About a week ago, Nick sent me this interesting little debate about procreation. Apparently, he was fed up with my lack of posting because he said: "Blog about this." So, Nick, here I go.

I'm going to take issue with both debaters. Let's start with the Pro lady.

In arguing about why having a child is so worth it, she discusses, essentially, how her daughter fills in the voids of her life. She states: "I know I’ve spent my money wisely." What?? Is having a child like buying a Mercedes or a vacation home in the Poconos? This statement here speaks to my number one concern about the way we as a society approach children - as a commodity. Children should not be treated as a cost-benefit analysis type investment. We don't invest in children the way we invest in Microsoft. We invest in children in non-tangible ways that can't be measured in dollars. Sure, children cost money and we can measure that cost, but that ought not be the deciding factor into whether or not to procreate. I'm happy that this woman adopted a child and probably improved both of their lives as a result. But, I wish language weren't so rational. Having a child and giving of yourself in love to that child is not a rational thing. Actually, it's totally irrational and that's what makes it so rewarding.

Now onto the Con argument.

Some factual problems. Someone who commented on the article stated:

What's sorely lacking in this debate is the fact that our planet now has more than 6 billion people, and it cannot support sustained population growth. In short, the Earth does not need more people--especially Americans, who suck up resources and generate trash and pollution at unconscionable and ever-increasing rates. Those of us who have consciously chosen to not have children are "Parents of the Future," because we are saying that we care about the future of this planet and the quality of life for those who will come later (not just ourselves and our direct progeny).

Well, Sarah (whoever you are), you are just wrong here. As it stands right now, the birth rate in the developed world is shockingly low. In the US, if you factor out immigrants, the birth rate stands at 1.8 births per woman. In order for a population to be sustained at just replacement level, the birth rate needs to be 2.1. So, excluding immigrants, the US is not even having enough children to sustain the population at it's current rate. If we throw the immigrants into the pot, the US birth rate is just at 2.1. No population explosion here! (If you are interested in what's going on in Europe, see this).

So, choosing not to have children does not make you "parents of the future" (cute coinage that it is), but rather executioners of the future.

The problem, as I see it, isn't over-population, but over-consumption. People think that the US is overpopulated because Ryan homes is taking over the country with McMansions and the sub-urbs are increasingly devastating rural land everywhere. The problem is that the typical American family lives in a 5,000 square foot behemoth home with their 1.8 children and their miniature schnauzer. This over-consumption gives the illusion of over-population. Such a wasteful lifestyle has the same effects of over-population in terms of environmental damage, food consumed, cars driven, etc.

All of this said, then, I think both of these arguments are terribly flawed. The main flaw of both is that they use an inappropriate measure to determine the "worth" of children, to families and to societies. The language of economics is entirely out of place in the decision of whether or not people should be having children.