Dude. I just posted 2 links. One which identified the childfree as socially unique, and one was a medical study that identified the childfree (childless by choice) as an ENTIRELY unique demographic on most metrics. It is not my fault you didn't read it.
No,
Your
first link demonstrated through polling that some women wish to have children less than other women, to the point of virtual nil. This is not exactly groundbreaking astonishing research.
Your
second link argues that women who choose infertility are A) distinguishable by their actions (they have had their tubes tied or taken some other form of birth control on a permanent/as-necessary basis) and B) are fine with their choice. Again, this is not exactly a huge surprise.
NEITHER of your links is able to indicate in any way a method (other than directly asking on an individual basis) out the "childfree" from the "childless" when taking a look at relative productivity of the citizenry.
What I actually said is not that the childfree are necessarily more productive
Forgive me if I have misread this, but that seemed indeed to be what you were suggesting, as you seem to be arguing that not only are they more productive, but that they are so more productive that they have equalled the lost production of child-rearing.
I would agree on an individual basis they are not necessarily more or less productive, which is why I prefaced my argument with "all things being equal". The evidence suggests that they are
not, but you are insisting on teasing out a granularity that the data (as far as I have seen) cannot support.
The US is at replacement. So I don't know why you're worried.
:shrug: in a general sense, firstly because we are falling. The numbers of "childless" or "childfree" as a portion of the populace are increasing, not decreasing. So this is a trend with long-term damaging effects.
And secondly, because our social systems are set up in a pyramid scheme fashion. If we do not produce children
above the replacement rate, we cannot sustain our transfer of wealth from the young to the old. This threatens both young and old - the old with reduced benefits, and the young with reduced opportunities.
A child is a public good. So are any number of others things a person may choose to do with their life. You can't simply ignore every other facet of life.
I would agree. That is why I prefaced with "
all things being equal".
Also, societies that go below replacement do not "die." They experience temporary discomforts until the population stabilizes.
That is incorrect. Societies which dip below replacement have to see an
increase in birthrate if they are to survive. In the meantime, many fewer young people have to take care of many more old people, which in turn reduces the ability to recover. Which does not happen as neatly as the original fall. As I understand it, no major society has ever recovered from a dip below 1.8. Though that is a measure that is about to be much more rigorously tested - Japan is facing a major crisis in the next 10(ish) years, and following them is most of Europe and China.
Once again, you are lumping the childfree and the childless together, and ignoring the fact that many childfree are in permanent relationships. Most that I know who are over 30, actually.
The number referenced (1/3) was of men age 30-49.
It is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion that their contributions don't "top" those who simply manage to not use birth control. Reproducing by itself is simply not impressive. Being an excellent parent might be. But the biological act itself is not.
I'll leave that decision to those who have actually gone through pregnancy and child birth. I rather suspect most of those women might think that your dismissal of what they go through is.... uninformed.
However, child-rearing, yes, is a socially positive act.
Dedicating your life to others is not "replicating" parenthood.
No, it is replicating the
focus and service of parenthood. You are arguing that CF people can represent greater social value to the extent that they serve others - I am merely pointing out that that is precisely what parents do.
Parenthood is parochial. Much of the service work I and other CF people do is much broader -- for people we never have and may never meet. It comes from an entirely different desire and an entirely different social view. We may not have as much impact on each individual person as a parent has on their child, but such work influences the lives of a vastly greater number of people.
:lamo oh, S&M... i'm sorry but :lol: the breathtaking
arrogance of this is.... well, it's the college know it all hippy episode.
Okay, look, this is a stupid game, because
breadth of impact is not the same as
depth of impact is not the same as
raw total impact, and really I would bet that in those three variations the ability to differentiate between CF and CL is (just like productivity) nigh on nil, just as the idea that parents don't do those things as well is... well...
Okay, as a parent I have put a couple of dozen mass murderers in jail, and helped to secure a city of approximatley 300,000 people from a major terrorist insurgency. Hundreds of school children could travel back and forth from their houses to school safely whereas before we came on scene they couldn't as
one metric. We went from 200 attacks a month with a casualty rating of about 1-3 per to 2 attacks a month with one casualty between them. I've done humanitarian assistance in Thailand, trained security forces in Kuwait, dammed up the Mississippi to protect Amish communities, aided flood victims in the Philippines, increased the ability of the South Koreans to protect certain portions of their populace, and helped the Japanese when a Tsunami wiped out their nuclear reactors. So I would put forth that I've had some breadth - my impact has been literally global. I would say that I've had some depth - people are alive today partly because of me. This isn't to be braggadocious, or try to paint some kind of awesome picture of myself - I'm not particularly unique in these regards. Lots of the vets in here will tell you similar stories.
MANY have had greater impact. But if you want to try to tell me that "your world is much bigger" because you don't have kids? That you "influence a vastly greater number of people"?
I call BS, and BS of the most self-centered, ridiculous, hippyesque sort. This is the kind of ridiculous thing that people say right before they talk about how they are going to change the world through their drum circle, and it's crap that you, frankly, are much too smart to take seriously.
See above. This is simply patronizing ridiculousness.
no. Smarmy ideas about how people who don't have kids are living on some kind of higher plane where they have greater impact and live in a "wider world" than parents is patronizing ridiculousness. The fact that parents spend time and effort on their children is simply reality.
Aso, I find that kind of funny, considering a lot of work-from-home parents are getting laid off from places like Yahoo because they spent their work hours basically playing Farmville.
you'll get no argument from me that people are basically lazy. In fact, that rather underpins one of my points - that people are less likely to seek self improvement when they lack the motivation of having to provide for others.
I'm not arguing Malthus -- just facts.
On the contrary - you have demonstrated zero factual evidence supporting your implicit claim that people are not socially net-beneficial. The argument that they are not is indeed Malthusian.
Depends on what I make. Who is going to pay them? ME, after working for decades for the kind of hours most parents never will once they have children.
wrong. You pay for your parents. That's they way our system works. Each generation gets its' retirement income from the generations behind it. You don't pay
yourself a dime of Social Security or Medicare benefit.
I am currently ensuring that generation has access to culture and social cohesion. I am anything but a "burden" to them.
I would agree that you are probably a net benefit to society. As are most folks. However, when you do start drawing on that generation, you will be a burden on them, a burden which you have not matched with your own effort. You (broadly speaking, not you particularly, but the CF who expect to receive retirement benefits) are expecting me to underwriting raising the next generation so that my kids can support your retirement. (shrug)
Sometimes just unwillingness and no need to work.
Which the CF are more likely to have than parents. Which is why we see such incredible divergence in productivity especially among men between those who raise children v those who do not.
I have demonstrated the difference between the groups already multiple times.
See above.
Now, I'll get around to productivity, even as you continue to claim I haven't.
I am interested to see it.
The entire thing is very interesting and it also explains -- AGAIN -- the childree and the childless are different.
It is interesting, and I appreciate how you also cite the authors' admission of the complexity and difficulty in drawing out the differences between the two. I'm not terribly surprised at the divergent results between men and women.
