, I said living wage, not excessive living wage. :)
As a result, there are simply not enough young people (more importantly there are not enough young people willing) to do the hard work needed to maintain the infrastructure of the economy and to do the needed physical labor. We have outsourced much of the hard manufacturing work that is needed by industry to other countries. Both Europe and the US. We have imported labor to do much of the hard work needed to create and maintain infrastructure in this country (agriculture, construction, maintenance).
Again, I see this as stemming from different causes. Fewer of the physical/manual labor jobs in our country pay a living wage, so fewer are willing to do them. Those that do pay a living wage are often the union shops. Unfortunately, with the rising cost of healthcare, fewer businesses can afford to pay a living wage AND pay for healthcare benefits so it is cheaper for them to outsource those jobs to countries that do not have unions, do not require living wages, do not offer employer sponsored healthcare. Then there are those businesses that are profitable enough to do all of the above, but are run by greedy CEO's (and there your perspective definitely comes into play) who want to put as much money in their own pockets as they can and could care less about the people working for them. This is not a new thing. In fact, it is not so different from the way things were in the days before unions and labor laws existed. Eventually, we the people, will have to find solutions to those problems.
Is the trend reversable? Honestly, I doubt it. I sincerely believe that within 50 years, Europe will be a Muslim continent (by and large). I also believe that Spanish will be the principal language used within the US somewhere around that time. And I don't think there is anything that could be done about it at this juncture.
In the grander scheme of things, does that matter? Does it really make a difference whether we speak English or Spanish? Or is the important thing simply that we are able to communicate with each other? Does it really matter if the bulk of the people practice Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or some other religion? All of them (when not practiced in extremist fashions) have very similar values.
I'm going to backpedal for a moment. Mark had asked for studies involving the socialization of only children. I tried to post on this yesterday but something went amiss and my post vanished. I haven't looked at this topic for quite some time but one place that may offer some insight is www.utexas.edu. There you will find information on Toni Falbo,PhD. who has studied this subject extensively. This is neither a plug for nor against the information found there. It is simply a suggested starting point.
Isn't the commisission of the Bible to multiply and fill the Earth? Apparently, this has been done (like Word Over the World). In fact it could be argued that it is overfull. With 6 billion people on the planet now, and experts saying, at best, it could be stabalized at 9 million, the demographics of not just nations, but the whole planet, has to be managed to avoid disaster. Its not only age that has to be managed, but the consumption rate of individuals or groups. 9 billion westerners would consume a lot more than 9 billion third world inhabitants.
Biblical mandates of a full quiver have to be looked at as old wineskins that would only get us into big trouble if adhered to.
Jerry
That could be a potentially valid point if you subscribe to the Bible as your world view.
But what is it about Western society that causes Westerners to be so wasteful? Or is it just the condition of man?
I say this because I know of plenty of "Easterners" who, upon being relocated in the "West," become just as wasteful. Not after a couple of generations: but immediately.
I can accept the premise that more resources per capita are used in the "West" than in the "East," but I do not automatically accept the conclusions that are automatically drawn from that by most sources. I see plenty of consumtpion within the East as well, when the East's economy grows.
For example, China is now becoming a major competitor for oil. Why? Because their economy is growing as fast as it is. From where I've seen, personally, in the middle east there is, again, plenty of consumption over there, as well...from those who have the means to consume.
Northern/ Central Europe is, by far, the most "ecologically" aware place that I've lived. Recycling is enforced and is a social norm. High gasoline taxes and readily available public transportation combine to allow a HUGE population density while still allowing mobility. Germany's population density is 232 people per sq km, the UK is 246 people/sq km. Compare this to the US with a population density of 31 people/sq km. (By the way, the average population density in the world is 48 people per sq km). If you've ever visited Europe, you'd note that it is not trashed. But yet isn't Europe as "Western" as one can get?
If you take a look at consumption, you can see some interesting trends. Everybody looks at energy consumption per capita and assigns a horrible score to the US with 342 million BTU per person used per year. However, we are not the worst. Canada has 418 million BTU per person. Norway is 424 MBTU/person. Singapore, of all places, uses 444 MBTU per person per year. China, although it uses far less, is an interesting case and illustrates the role of affluence. In 1980 they used 17 MBTU per person per year. In 2004, they used 42 MBTU per person per year. But another interesting measure is the BTU per dollar of gross domestic product. The US takes 9,336 BTU to produce a dollar of income (that's down from 14,234 BTU per dollar in 1980). China (remember how little energy per person they used) takes 9,040 BTU to produce a dollar of income. North Korea takes over 15,000 BTU to make a dollar. Russia also uses over 15,000 BTU to make a dollar, as does Liberia, in West Africa. Even South Africa takes over 12,000 BTU to make a dollar.
So it depends upon how you look at it. The US definitely is close to the top, when you consider energy per capita...but, if you look at what we do with that energy, we're pretty much in the middle. The traditional characterization of west versus east, north versus south also falls apart when you look at the actual numbers...and you look at those numbers crunched in different ways. (If you want to look at the energy numbers yourself, you can go to the <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html">Energy Information Administration</a> website).
The point being that West versus East or North versus South is not necessarily a good measure, at least as far as energy consumption is concerned. Developed versus undeveloped is a better measure, but there are other factors: Europe is, considering its level of development, far more efficient than many countries...both from the West and from the East. If we take a look at per capita growth, we would find that many developing countries are coming on strong as to their rates of growth.
Large families are still highly valued in many countries, including some that are well on the path of developing or are developed. Yes, China is an exception, but we have no idea what their cultural mores would call for if not for their one-child family limit was not in force.
The question remains, what in society would happen to change the fertility rate in countries like Italy (1.3), Germany (1.39), the UK (1.66), or France (1.84), or even the US (2.01)? (Keep in mind that the replacement fertility rate is somewhere between 2.1 and 2.3...depending upon who you ask)
I read your posts with interest and you brought up many very, very good points.
And in anything I've said or will say, please don't take comments I make as a personal criticism in any fashion.
In your first post, you make the comment:
Likewise, the need for a college education in order to earn the income necessary to support a family.
True, and this is a HUGE expense for families. I would, in turn, ask you to decompose the statement a bit. What are the factors that lead to increased cost of college tuition? I would submit that there are three factors that are primary causes: (1) increased cost of salaries and benefits for college faculty/staff, (2) increased costs for the infrastructure (the plant and equipment) -- both new/updated infrastructure and maintenance, and (3) expanded research...leading to additional costs in the above two categories that aren't directly attributable to the cost of educating students. I think you would find that the biggest single cause is increased requirements for salaries.
You make another very valid point in your second post:
The loss of the extended family (which I see as even more detrimental to our society) probably also has a bearing on how many children people decide to have.
What contributes to the loss of an extended family? Mobility is no doubt a factor. Many more of us end up settling far from where we were reared. (Personal anecdote: I was raised in Minnesota. I haven't been to Minnesota in 15 years) We've had migration before, though. Our country's history is full of migration.
Another contributing factor is smaller family size, itself. Face it, if a person's parents each came from a family with two children, there's not much of an extended family to draw upon...even if they all live in the same local area. That situation is happening more and more.
Fewer of the physical/manual labor jobs in our country pay a living wage, so fewer are willing to do them. Those that do pay a living wage are often the union shops. Unfortunately, with the rising cost of healthcare, fewer businesses can afford to pay a living wage AND pay for healthcare benefits so it is cheaper for them to outsource those jobs to countries that do not have unions, do not require living wages, do not offer employer sponsored healthcare.
I think that an examination of wages throughout history would reveal that physical/ manual labor jobs in this country have never really paid a decent wage. If you look at iron mills during the industrial revolution, construction jobs, cotton mills, agriculture, or anything other than the professional class, you would find that there is a comparatively small period of time where the manual laborer ever got paid what we would call a decent wage.
Having said that, there are fewer people who are faced with the alternative of doing these manual labor jobs or starvation. Therefore, most would prefer to do something that requires less sweat per dollar.
Then there are those businesses that are profitable enough to do all of the above, but are run by greedy CEO's (and there your perspective definitely comes into play) who want to put as much money in their own pockets as they can and could care less about the people working for them.
This is not a new thing.
It's not a new thing...and that's the point.
All of your observations bring up very valid points. But most of the observations reflect traits that have been common throughout history. Greed, mobility of society, and lack of available resources to the working class have been with us since the dawn of time. (In Egypt, the working class were slaves...and it hasn't gotten that much better since)
You brought up, and I agree, that the desire for improved salaries and improved conditions exist. Is that to fill survival needs or to fill wants? To have better and more. Anecdote: I make a pretty good salary (upper middle class for the area). I need the salary I make to live the life I want to live. Two fairly new (2002 Avalon, 2004 Tacoma) cars. Own a single family home in a fairly safe neighborhood. Able to send my daughter to a good school rather than the dangerous, ineffective public school she'd otherwise attend. Able to pay my bills. Internet access. Medical insurance. So on and so forth. But how much of this would be classed as true "survival needs." I could, in theory, live in an apartment in a lousy neighborhood, and end up paying about 1/3 of what we do. We could have an old "WOW-Mobile" instead of the two decent cars we have. And so on and so forth. It would be hard to go back to that level (although, in the military, I was there before), but had we always been there and didn't have the thought to do otherwise, would we miss what we never knew?
There are two issues that I've seen change the calculus, though:
1) Better communications. More information (good or bad) are available to the masses since WWII than ever before. (As with the anecdote above, before television, I might not see the lives of others and envy those lives like I would seeing them on TV)
2) A reduction in sharp class differences. Before the last century, there were some very sharp class differences that would serve as a barrier that would be very difficult, at best, to breach. Typically, it would be very rare to see a child of a laborer to receive a college education and to become a professional. The child of a farmer would be a farmer. The child of a coal miner would be a coal miner. The child of a factory worker would be a factory worker. And the child of a doctor would be a doctor (or some other professional class). The child of an industrialist would either be leisure-rich or an industrialist, himself. I believe that public education has historically had a major role in this. But there may be other causes. (Anecdote: I could start off as a lowly E-1 in the military and work up to running a major corporation...as long as I don't have to deal so much with the class differences)
One other point is that the birth control pill became available starting in 1960. (As a note, the highest birth rate in the country was in 1960 (118 births per 1000 women in 1960, 87.9 per 1000 in 1970, 68.4 per 1000 in 1980...and 66.3 in 2004). If there is a causal relationship between the pill and the birth rate, is the pill the reason or just an enablement to a societal change that was ripe to happen? I say this because the birth rates, when examined by race, are down with both black and white non-hispanics (67 per thousand and 58 per thousand, respectively, in 2004), while with hispanics, the rate is actually a little larger in 2004 as compared to 1980! It was 97 per thousand in 2004, while it was 95.4 in 1980. Hispanics, by and large, come from a different culture than blacks and whites in this country....but they still have the same availability of the pill as anybody else in this country. So I don't see the pill being as much of a cause, but a tool that enabled the change in society that was ripe for the change (for good or for bad). Had the pill somehow been introduced in 1900 rather than 1960, would the birth rate have as dramatically fallen upon its introduction? (Up until the 1930s, birth control was universally condemned by ALL Christian denominations, this may have had a large influence...or maybe not)
You asked if it mattered whether the primary language was Spanish or English? Or if it mattered if secular Europe or secular America (with somewhat Christian-based roots) became majority Muslim?
My answer would be that it would matter not a whit if those immigrants mold themselves to the culture with which we are mostly comfortable. I don't think that you would approve, though, if France adopted Sharia law. That could happen in a liberal democracy that is overwhelmed by members of a particular culture who do not adapt.
Again, what are the societal impacts of the declining birth rate? Have we, as a culture, replaced the value we place upon having a larger (not even large) family with the value of providing material goods for ourselves and the zero, one, or two children in our families? And is that a good thing looking at it in the ultimate sense?
It still comes down to the basic ontological question I asked a while ago...
These folks in the article that started off this thread are definitely counter-culture.
Mark, I have a couple of buttons, to be sure. But for the most part, if you disagree respectfully I will not take it as a personal insult. ;) Even if I did, I'd get over it. :)
"True, and this is a HUGE expense for families. I would, in turn, ask you to decompose the statement a bit. What are the factors that lead to increased cost of college tuition? . . . . . I think you would find that the biggest single cause is increased requirements for salaries."
You may be right, although I would have attributed it to healthcare and retirement. I don't know what the requirements are for universities, but in Michigan the retirement benefits alone, required by state law, are breaking our local school districts. The charter school my boys attend is looking at moving to an employee leasing set up in order to reduce this expense. We currently pay 15% of the teacher's salarys into a retirment fund and it is expected to move to 30% over the next five years.
However, it seems to me that if universities simply refused to offer such high salary's, those who truly want to teach would accept a lower one. That too we see in our school. We simply cannot afford to offer $50,000 plus. Yet, because so many teachers are currently unemployed in our state, we have no problem finding highly qualified and wonderful teachers. In fact, our charter school has 100% highly qualified teachers while the local city school district only has 83%.
What contributes to the loss of an extended family? Mobility is no doubt a factor. . . . . . Another contributing factor is smaller family size, itself. Face it, if a person's parents each came from a family with two children, there's not much of an extended family to draw upon...
I agree, those are factors. I think our reliance upon the government is another huge contributing factor. We now rely more and more on the government to take care of those family members that are elderly, ill, or otherwise incapacitated and unable to support themselves. Social climbing also contributes - that too I see within my own family. The wealthier members have little, and in most instances, nothing to do with the less weathly members. [You touched on this a bit in your response as well, although you were making a somewhat different point.]
"I think that an examination of wages throughout history would reveal that physical/ manual labor jobs in this country have never really paid a decent wage."
We may need to define what a decent wage is. From my perspective, a decent wage is one that allows you to pay for basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, transportation to and from work, healthcare, and perhaps some small amount left over for entertainment such as trips to the beach or park, etc. These days, a full-time job at your local grocery store isn't likely to cover those basic needs for an individual, much less a family. Nor is a job as a housekeeper or janitor. So of course, fewer and fewer people want those jobs.
Greed, mobility of society, and lack of available resources to the working class have been with us since the dawn of time
Yes, and since the dawn of time, or at least the dawn of our country, we have cycled back and forth in trying to find a balance between greed and need. For small periods of time we wave at it as it we cycle toward one extreme or another. The current trend is for the rich to get richer, while the middle class becomes poorer.
I could, in theory, live in an apartment in a lousy neighborhood, and end up paying about 1/3 of what we do. We could have an old "WOW-Mobile" instead of the two decent cars we have. And so on and so forth. It would be hard to go back to that level (although, in the military, I was there before), but had we always been there and didn't have the thought to do otherwise, would we miss what we never knew?
lol - you may find it would bring your family closer together. We were on our way towards that upward mobility, prior to Sushi becoming at least temporarily unable to work due to a physical condtion. We were working our way out of the crappy neighborhood, we are making payments on two vehicles, etc. Now we are facing saying goodbye to that, at least for a while. But you know, I'm thinking on some levels our lives will be less stressful if one of us is home all day to take care of the physical needs of the house; if we aren't worrying about making two car payments; if we aren't strugging to figure out how much money down we will need - what house will be the best buy, etc. Bad neighborhoods have an upside, if they aren't too horrible and dangerous.
Our kids are learning our value system. They are learning that while money may buy you certain physical comforts, it does not buy you happiness. They are learning that family is more important than having stuff. They are learning to jduge people on who they are, not what they have. I've lived on both sides of the tracks. They both have their benefits and shortcomings.
If there is a causal relationship between the pill and the birth rate, is the pill the reason or just an enablement to a societal change that was ripe to happen?. . . . . Had the pill somehow been introduced in 1900 rather than 1960, would the birth rate have as dramatically fallen upon its introduction?
And here you have, what I believe to be, the number one reason for the fall in birth rates. I don't know if birth rates would have fallen if the pill had been introduced earlier, but I suspect it would have. What I do very much believe though, is that our society was defintely ripe for the changes that took place during the time period that birth control pills became widely available. Choice for women. That is a change we were definitely ripe for and desperately in need of. I think it may be very difficult for many men to understand that, because historically men always had more choices available to them than women did, until the advent of the pill and the movement for equal rights for women.
Imagine what it would be like, to know your only path in life was to marry, have children, and take care of the wants and needs of your family (especially when children tend to be the most thankless creatures on this earth. :D ). To have no say over what your husband did to your body (It has only been in the past 30 - 40 years that forced sex was considered rape when it was between a married couple). To have no say in the number of children you gave birth to. To have no choice regarding whether you had children, a career, or tried to find some balance between the two. For some women, staying home and raising a large family is pure heaven. For others, it is pure hell. Prior to the birth control pill and the women's movement, even those who thought it was pure hell had little to no choice in the matter.
I don't think that you would approve, though, if France adopted Sharia law. That could happen in a liberal democracy that is overwhelmed by members of a particular culture who do not adapt.
You will note, I did qualify my statement with regard to extremist groups, yes? Also, I think you will find that a large number of immigrants who come to this country do so because they value the freedoms we have here, which include separation of church and state. In theory could that change? Sure. But I don't think we are anywhere near being threatened by that.
Again, what are the societal impacts of the declining birth rate? Have we, as a culture, replaced the value we place upon having a larger (not even large) family with the value of providing material goods for ourselves and the zero, one, or two children in our families? And is that a good thing looking at it in the ultimate sense?
I'm not sure how to determine the societal impact of a declining birth rate. In our society, I think the poorer people tend to have a higher birth rate than the weathier, which ultimately could be detrimental, but not for fear of our culture being taken over by a foreign one. I am far more concerned about what happens to those children who grow up without adult supervision, without basic needs, without an opportunity for a good education and decent healthcare. I worry about the value, or lack thereof, those children place on human life, personal freedom, respect for others, etcl. On the other hand, perhaps those kids will rise up (as occured in the 20's and 30's) and demand better wages from the greedy CEOs. THAT would be a good thing for our society.
Likewise, I am not convinced we are giving up larger families simply because we place such a high value on material goods. I think we are giving up larger families for an overall higher quality of life, to be sure. But higher quality does not necessarily equate with unnecessary material goods.
Evan talked about a culture where decisions were based upon what would be best for the society. There is value to that, and it is something we are seriously lacking in our society. It is something that should be fixed. Having larger families won't fix that. In fact, having larger families may make it worse.
See, what Evan describes strikes me as something of a socialistic society. I'm guessing that the society he described, while it may have some degree of class differences, probably makes sure that all of its people have food, clothing and shelter. We do that to some degree in our society, but we are far from "there" yet. We still have children whose only meal is the free lunch they receive at school. We still have people who cannot get basic healthcare. We still have CEOs making millions of dollars every year, while people are going hungry. I see those issues as being far more detrimental to our society than the declining birth rate.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
8
17
16
Popular Days
Nov 20
26
Nov 21
15
Nov 22
12
Nov 19
10
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 6 posts
Abigail 8 posts
markomalley 17 posts
dancing 16 posts
Popular Days
Nov 20 2006
26 posts
Nov 21 2006
15 posts
Nov 22 2006
12 posts
Nov 19 2006
10 posts
Belle
Mark, the only child issue eventually boils down to the "nature vs. nurture" debate, doesn't it? Multiple kid families can be just as dysfunctional and selfish as single child families, can't they? Likewise with socialization, no? Personally, I think the parents have a lot more to do with those things than whether a child is an only child or has multiple siblings.
Don't know how relevant it is, but a friend of mine had her first child last year and when I went to visit her she was so tired and stressed looking. The child would NOT go to sleep and cried an awful lot. She shared with me that she was just so overwhelmed with the responsibility she now had. "I have this life, this soul, this little human being and Randy and I are totally and utterly responsible for what kind of person she becomes." It IS a huge responsibility and, especially after watching too much Dr. Phil
, it's one not enough people take that seriously. Being married to a police officer, I can share the "bad" side of parenting and how some people should not be able to have babies. I used to think we should all be born sterile and have to pass a parent test of some kind, apply to be able to have children. 
I'm interested in your earlier statements about Muslims growing in European countries and the decline in reproduction among native Europeans. In America, at least about 4 years ago when I was doing demographic research, Indians were expected to overtake the Black and Hispanic populations within ten years. Do you think we should be having larger families for the purpose of maintaining a majority (a la power)? It would certainly shift the influences and culture, wouldn't it? This sort of ties in with my thread in Politics about how a country loses its freedoms like what we have here in the US.
Evan, I'm fascinated when you share about your experiences in Africa. I think it's tres cool that you've been able to live, work and learn with them. I'm sure if we ever met face to face, I'd be wanting to hear all about your experiences in much greater detail than this type of forum lends itself to. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
The overriding principle is community/village first, and family in context of that community. They see marriages in light of what they contribute to the community and as such the leaders and elders have a say in such matters. Producing children is paramount to a marriage union there. You'll not see divorce for any reason except not bearing children. There, the a#1 reason for a marriage union is to produce children. #2 is probably to insure that those children are productive memebrs of the community. I'm not sure if happiness figures into the mix.
Evan, it must be fascinating to be able to observe different cultures firsthand. Someday, I would love to be able to do that. However, I am not sure different equates with better or, for that matter worse. I see the benefits in the lifestyle you presented above. I also see a downside. Self-sacrifice to a point is a good thing. However, if self-sacrifice results in a long and miserable life, then it is too extreme.
I think a balance is required somewhere when it comes to prioritizing community needs v. individual needs. I am in no way saying we have found that in this country, I'm just thinking it is a necessary element. At some point, if the bulk of the community is unhappy because of the sacrifices the individuals must make in order for the community to survive, it would seem to me the community would ultimately self-destruct. Likewise, if the community is sacrificed too often in the pursuit of individualism, the community would ultimately self-destruct.
To take our Western worldview of personal choice and self-fulfillment and attempt to apply it to biblical concepts causes a dissonance not easily remedied.
I am not sure I follow here. Isn't the Bible written to apply to all days, times, and ages? Isn't our western cutlure a part of those days, times, and ages? Are you suggesting that personal choice and self-fulfillment were not a part of God's plan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Some shameless self promotion.
Funny Parenting Stories
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Certainly. Every culture seems to have their inherent balance between these sometimes competing interests. My experience is that, although many live lives of what we would consider suffering, the general level of "Happiness" is much greater. I've often puzzled over this. One thing I could offer is that there isn't such anxiety over life choices that need to be made. I'm sure there's more. However much we recoil at their lack of choice, I've found they recoil equally at the thought of 'doing your own thing' in many areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hi dancing. i found your posts refreshing and saw no hostility at all
and what i said in my one post was just how i felt about the subject (oh god feelings are no guarantee for doctrine)
btw, i would tell the pope and a council of bishops or priests or whatever the same thing
i've lived this crapola doctrine, so i think i can add value
even if i can't do the anecdotal thingy
ps. i'm not upset, no buttons right now
i guess if we start talking about priests molesting children, i might pop a few :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
There was no philosophical point which is a contradiction of terms.
Philosophical and point.
And there is plenty of statistical evidence.
Not only proving that special interest groups do harm.
But also the way in which the bible is being used to tell people what to do.
And why is this automatically thought to be about one having a lot of offspring as in littlepeople of whom they are responsible for. Lack of spiritual sight and hearing.
So if one doesn't have a lot of kids, then their is shame? And can't speak with the 'enemies' at the gate? Not happy?
Ever even read what it says?
Psalm 127
1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 2It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. 3Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Anecdotal-
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal evidence is often called a testimonial and is banned in some jurisdictions. The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than the typical example.
In all forms of anecdotal evidence, objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.
Thanks Excathedra.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abigail,
I sympathize with what your comments.
Modern society places us in an interesting position, as you alluded (to make indirect reference) in your post. We, as members of a society, place a high value on material abundance and on personal liberty. There is a cute little quip (a witty saying) that I remember seeing on a t-shirt years ago that said "He who has the most toys, wins."
That presents an incredible amount of pressure on individuals and couples. While I know there are exceptions...I think we can agree that, since World War II, western (steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions) society (a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests) has, by in large, become increasingly materialistic. How has that tendency affected the mores (the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of that society? And how do those societal mores affect the individual values inculcated into the individuals and couples impacting the processes used in deciding to conceive, bear, and rear a child (or children)?
When one really analyzes the questions above, the ultimate (arrived at as the last result) antecedent (a preceding event, condition, or cause) condition comes down to the basic ontological (relating to or based upon being or existence) question I raised earlier: "Why am I here?"
You, from your anecdotal experience, demonstrate this dichotomy (a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities) through your experience: you have personal freedom and wealth if you remain childless...but that freedom is accompanied by emptiness...the converse (reversed in order, relation, or action) is true with your decision to rear children.
The ultimate (in my opinion) irony is that, in today's society, children are, in some cases by some people, viewed as material possessions (consider some child custody cases we see these days).
The key point, though, is that I don't as much question the couples' motivation in making their decisions as question the societal mores that shape their values that, in turn, influence those decisions. The couples are making the right decisions for themselves and likely for their children (they'd be horrible parents anyway). But what caused that couple to take that decision? (And, more to the point, what causes a number of couples to take similar decisions?)
By the way, the definitions provided in parentheses are an attempt to reach out to those who have accused me of playing "confuse a cat" (an allusion (indirect reference) to a 1969 Monty Python comedy skit) through the use of an overly-developed lexicon (the vocabulary of a language, an individual speaker or group of speakers, or a subject ) when writing in Doctrinal. It may make it a bit more more cumbersome but hopefully less confusing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
It's a bit like reading The Amplified Mark, or possibly The Annotated O'Malley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
As I tried to say to Abigail, above, the decision to have children is a purely personal decision. What concerns me is the mores of a society that shape the individual decision-making process that result in the childless family or the single-child family by choice. No, I am not advocating that couples should decide to rear large families as a patriotic measure.
What concerns me is that society has changed, that it has become utterly ego-centric and materialistic in nature. That society influences, to one degree or another, all the members of that society. Part of the effect of that societal change is the tendency toward smaller and smaller families... Part of the effect of that societal change is the tendency toward upward mobility (How can I better myself and have a more prestigious, better-paying, physically less strenuous job...a bigger, better house in a better area...and so on)
(I am hardly saying that I am not a part of that trend...so please don't think I'm trying to stand in judgement...these are observations...)
But both those two effects noted above are, in large part, the cause of the mass immigration that has influenced both Europe and the US. There are fewer and fewer natives in both countries to do the work needed to maintain the economy and the infrastructure of those countries. The demographics of both countries are changing...the average age of native born residents is growing older. As a result, there are simply not enough young people (more importantly there are not enough young people willing) to do the hard work needed to maintain the infrastructure of the economy and to do the needed physical labor. We have outsourced much of the hard manufacturing work that is needed by industry to other countries. Both Europe and the US. We have imported labor to do much of the hard work needed to create and maintain infrastructure in this country (agriculture, construction, maintenance).
Is the trend reversable? Honestly, I doubt it. I sincerely believe that within 50 years, Europe will be a Muslim continent (by and large). I also believe that Spanish will be the principal language used within the US somewhere around that time. And I don't think there is anything that could be done about it at this juncture.
As you point out, it is not right to tell a couple whether to have children or not and how many to have. If the couple doesn't feel called to have those children, there's little that can be done. After all, it's not like our societal mores are going to change to value large families...
LMAO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One other comment: I'm sure most people would prefer to read "O'Malley, Abridged" as compared to either of the two titles listed above.
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Isn't the commisission of the Bible to multiply and fill the Earth? Apparently, this has been done (like Word Over the World). In fact it could be argued that it is overfull. With 6 billion people on the planet now, and experts saying, at best, it could be stabalized at 9 million, the demographics of not just nations, but the whole planet, has to be managed to avoid disaster. Its not only age that has to be managed, but the consumption rate of individuals or groups. 9 billion westerners would consume a lot more than 9 billion third world inhabitants.
Biblical mandates of a full quiver have to be looked at as old wineskins
that would only get us into big trouble if adhered to.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
Statistical evidence may determine how typical something is. However, it also leaves a lot of information out, often including the why something is typical. In addition, statistical evidence is not always based on scientific principals, but can and often is slanted toward the bias of the individuals/group doing the research. If a person is predisposed to a certain position, I have no doubt they can find statistics on the internet to support it. They will also be inclined, consciously or unconsciously, to disregard or ignore those statistics that do not support their premise. For instance, I have no doubt there is accurate information to support the premise that people are having fewer children today than they did 100 years ago. However, I would guess that there is also statistical information that would support the premise that fewer children die of childhood diseases and fewer women die in childbirth (in our country - which is what this discussion is about). Based on that, I could surmise that we no longer need to have as many children in order to promulgate our species or society. However, that does not mean that no longer needing as many children is actually the reason why people are choosing to have fewer children.
Likewise, the need for a college education in order to earn the income necessary to support a family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
While I know there are exceptions...I think we can agree that, since World War II, western (steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions) society (a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests) has, by in large, become increasingly materialistic. How has that tendency affected the mores (the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of that society? And how do those societal mores affect the individual values inculcated into the individuals and couples impacting the processes used in deciding to conceive, bear, and rear a child (or children)?
and
But what caused that couple to take that decision? (And, more to the point, what causes a number of couples to take similar decisions?)
I very much believe that our materialistic lifestyles have a negative impact on our society in many, many ways. Does it effect the individual's values and impact the decision of whether to have children and how many children to have? I am sure it does. But, I think it is only one factor out of several that impact the decision of whether or not to have children and how many to have.
The loss of the extended family (which I see as even more detrimental to our society) probably also has a bearing on how many children people decide to have. [Warning, I'm going into the anecdotal again :D]. For me, (recognizing I may not be typical), the decision to stop at two wasn't purely about economics. Certainly, economics played a role - I don't want to have children if I cannot afford to provide them with food, cothing, shelter, and necessary medical care. However, it had far more to do with the realization that I did not have it in me emotionally, mentally, or physically, to spend another 2 or more years of sleepless nights followed by long, isolated days changing diapers and wiping noses. I stayed home with my boys until they were old enough to go to school and I don't regret one minute of that time with them. However, it was also a very very difficult time for me. I found that I am a much better parent if I have some time away from home, working at a job I really enjoy doing. I need the mental challenge and the socialization. I am fortunate (and most certainly atypical) in that I work for wonderful people and I am able to schedule my work around my children's needs. I can take them to school and be there with them after school.
However, if my circumstances had been such that I had extended family close by, my decision may have been different. The days would not have been so long and isolated if I had a mother, grandmother, aunt, cousin, or sister who was also home all day. Then there would have been another adult to share the duties, to have adult covernsation with etc. I could have been happy at home cooking, cleaning, playing with kids, if I didn't have to do it alone.
In addition, the need for a college education in order to earn a living wage may also impact a couple's decision to have a larger or smaller family. In our day, it is nearly impossible to earn a living wage without one. I don't expect that I will be able to finance my children's college education 100%. Already, though they are still in elementary school, we talk about the need to work hard and do well in school so that they will qualify for scholarships. We also talk about why a college education is so important and the long term impact of not having one. Of the difference between being unable to put a nutricious meal on the table (or even being able to afford a table) verses being skilled enough to earn a living wage. And notice, I said living wage, not excessive living wage. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
As a result, there are simply not enough young people (more importantly there are not enough young people willing) to do the hard work needed to maintain the infrastructure of the economy and to do the needed physical labor. We have outsourced much of the hard manufacturing work that is needed by industry to other countries. Both Europe and the US. We have imported labor to do much of the hard work needed to create and maintain infrastructure in this country (agriculture, construction, maintenance).
Again, I see this as stemming from different causes. Fewer of the physical/manual labor jobs in our country pay a living wage, so fewer are willing to do them. Those that do pay a living wage are often the union shops. Unfortunately, with the rising cost of healthcare, fewer businesses can afford to pay a living wage AND pay for healthcare benefits so it is cheaper for them to outsource those jobs to countries that do not have unions, do not require living wages, do not offer employer sponsored healthcare. Then there are those businesses that are profitable enough to do all of the above, but are run by greedy CEO's (and there your perspective definitely comes into play) who want to put as much money in their own pockets as they can and could care less about the people working for them. This is not a new thing. In fact, it is not so different from the way things were in the days before unions and labor laws existed. Eventually, we the people, will have to find solutions to those problems.
Is the trend reversable? Honestly, I doubt it. I sincerely believe that within 50 years, Europe will be a Muslim continent (by and large). I also believe that Spanish will be the principal language used within the US somewhere around that time. And I don't think there is anything that could be done about it at this juncture.
In the grander scheme of things, does that matter? Does it really make a difference whether we speak English or Spanish? Or is the important thing simply that we are able to communicate with each other? Does it really matter if the bulk of the people practice Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or some other religion? All of them (when not practiced in extremist fashions) have very similar values.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you mark, for the definitions, especially of "quip"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm going to backpedal for a moment. Mark had asked for studies involving the socialization of only children. I tried to post on this yesterday but something went amiss and my post vanished. I haven't looked at this topic for quite some time but one place that may offer some insight is www.utexas.edu. There you will find information on Toni Falbo,PhD. who has studied this subject extensively. This is neither a plug for nor against the information found there. It is simply a suggested starting point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i have a quip i have a quip
if roman catholics have lots of babies, there will be more roman catholics in the world
(now, i'm not talking about those people who took vows of celibacy. it's against the law for them. they need to stay with their own sex)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
or children who are not of childbearing years
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That could be a potentially valid point if you subscribe to the Bible as your world view.
But what is it about Western society that causes Westerners to be so wasteful? Or is it just the condition of man?
I say this because I know of plenty of "Easterners" who, upon being relocated in the "West," become just as wasteful. Not after a couple of generations: but immediately.
I can accept the premise that more resources per capita are used in the "West" than in the "East," but I do not automatically accept the conclusions that are automatically drawn from that by most sources. I see plenty of consumtpion within the East as well, when the East's economy grows.
For example, China is now becoming a major competitor for oil. Why? Because their economy is growing as fast as it is. From where I've seen, personally, in the middle east there is, again, plenty of consumption over there, as well...from those who have the means to consume.
Northern/ Central Europe is, by far, the most "ecologically" aware place that I've lived. Recycling is enforced and is a social norm. High gasoline taxes and readily available public transportation combine to allow a HUGE population density while still allowing mobility. Germany's population density is 232 people per sq km, the UK is 246 people/sq km. Compare this to the US with a population density of 31 people/sq km. (By the way, the average population density in the world is 48 people per sq km). If you've ever visited Europe, you'd note that it is not trashed. But yet isn't Europe as "Western" as one can get?
If you take a look at consumption, you can see some interesting trends. Everybody looks at energy consumption per capita and assigns a horrible score to the US with 342 million BTU per person used per year. However, we are not the worst. Canada has 418 million BTU per person. Norway is 424 MBTU/person. Singapore, of all places, uses 444 MBTU per person per year. China, although it uses far less, is an interesting case and illustrates the role of affluence. In 1980 they used 17 MBTU per person per year. In 2004, they used 42 MBTU per person per year. But another interesting measure is the BTU per dollar of gross domestic product. The US takes 9,336 BTU to produce a dollar of income (that's down from 14,234 BTU per dollar in 1980). China (remember how little energy per person they used) takes 9,040 BTU to produce a dollar of income. North Korea takes over 15,000 BTU to make a dollar. Russia also uses over 15,000 BTU to make a dollar, as does Liberia, in West Africa. Even South Africa takes over 12,000 BTU to make a dollar.
So it depends upon how you look at it. The US definitely is close to the top, when you consider energy per capita...but, if you look at what we do with that energy, we're pretty much in the middle. The traditional characterization of west versus east, north versus south also falls apart when you look at the actual numbers...and you look at those numbers crunched in different ways. (If you want to look at the energy numbers yourself, you can go to the <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html">Energy Information Administration</a> website).
The point being that West versus East or North versus South is not necessarily a good measure, at least as far as energy consumption is concerned. Developed versus undeveloped is a better measure, but there are other factors: Europe is, considering its level of development, far more efficient than many countries...both from the West and from the East. If we take a look at per capita growth, we would find that many developing countries are coming on strong as to their rates of growth.
Large families are still highly valued in many countries, including some that are well on the path of developing or are developed. Yes, China is an exception, but we have no idea what their cultural mores would call for if not for their one-child family limit was not in force.
The question remains, what in society would happen to change the fertility rate in countries like Italy (1.3), Germany (1.39), the UK (1.66), or France (1.84), or even the US (2.01)? (Keep in mind that the replacement fertility rate is somewhere between 2.1 and 2.3...depending upon who you ask)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abigail,
I read your posts with interest and you brought up many very, very good points.
And in anything I've said or will say, please don't take comments I make as a personal criticism in any fashion.
In your first post, you make the comment:
True, and this is a HUGE expense for families. I would, in turn, ask you to decompose the statement a bit. What are the factors that lead to increased cost of college tuition? I would submit that there are three factors that are primary causes: (1) increased cost of salaries and benefits for college faculty/staff, (2) increased costs for the infrastructure (the plant and equipment) -- both new/updated infrastructure and maintenance, and (3) expanded research...leading to additional costs in the above two categories that aren't directly attributable to the cost of educating students. I think you would find that the biggest single cause is increased requirements for salaries.
You make another very valid point in your second post:
What contributes to the loss of an extended family? Mobility is no doubt a factor. Many more of us end up settling far from where we were reared. (Personal anecdote: I was raised in Minnesota. I haven't been to Minnesota in 15 years) We've had migration before, though. Our country's history is full of migration.
Another contributing factor is smaller family size, itself. Face it, if a person's parents each came from a family with two children, there's not much of an extended family to draw upon...even if they all live in the same local area. That situation is happening more and more.
I think that an examination of wages throughout history would reveal that physical/ manual labor jobs in this country have never really paid a decent wage. If you look at iron mills during the industrial revolution, construction jobs, cotton mills, agriculture, or anything other than the professional class, you would find that there is a comparatively small period of time where the manual laborer ever got paid what we would call a decent wage.
Having said that, there are fewer people who are faced with the alternative of doing these manual labor jobs or starvation. Therefore, most would prefer to do something that requires less sweat per dollar.
It's not a new thing...and that's the point.
All of your observations bring up very valid points. But most of the observations reflect traits that have been common throughout history. Greed, mobility of society, and lack of available resources to the working class have been with us since the dawn of time. (In Egypt, the working class were slaves...and it hasn't gotten that much better since)
You brought up, and I agree, that the desire for improved salaries and improved conditions exist. Is that to fill survival needs or to fill wants? To have better and more. Anecdote: I make a pretty good salary (upper middle class for the area). I need the salary I make to live the life I want to live. Two fairly new (2002 Avalon, 2004 Tacoma) cars. Own a single family home in a fairly safe neighborhood. Able to send my daughter to a good school rather than the dangerous, ineffective public school she'd otherwise attend. Able to pay my bills. Internet access. Medical insurance. So on and so forth. But how much of this would be classed as true "survival needs." I could, in theory, live in an apartment in a lousy neighborhood, and end up paying about 1/3 of what we do. We could have an old "WOW-Mobile" instead of the two decent cars we have. And so on and so forth. It would be hard to go back to that level (although, in the military, I was there before), but had we always been there and didn't have the thought to do otherwise, would we miss what we never knew?
There are two issues that I've seen change the calculus, though:
1) Better communications. More information (good or bad) are available to the masses since WWII than ever before. (As with the anecdote above, before television, I might not see the lives of others and envy those lives like I would seeing them on TV)
2) A reduction in sharp class differences. Before the last century, there were some very sharp class differences that would serve as a barrier that would be very difficult, at best, to breach. Typically, it would be very rare to see a child of a laborer to receive a college education and to become a professional. The child of a farmer would be a farmer. The child of a coal miner would be a coal miner. The child of a factory worker would be a factory worker. And the child of a doctor would be a doctor (or some other professional class). The child of an industrialist would either be leisure-rich or an industrialist, himself. I believe that public education has historically had a major role in this. But there may be other causes. (Anecdote: I could start off as a lowly E-1 in the military and work up to running a major corporation...as long as I don't have to deal so much with the class differences)
One other point is that the birth control pill became available starting in 1960. (As a note, the highest birth rate in the country was in 1960 (118 births per 1000 women in 1960, 87.9 per 1000 in 1970, 68.4 per 1000 in 1980...and 66.3 in 2004). If there is a causal relationship between the pill and the birth rate, is the pill the reason or just an enablement to a societal change that was ripe to happen? I say this because the birth rates, when examined by race, are down with both black and white non-hispanics (67 per thousand and 58 per thousand, respectively, in 2004), while with hispanics, the rate is actually a little larger in 2004 as compared to 1980! It was 97 per thousand in 2004, while it was 95.4 in 1980. Hispanics, by and large, come from a different culture than blacks and whites in this country....but they still have the same availability of the pill as anybody else in this country. So I don't see the pill being as much of a cause, but a tool that enabled the change in society that was ripe for the change (for good or for bad). Had the pill somehow been introduced in 1900 rather than 1960, would the birth rate have as dramatically fallen upon its introduction? (Up until the 1930s, birth control was universally condemned by ALL Christian denominations, this may have had a large influence...or maybe not)
You asked if it mattered whether the primary language was Spanish or English? Or if it mattered if secular Europe or secular America (with somewhat Christian-based roots) became majority Muslim?
My answer would be that it would matter not a whit if those immigrants mold themselves to the culture with which we are mostly comfortable. I don't think that you would approve, though, if France adopted Sharia law. That could happen in a liberal democracy that is overwhelmed by members of a particular culture who do not adapt.
Again, what are the societal impacts of the declining birth rate? Have we, as a culture, replaced the value we place upon having a larger (not even large) family with the value of providing material goods for ourselves and the zero, one, or two children in our families? And is that a good thing looking at it in the ultimate sense?
It still comes down to the basic ontological question I asked a while ago...
These folks in the article that started off this thread are definitely counter-culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, I have a couple of buttons, to be sure. But for the most part, if you disagree respectfully I will not take it as a personal insult. ;) Even if I did, I'd get over it. :)
"True, and this is a HUGE expense for families. I would, in turn, ask you to decompose the statement a bit. What are the factors that lead to increased cost of college tuition? . . . . . I think you would find that the biggest single cause is increased requirements for salaries."
You may be right, although I would have attributed it to healthcare and retirement. I don't know what the requirements are for universities, but in Michigan the retirement benefits alone, required by state law, are breaking our local school districts. The charter school my boys attend is looking at moving to an employee leasing set up in order to reduce this expense. We currently pay 15% of the teacher's salarys into a retirment fund and it is expected to move to 30% over the next five years.
However, it seems to me that if universities simply refused to offer such high salary's, those who truly want to teach would accept a lower one. That too we see in our school. We simply cannot afford to offer $50,000 plus. Yet, because so many teachers are currently unemployed in our state, we have no problem finding highly qualified and wonderful teachers. In fact, our charter school has 100% highly qualified teachers while the local city school district only has 83%.
What contributes to the loss of an extended family? Mobility is no doubt a factor. . . . . . Another contributing factor is smaller family size, itself. Face it, if a person's parents each came from a family with two children, there's not much of an extended family to draw upon...
I agree, those are factors. I think our reliance upon the government is another huge contributing factor. We now rely more and more on the government to take care of those family members that are elderly, ill, or otherwise incapacitated and unable to support themselves. Social climbing also contributes - that too I see within my own family. The wealthier members have little, and in most instances, nothing to do with the less weathly members. [You touched on this a bit in your response as well, although you were making a somewhat different point.]
"I think that an examination of wages throughout history would reveal that physical/ manual labor jobs in this country have never really paid a decent wage."
We may need to define what a decent wage is. From my perspective, a decent wage is one that allows you to pay for basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, transportation to and from work, healthcare, and perhaps some small amount left over for entertainment such as trips to the beach or park, etc. These days, a full-time job at your local grocery store isn't likely to cover those basic needs for an individual, much less a family. Nor is a job as a housekeeper or janitor. So of course, fewer and fewer people want those jobs.
Greed, mobility of society, and lack of available resources to the working class have been with us since the dawn of time
Yes, and since the dawn of time, or at least the dawn of our country, we have cycled back and forth in trying to find a balance between greed and need. For small periods of time we wave at it as it we cycle toward one extreme or another. The current trend is for the rich to get richer, while the middle class becomes poorer.
I could, in theory, live in an apartment in a lousy neighborhood, and end up paying about 1/3 of what we do. We could have an old "WOW-Mobile" instead of the two decent cars we have. And so on and so forth. It would be hard to go back to that level (although, in the military, I was there before), but had we always been there and didn't have the thought to do otherwise, would we miss what we never knew?
lol - you may find it would bring your family closer together. We were on our way towards that upward mobility, prior to Sushi becoming at least temporarily unable to work due to a physical condtion. We were working our way out of the crappy neighborhood, we are making payments on two vehicles, etc. Now we are facing saying goodbye to that, at least for a while. But you know, I'm thinking on some levels our lives will be less stressful if one of us is home all day to take care of the physical needs of the house; if we aren't worrying about making two car payments; if we aren't strugging to figure out how much money down we will need - what house will be the best buy, etc. Bad neighborhoods have an upside, if they aren't too horrible and dangerous.
Our kids are learning our value system. They are learning that while money may buy you certain physical comforts, it does not buy you happiness. They are learning that family is more important than having stuff. They are learning to jduge people on who they are, not what they have. I've lived on both sides of the tracks. They both have their benefits and shortcomings.
If there is a causal relationship between the pill and the birth rate, is the pill the reason or just an enablement to a societal change that was ripe to happen?. . . . . Had the pill somehow been introduced in 1900 rather than 1960, would the birth rate have as dramatically fallen upon its introduction?
And here you have, what I believe to be, the number one reason for the fall in birth rates. I don't know if birth rates would have fallen if the pill had been introduced earlier, but I suspect it would have. What I do very much believe though, is that our society was defintely ripe for the changes that took place during the time period that birth control pills became widely available. Choice for women. That is a change we were definitely ripe for and desperately in need of. I think it may be very difficult for many men to understand that, because historically men always had more choices available to them than women did, until the advent of the pill and the movement for equal rights for women.
Imagine what it would be like, to know your only path in life was to marry, have children, and take care of the wants and needs of your family (especially when children tend to be the most thankless creatures on this earth. :D ). To have no say over what your husband did to your body (It has only been in the past 30 - 40 years that forced sex was considered rape when it was between a married couple). To have no say in the number of children you gave birth to. To have no choice regarding whether you had children, a career, or tried to find some balance between the two. For some women, staying home and raising a large family is pure heaven. For others, it is pure hell. Prior to the birth control pill and the women's movement, even those who thought it was pure hell had little to no choice in the matter.
I don't think that you would approve, though, if France adopted Sharia law. That could happen in a liberal democracy that is overwhelmed by members of a particular culture who do not adapt.
You will note, I did qualify my statement with regard to extremist groups, yes? Also, I think you will find that a large number of immigrants who come to this country do so because they value the freedoms we have here, which include separation of church and state. In theory could that change? Sure. But I don't think we are anywhere near being threatened by that.
Again, what are the societal impacts of the declining birth rate? Have we, as a culture, replaced the value we place upon having a larger (not even large) family with the value of providing material goods for ourselves and the zero, one, or two children in our families? And is that a good thing looking at it in the ultimate sense?
I'm not sure how to determine the societal impact of a declining birth rate. In our society, I think the poorer people tend to have a higher birth rate than the weathier, which ultimately could be detrimental, but not for fear of our culture being taken over by a foreign one. I am far more concerned about what happens to those children who grow up without adult supervision, without basic needs, without an opportunity for a good education and decent healthcare. I worry about the value, or lack thereof, those children place on human life, personal freedom, respect for others, etcl. On the other hand, perhaps those kids will rise up (as occured in the 20's and 30's) and demand better wages from the greedy CEOs. THAT would be a good thing for our society.
Likewise, I am not convinced we are giving up larger families simply because we place such a high value on material goods. I think we are giving up larger families for an overall higher quality of life, to be sure. But higher quality does not necessarily equate with unnecessary material goods.
Evan talked about a culture where decisions were based upon what would be best for the society. There is value to that, and it is something we are seriously lacking in our society. It is something that should be fixed. Having larger families won't fix that. In fact, having larger families may make it worse.
See, what Evan describes strikes me as something of a socialistic society. I'm guessing that the society he described, while it may have some degree of class differences, probably makes sure that all of its people have food, clothing and shelter. We do that to some degree in our society, but we are far from "there" yet. We still have children whose only meal is the free lunch they receive at school. We still have people who cannot get basic healthcare. We still have CEOs making millions of dollars every year, while people are going hungry. I see those issues as being far more detrimental to our society than the declining birth rate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
never mind
Edited by excathedraLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Abi you rock,
Now about those verses about 'quiverfull'.
Does most people think it's talking about children being born from sexual interaction?
Or could there be other perspectives to be seen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.