The baby bust
Last month, Pew issued the results from a new survey showing that the number of American women who never have children has doubled in my lifetime — from 1-in-10 to nearly 2-in-10.
As an aside, one of my fascinations as a journalist and an observer of American life is the incredibly rapid pace of change that our society manages to navigate with relative aplomb.
We like to think of ourselves as a culturally conservative nation — more religious, more traditionalist, and more small-town based than much of Western society.
But in demographic terms, this kind of thing is transformative: it points to a wholesale shift in the structure and meaning of family, the role of women in society, and the make-up of our national population in the near future.
One interesting note from the Pew study is that the change in attitudes is affecting women of all races.
By race and ethnic group, white women are most likely not to have borne a child. But over the past decade, childless rates have risen more rapidly for black, Hispanic and Asian women, so the racial gap has narrowed.
Some critics have raised alarms about this “childless” trend (I found an interesting article at Slate’s website) and here in the North Country we are seeing some of the most serious side-effects.
As the number of children drops, schools close, communities age, and the viability of some villages is called into question.
This trend also suggests that the furor over illegal immigration may be a tempest in a teapot, a kind of distraction to the main event.
If these birth-rate trends continue, it is inevitable that immigrants and the children of first-generation immigrants will continue to make up a larger and more vital slice of the American population.
If immigrants are indeed the future, then it might be time to ask how we can begin attracting the next generation of newcomers to our rural area — people willing to follow in the footsteps of the Europeans and Quebecois who came here a century ago.
To me the trend is not disturbing. I have long thought that if you really want to control pollution and stop Global Warming, if you believe in Global Warming, the most effective method would be to lower the human population level, the source of all pollution.
Pete,
I couldn’t agree more. All the talk of climate change, pollution, etc. is mute if we don’t address the population issue facing our species. The population issue in the North Country is one thing, but given the prediction of 8 billion people worldwide within the next few decades, population GROWTH is really a huge cause for concern. It’s like the elephant in the room that’s never acknowledged.
Brian says,
“If these birth-rate trends continue, it is inevitable that immigrants and the children of first-generation immigrants will continue to make up a larger and more vital slice of the American population.”
I’m not sure. Other countries have been trying the “reduce population” experiment ahead of us. It hasn’t worked out so well. I think they want to keep all that they can.
For years it has been noted that while immigrant groups and minorities have higher birth rates, “Vassar graduates are barely replacing themselves.” As they say, your mileage may vary as to what this might mean.
PS “Vassar graduates” in the era when they were all women.
What if we limited all families to only one children? Seems like some other country is doing that now. Are they having any luck?
“We like to think of ourselves as a culturally conservative nation — more religious, more traditionalist, and more small-town based than much of Western society.”
Speak for yourself – I find that characterization depressing. Although I do like small towns.
Yes, for the most part, those with higher income and higher education are the one doing the most to control the size of the families.
Possible solution – limit aid to dependent children to two children. After that, good luck! You are on your own.
But what about the children? What about parents being responsible for their own children?
Parents being responsible for their own children is a little old-fashioned, isn’t it.
There is a direct correlation observed wordwide between the level of education, paid emploment and accessible health care for girls and women, and a marked decrease in family size. That is why international aid groups increasingly target programs toward girls and women. It both aids the current generation, and improves the sustainability of future generations in resource-strapped countries. The effect may have different implications in developed countries, but the math is the same. As immigrants to the US access the benefits of living in a developed and relatively gender-equal society, their birth rates will also decline.
Dale Hobson,
NCPR web manager
I agree with outsider. And what does being “culturally conservative” have to do with living in the small town?
Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), there are too many people…
Paul R. Ehrlich,The Population Bomb, 1968, there are too many people…
2010, discussion blog, there are too many people…
200 years from now, there are too many people…
One thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history.
“We like to think of ourselves as a culturally conservative nation — more religious, more traditionalist, and more small-town based than much of Western society.”
I think this is somewhat true and yet fascinating in that by our actions we are less traditionalist, less conservative, less small town based than much of western society. You can’t have the statistics we have on divorce, abortion, murder, rape and say somehow we are a moral or traditional society.
Children are a blessing when we start seeing children as a problem and not a blessing; we lose what it means to love to be human. A society without children without families that embrace children is dead. So from that perspective I somewhat agree with Brian there is a point maybe right now when we should be welcoming people who are willing to raise happy healthy families with children who will pay our social security and keep our economy humming.
Regarding children as a blessing is all fine and good provided you accept them as your responsibility to raise your children.
I think it is sad if we view them as beasts of burdens to pay for our social security and keep our economy humming.
JDM,
There certainly isn’t a problem with too little population at this point in our history, wouldn’t you say? I don’t think we’re in danger of extinction that way.
However, the earth’s resources are finite, and at some point, we will reach the end. wouldn’t it be prudent to plan ahead, and make a couple lifestyle changes?