Marriage, Kids, Old Age, and Death Minus Two Of Those [social science]

If you saw Y’s recent post concerning his decision to be fruitful and multiply — a decision that seems to have resulted in his subsequent decision to get hitched — you are invited to reflect on his thinking with me.

The decision to have children, while deeply personal, is heavily influenced by a larger social need. You can’t have a society without younger generations coming up to do the work and to tend to the graying population as it slips into dotage. Old people need young people for many reasons, but one example that comes to mind is the lovely social security tax everyone of working age pays to keep the old folks freshly supplied with new Wii games and Viagra.

Another obvious but often overlooked fact-like statement is that “social norms” are the product of a society and usually reflect some type of societal need. In this case, there is a strong social norm pushing us all to continue society: to have babies. Like the more vibrant social norms, this one is very good at perpetuating itself. After all, raise your hand if you were born to parents who had decided not to have children?

[I note that the animosity for gay marriage and for abortion which represent persistent social norms in many sectors of America at their core might be viewed as antagonistic to the larger social norm that more babies are good for the greater good and we therefore want to discourage non-baby-making social couplings or decisions. That's a bit outside the scope, but I think it's plausible. As is the not-entirely separate discussion of Judeo-Christian injunctions to multiply, though those subtle pew-stuffing pressures are intertwined strongly with America's social norms.]

The thing about society’s demands to observe, however, is that they serve society’s goals. Read that statement as: not YOUR goals. Doing what society pushes you to do often comes at some cost to the individual who submits to the pull of the Will Of Us (would be the Will Of We, which sounds better because it alliterates but mangles the objective case…). I have already posted on the extensive social science data that exists demonstrating that couples who choose to have children lead significantly less happy lives - on average - than their fruitful counterparts. The “why” is obvious to everyone with both children and without them: kids are very emotionally, physically, financially, spiritually, and in every other way taxing to create, care for, and attempt to shape. Results can and do vary. It is often said, rightly if my own wonderful but long-suffering mother could any example (sorry mom!), that a parent is only as happy as their least happy child at any given time. For once, a saying with some serious social science data behind it. Personally, I view having children as a decision to live or die on a day to day basis by the performance of a questionably talented little league hockey team. You just don’t know what you’ll get but you’re committed to the highs and the lows (statistically speaking, many more lows) no mater what.

As I mentioned to Y following his post and very much believe, there is a Hemingway hero kind of admirable bravery in looking all that I have said above in the face and proceeding in spite of it. I can’t fault his resolve, but I wanted to question some of the logic of one aspect that I hear my other “educated liberal” friends trumpet to justify their eventual capitulation in the direction of diapers: “The world needs more people like me/us.”

Because what is meant by “me/us” is probably a more rational, learned, tolerant, and compassionate citizenry, I do not take issue with the idea that I would like such a world better. Nonetheless, I don’t feel any need to “buy in” to the future of this society. The next generation is only a huge concern for you if you decide to link yourself to it with offspring. Thus, the idea that you have to have kids because otherwise the world will not be a better place when you are not around overlooks the simple fact that you won’t feel one way or another about it — as you just said, you will not be around. Any specific concerns you have about the world while you are here can be better addressed if you apply yourself to addressing them. Those that are annoying but seemingly immutable are very likely to remain so even if you have litter after litter and train them all up as mini John Conners and Laura Crofts, except in the weaponry of ideas. Sounds kind of cool doesn’t it? Again, the survey says: it’s not.

I would suggest that this sub-norm among the educated elite (”we better have kids, too, or all the kids will be Red State Babies!”) only serves to perpetuate that portion of the population that will go on to make the same decision the next time around. By definition, the time devoted to career and education will always but the educated portion of the country a step behind in terms of number of kids being churned out right after high school. If you wait twice as long as your illiberal counterpart, they’ll have twice as many little Idea Warriors in the system at any given time. Not to mention that “we/us” tend to have fewer children as a result of the wait. So, you won’t win that battle, but it’s nice to know that there’s a growing social norm that dupes this part of the population into making the same bad (for the individual) decision that the rest of the country is making. And it comes in a more righteous wrapping paper as well, because it’s begun to incorporate precisely the reality of how unpleasant children can be for their host family. Martyrs! That’s what “we/us” are, this idea seems to say. Would you rather we gave up and left the world to the Reds?

Social norms are fluid, and this one is evolving with the times, speaking better and better to its intended victims. In this way, we’re all Purple, it seems. The only difference is that an educated person has access to better information about the likely reality of this choice….