The EGO of Having Children
One of the biggest decisions in life involves the choice to reproduce. Current total fertility rates are believed to be at an all-time low — 1.73 children birthed per woman in her lifetime — in the United States as the population is reproducing below replacement level — 2.0 children per woman.
Less children means less optimism about the future, which makes you wonder why are Americans reproducing less.
Historically, at the individual level, the ability to reproduce has been the most valuable asset you could have for the species. In hunter-gatherer times, once you lost the ability to reproduce or raise a child, your value to future human society diminished.
Before we had our modern environments, humans faced rougher conditions, had weaker immune systems less equipped for foreign disease, and were lucky if they reached age 35. 200 years ago nearly half-of-all children died before age 5, and data shows potentially 60 percent of Europe’s 14th Century population was killed off from the bubonic plague.
Although reproduction was crucial for survival of the species, just like previous human survival tactics such as hunting, fishing, and hiking, reproduction for Americans has become somewhat of a luxury.
It has always been difficult to raise children, but the challenge feels heightened today.
Things are more expensive.
Quality health insurance is, well, complicated.
Global warming is a major concern.
Artificial intelligence is humankind’s Pandora’s box.
Even if you grew up in the bottom tier of the middle class, you may find yourself convinced any future children you have will not enjoy the same quality of life you experienced, so you think it might be best to spare them the trouble and not have them at all. With reproduction no longer feeling necessary for human survival at an individual level, the decision to have them has never been a greater reflection of the self-centered incentives of reproducing.
Economically, children have always come with their fair share of cost. The sex is the cheap part. It’s the nine months of carrying it and, traditionally, the following 18 years, but more so 26 years if you go by most health insurance carriers, that cost parents their time and money. Children were seen as an investment to the individual and the species for most of human history, but in 2020 the prospect of children now comes with extended liability.
In 1900, when nearly 40 percent of Americans still lived on farms, children were used as an extra hand — the underlying reason behind summer break in our education system. As people occupied more urban spaces, many children could be found working in factories. Altogether, 18 percent of the United States labor force in 1900 was under the age of 16.
Child labor laws didn’t catch steam until the Great Depression, when jobs decreased and adults needed to eliminate the more affordable child workers out of the market. The treatment of children by the United States is not atypical from other civilizations as children continue to be exploited in parts of the world today.
In the first-world post-modern society, the decision to have children is intertwined with how you envision the next 80 years going. Many parents struggle to expose their children to the hardships of the world, and perhaps a good number of millennials do that by forgoing children completely, or they just have a single child because that’s all they can financially afford.
By not having children, millennials are free to focus on themselves for life, a luxury only a tiny minority of people across human history have gotten to have. Albeit, millennials under this lifestyle have potential for a bleak outlook on life after age 70 when no children or grandchildren will be around.
Before social security, the best retirement plan was birthing many offspring. Adult children can ensure their parents receive proper aging care and seeing ourselves live on in grandchildren can provide relief to the aging process.
Whether you chose not to reproduce in order to enjoy your life or because you do not think it is fair for children to grow up in this world, you are acting in your self-interest. And if you chose to have children to advance your genes or to fulfill a meaning in your life, you too are acting in your self-interest. And if you have a child, and neglect it, you are acting in the worst self-interest.
Sometimes the government has its own self-interest in child-birth, none more infamous than China’s one-child policy. In hindsight, the policy did what it was designed to do, but had a lot of unintended consequences. The consequences are hard to measure, but it you were born in China since the policy’s inception in 1980, you were affected in some way.
The policy created a preference for males that has resulted in a 30 million gender-gap for the Chinese. Social stakes become higher as many males are unable to mate, and as it stands, in 15 years China is projected to only have 1.6 working adults per retiree. China is so concerned about its future working class that advertisements for having children have popped up.
In the case of China, anytime policies are brought forth with the intention to distort population growth, there are major trade-offs that need to be examined in full.
Children are extensions of us and they are needed for our survival as a group. It’s important that we understand our desires in having them or not and acknowledge that like an economic agent, our preferences for children are born out of self-interest, whether it be at the individual or state level. With this in mind, it is crucial that we continue to review these working agents to better understand how they fit into the future of humanity.
When you’re thinking about having children, run through the possible scenarios, and comprehend the weight of your decisions without consideration of your self-interest, and see if that sways your mind either way. There is no right or wrong answer to this, but careful thought is the necessary action.
