Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much.

Demographic Winter asserts that "every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness." And surely they are right. Modern societies offer people many other satisfactions and choices outside of the family. In particular women find that their time becomes more highly valued in occupations outside the home. There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have. Eberstadt also noted the best predictor of fertility levels is the desired family size as reported by women. And finally, the most profound event of the 20th century may have been the sexual revolution's drive toward gender equality, enabled by modern contraception. Unlike other creatures, people can have the fun of sex without the side effect of parenthood.

So, modernity essentially transforms children from capital goods that produce family income into consumption items to be enjoyed for their own sakes, more akin to sculptures, paintings, or theatre. But that's just the problem—according to happiness researchers, people don't really enjoy rearing children.

"Economists have modeled the impact of many variables on people's overall happiness and have consistently found that children have only a small impact. A small negative impact," reports Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Daniel Gilbert. In addition, the more children a person has the less happy they are. According to Gilbert, researchers have found that people derive more satisfaction from eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television than taking care of their kids. "Indeed, looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing housework," asserts Gilbert in his bestselling, Stumbling on Happiness (2006).

Of course, that's not what most parents say when asked. For instance, in a 2007 Pew Research Center survey people insisted that their relationships with their little darlings are of the greatest importance to their personal happiness and fulfillment. However, the same survey also found "by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the 'mutual happiness and fulfillment' of adults rather than the 'bearing and raising of children.'"

Gilbert suggests that people claim their kids are their chief source of happiness largely because it's what they are expected to say. In addition, Gilbert observes that the more people pay for an item, the more highly they tend to value it and children are expensive, even if you don't throw in piano lessons, soccer camps, orthodonture, and college tuitions. Gilbert further notes that the more children people have, the less happy they tend to be. Since that is the case, it is not surprising that people are choosing to have fewer children. And if people with fewer children are happier, then people with no children must be happiest, right? Not exactly, but the data do suggest that voluntarily childless women and men are not less happy than parents. And they sure do have more money to squander as they try to pursue what happiness they can and strive to somehow fill up their allegedly empty lives.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125163.html

2/26/2008 4:02:28 PM

Quote :

"There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have. "

Yay more stupid kids

2/26/2008 4:09:46 PM

^Bc we have to pay for everyone else's and our own. Makes it pretty expensive.

2/26/2008 4:13:08 PM

Quote :

"And finally, the most profound event of the 20th century may have been the sexual revolution's drive toward gender equality, enabled by modern contraception. Unlike other creatures, people can have the fun of sex without the side effect of parenthood."

You don't need any sort of technology to accomplish this. Only a bit of imagination.

That said, interesting report. I think it's good trend. It suggests that the best way to combat overpopulation is work for women's liberation and economic growth.

2/26/2008 4:25:22 PM

Quote :

"the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Quote :

"Gilbert further notes that the more children people have, the less happy they tend to be."

I have to wonder if that is anything more than sad fucks having a bunch of children because they think it will make them happy when what they really need to do is address their own problems.

2/26/2008 4:30:38 PM

i think humans are going through reverse evolution where the mechanics of our society actually creates a circumstance where the "least fit" for our spicies the least wealthy, successful, or intelligent etc end up creating more offspring then those with the superior traits.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : a]

2/26/2008 4:36:20 PM

^ so what you're saying is..... you've seen Idiocracy

2/26/2008 4:40:19 PM

HUR got the Idiocracy sandwich.

2/26/2008 4:50:16 PM

Quote :

"HUR:i think humans are going through reverse evolution where the mechanics of our society actually creates a circumstance where the "least fit" for our spicies the least wealthy, successful, or intelligent etc end up creating more offspring then those with the superior traits."

I agree.

We never should have let your parents breed.

2/26/2008 5:20:56 PM

this is really the unintended consequence of christian and other traditional western monogamous and monotheist efforts

the unwelcome and unconstitutional presence of christian-derived policy monopolization on the state and federal levels

made the protection and promotion of "the family unit" essentially an unwritten amendment (read: commandment 5)

this then had the intended consequence of weakening and hindering such civil liberties as polygamy and tribalism

(it's quite obviously that these non-western practices threatened our bigoted ancestors culture war)

had polygamy and tribalism been recognized as civil liberties that should be protected, they would have flourished

apparently, as we can see, not every pair of procreators is designed for the traditional monogamous family life

instead, perhaps half of them are, while the other half would do better in a polygamous and/or tribal life

had that been allowed, not every individual would have remained fettered by a full-time spouse or kids,

allowing them to enter modernity, gender equality, and of course (and perhaps first,) sexual liberation


but no!!!!!!!!!1

christians are correct about everything, and the rest of us are all wrong and doomed to hell

the christian family unit is paramount, and we should all kneel in thanks to the lord



btw, it's not too late to remove "the family unit" from our legal system -- simply legalize polygamy

and either remove all laws favoring "the family unit" or add ones protecting all other social units

(via constitutional amendment?)


of course, if I know christians,

they'd rather run the entire country in the ground, leaving it for china, russia and satan

than admit that their prohibitions are unjust and accept sharing america with polygamists and tribes



(they really should teach anthropology to kids starting in elementary school -- the children are our future)

2/26/2008 5:22:04 PM

I agree with hur, we have social programs that promote the opposite of natural selection.

2/26/2008 5:23:10 PM

392, polygamy is perfectly legal. If you can convince two women (or even two men) to move in and spend the rest of their lives under the same roof with you, the cops are not going to bust down the door. Your neighbors may shun you, but legally that is all they can do; it is your right.

But I can see why you are upset. You are upset that when your wife leaves you for the pool boy you wont be able have her arrested and executed according to tribal tradition.

2/26/2008 5:39:49 PM

^^^ i'm generally fine with blaming Christians and religion for problems, when it is applicable, but i think that's quite a stretch to blame this on monogamous relationships based on Western religions. People and populations have shown that they can reproduce in vast quantities while remaining in paired-couples. Plus, seeing as how men and women are roughly split 50:50 anyways, i'm not sure mathematically that allowing/encouraging men to impregnate as many women as possible will really make that much of a difference.

plus, the Catholics have shown us that married, Christian couples can produce well more than their "fair share" of offspring. Mexico and central/south American countries are also even more Christian and the US is, and we all know they're reproducing like bunnies.


---

and the whole issue of Natural Selection is not particularly relevant to humans. Since we gained consciousness and we are now actively shaping our future, natural selection doesn't really apply any more, in the historical survival-of-the-fittest concept. The human population is now much more strongly influenced by Selective Breeding, which is an often overlooked aspect of evolution.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 5:42:05 PM

Quote :

"I dream of an America with nudity and F-words on network TV. Where the whole world doesn't stop because a school bus did. Children are the future....today belongs to me!"

2/26/2008 5:45:45 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much."

Bingo. People value wealth and fun more than the supposed burden of children.

People are stupid.

Kids are better than any fangled new gadget or fancy-pants vacation.

Also I blame feminism and its crusade to malign the most noble of all professions.

2/26/2008 9:26:02 PM

Sometimes I feel like have 15 kids just to combat the combined stupid that all those Quiverfull people are producing.

2/26/2008 9:36:41 PM

Quote :

"btw, it's not too late to remove "the family unit" from our legal system -- simply legalize polygamy"

I always thought the issue of polygamy was social instability. If you say have a community of 2000 sexually mature adults (1000 men 1000 woman) in which 25% of the men were in polygamous marriages. Among those with multiple wives lets say the average is 3.

25% of 1000= 250. 250 (polygamous males) * 3 wives= 750 woman. Therefore the remaining 750 men would only have a selection of 250 woman that were not one of the wives in a polygamous marriage. At the end though there would be 500 men unable to find wives or woman to mate with. From my readings I have always thought having a high population of single males running around is always asking for trouble.

2/26/2008 9:48:54 PM

Too many ugly, messy humans on this planet anyways.

2/26/2008 10:25:04 PM

Quote :

"Also I blame feminism and its crusade to malign the most noble of all professions."

2/26/2008 10:31:43 PM

Quote :

"392, polygamy is perfectly legal"

um, no, actually.

polygamy is illegal in all 50 states, as defined by the model penal code section 230.1

the only legal polygamists in the us are foreign travelers, (if polygamy is lawful in their country of origin)

not sure what you're thinking.....

Quote :

"have her arrested and executed according to tribal tradition"

wow, you disagree with me so you accuse me of misogyny? wow

Quote :

"Therefore the remaining 750 men would only have a selection of 250 woman that were not one of the wives in a polygamous marriage"

uh, sorry to burst your bubble

but you're talking about polygyny, not polygamy

also, you're talking about an entire society being that way, as if every american would abandon monogamy

iow, your post is completely off topic

I get what you're saying though....

2/27/2008 12:51:17 AM

392, "If you can convince two women (or even two men) to move in and spend the rest of their lives under the same roof with you, the cops are not going to bust down the door." Just marry one of them, or none of them, and you will have no problems from the police.

It is the same way same-sex marriage is legal, as long as you don't try to file jointly or submit for a state marriage license. You can have a ceremony, even sign some contracts you wrote up yourself. I don't know, but they may even be enforcible in government courts as long as you word it right and don't try to do too much.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/27/2008 9:34:52 AM

Quote :

"It is the same way same-sex marriage is legal"

I don't think you understand the definition of "legal"...

2/27/2008 9:44:20 AM

I don't think i could deal with having two or three bitches nag at me for the next 50 years

2/27/2008 10:06:25 AM

^^
fo real, what's he smoking?

^
then don't -- like I said, it should be a choice

don't forget that you could also have one wife and one "brother husband" (no homo)


^^^
snark, wtf are you talking about?

Quote :

"Just marry one of them, or none of them,"

THEN IT'S NOT POLYGAMY, DUMBASS!

your "separate but equal" thinking here is disgusting

who the fuck do you think you are?


marriage is a legally recognized contract WITH TERMS

you know, like medical visitation, child custody, joint tax filing, etc.


why the holy god damn fuck did you think I was simply talking about living arrangements????!

(which, btw, still constitutes illegal polygamy in some states)

2/27/2008 10:28:57 AM

I didn't say you were. But, I was pointing out that if polygamy was something people wanted to partake of, they are perfectly able to do so. You can contract a lot with people and have government courts enforce it, even child custody. The only thing you actually cannot do is joint-filling and visitation at the hospital. But so what? If people actually wanted to do it, surely the tax-code is not going to stop them. This being the case, and polygamy being rediculously rare, I suspect even if it was sanctioned by law (thus granting visitation and joint-filling) people would still not partake of it.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/27/2008 10:00:49 PM

iow, you were wrong

and now you're backpeddling



if individuals in a polygamous marriage don't have EVERY SINGLE FUCKING legal right

as those in a monogamous marriage, then it's not a marriage


AGAIN

YOUR SEPARATE BUT EQUAL THINKING HERE IS NOTHING SHORT OF DISGUSTING

YOU ARE WRONG

YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG

YOU CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO SUIT YOUR POINT

AND YOU POINT IS FULL OF SHIT

DON'T TELL ME YOU CAN GET CONTRACTS TO APPROXIMATE MARRIAGE

AND THAT ONLY THE FACT THAT YOU LIVE TOGETHER IS ALL THAT MATTERS

FUCK YOU AND SENSE OF LOGIC

YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG

AND IF YOU DON'T ADMIT IT

THEN YOU ARE A FUCKING CHILD

EVEN MORE OF CHILD THAN I AM FOR REACTING THIS WAY

GROW THE FUCK UP AND ADMIT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

THERE IS NO LEGAL POLYGAMY IN AMERICA

AND NO AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL I'M-GONNA-ACT-LIKE-THIS-IS-A-REAL-MARRIAGE BULLSHIT WILL CHANGE THAT




WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

BEING SO STUPID

LOOK AT WHAT YOU POSTED

IS IT CLEARLY WRONG

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU DON'T SEE THIS?


LOOK AT WHAT YOU POSTED

IS IT CLEARLY WRONG

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU DON'T SEE THIS?



LOOK AT WHAT YOU POSTED

IS IT CLEARLY WRONG

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU DON'T SEE THIS?



[/too drunk for the soapbox, but still right]

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 2:39 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 2:37:44 AM

You're like an unfunny version of FroshKiller.

Is that you? When did you start sucking this bad?

2/28/2008 3:22:00 AM

I have serious questions for everyone in this thread.

Do you love your parents? Do they love you? Are they proud of you? Do they see you as a waste of their lives?

2/28/2008 4:49:09 AM

^ possibly.

2/28/2008 8:36:55 AM

if in the future i have had kids and they have turned out like my sibling and i, i would be pretty disappointed

2/28/2008 8:42:30 AM

is 392 seriously suggesting that polygamy is a valid response or solution to growing the population?
I think you're seriously overestimating the desire of men and women to have multiple concurrent partners and families. Regardless of religious values or whatever, I really think that a vast majority of people would prefer to have only one family to be responsible for at a time.

2/28/2008 9:05:48 AM

if i had kids and they didn't in turn have kids of their own, I would be disappointed.

I think i might make a parody of this thread in Chit Chat soon.

2/28/2008 9:18:42 AM

I've been wondering about this, but how exactly do you define tribalism? It's not a term that readily comes to mind over the discussion of marriage. When I hear the term tribalism, I think of tightly-knit insular communities, but those communities can still be made up of monogamous family units.

2/28/2008 9:35:04 AM

^ this is totally the way to go, form literally family raising communities, it could actually be productive and fun to raise kids that environment. Maybe even educated people could have children then

too bad it's just never going to happen in this nation

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 9:55 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 9:54:06 AM

well it takes a whole community to raise a child

2/28/2008 9:54:54 AM

^ that's complete bullshit. What community is raising our kids? Over isolationist individualism is rampant even in public schools. People can't stand to live with each other anymore.

Communities don't exist geographically anymore, few people even know their neighbors. Work consists of tolerating co-workers from 9 to 5 and not wanting to have anything else to do with them.

2/28/2008 9:58:28 AM

Quote :

"don't forget that you could also have one wife and one "brother husband" "

i'll kill some fool fucking my bitch.

2/28/2008 10:10:52 AM

Same shit happened in Rome

Why not us

THE BARBARIANS ARE COMING!

2/28/2008 10:28:14 AM

Quote :

"is 392 seriously suggesting that polygamy is a valid response or solution to growing the population?"

no, perhaps I should have been more clear in my post

but I'm talking about the past, not the future

iow, I'm not saying that polygamy should be a response now (although it wouldn't hurt)

I'm saying perhaps the problem wouldn't be as severe had polygamy been legal in the past

Quote :

"Regardless of religious values or whatever, I really think that a vast majority of people would prefer to have only one family to be responsible for at a time."

sure, but none-the-less, my point stands

[legal] polygamists would certainly be a minority -- I don't disagree there

but why shouldn't people who desire to practice polygamy be granted with the same rights as monogamous marriages?

bigotry and intolerance, that's why

(if you think about it, polygamy should be less of an issue than gay marriage, although the issues can overlap)



no one

repeat, no one

has ever come close to describing an actual harm that comes from polygamy

(of course, the religious nuts try to, but they think that anything other than monogamy is T3H DEVIL!)

2/28/2008 11:41:51 AM

Quote :

"Same shit happened in Rome Why not us THE BARBARIANS ARE COMING! "

THE ILLEGALS ARE COMING!!!!

2/28/2008 12:25:20 PM

Quote :

"(of course, the religious nuts try to, but they think that anything other than monogamy is T3H DEVIL!)"

[no]

you are totally fucked up and backwards. The only ones who actively promote polygamy are religious nuts and the ones opposed are a part of the secular rational world concerned with women's rights.

2/28/2008 1:20:30 PM

Quote :

"you are totally fucked up and backwards."

[no]

Quote :

"The only predominant ones who actively promote polygyny, one of many forms of polygamy, are religious nuts"

fixed it for ya

nice use of the word "only", you might also like "never" or "always"

Quote :

"and the ones opposed are a part of the secular rational world concerned with women's rights."

it is you that are totally fucked up and backwards

firstly, very many religious monogamists are opposed to polygamy, not just secular people (why did you think that??!?)

next, women's rights have no more to do with polygamy than they do with monogamy

you sir are bigoted against polygyny, and perhaps with polygamy in general, as well

the repeated confusion of polygamy and polygyny occurring by some of you

indicates your lack of education on the subject,

largely because most all they teach about polygamy is that it's wrong


and lastly, polygyny does not necessarily mean patriarchy, abuse, or (as many think,) pedophilia

sure, a pedophile, misogynist, or patriarch might decide to practice polygyny

but to suggest that polygyny, or polygamy in general, has anything to do with those things

is no less bigoted that suggesting that homosexuals are pedophiles or sexually promiscuous

you've got your facts wrong

and your prejudice is obvious

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 1:39:37 PM

i'd like you guys to address my previous question, kkthx

2/28/2008 1:41:22 PM

^
yes, yes, yes, no

your point?

2/28/2008 1:43:46 PM

someday, kid, you'll understand

2/28/2008 1:44:34 PM

if we legalize polygamy can we legalize consensual sex so i can hook up w/ that 15 yr old hottie

2/28/2008 3:38:51 PM

^^^^^ so you're just going to keep going believing that the rest of the world misunderstands your bull crap, whatever

prejudice? Against the polygamist abusive households in the news more than anything else on the subject? okay.

2/28/2008 6:45:55 PM

^
whatever, bigot

you just keep on going on believing that it's ok to be prejudiced

2/28/2008 7:07:38 PM

I am staunchly opposed to polygamy in our society. That doesn't make me a bigot.

2/28/2008 7:20:32 PM

2/28/2008 7:28:02 PM