Seed Media Group

Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine focusing in Neuroscience. He is due to graduate in 2032. He received a BS and a MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University -- where he spent most of his time drinking heavily and building vegetable catapults instead of learning information that would now be eminently useful. When he is not failing terrifically to perform his sworn duties, he enjoys watching bad movies, ethnic food, and running.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

Jake is joined periodically by two wonderful guest bloggers: Kara Contreary and Kate Seip. See the About Page.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own or those of my co-bloggers. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments we currently attend.

Search this blog

Archives

Blogroll


raptor.jpg

« Youngest person ever implanted with an auditory brainstem implant | Main | 10 Principles of Economics, Translated »

More on Demography and Having Fewer Children

Category: Psychology
Posted on: February 27, 2008 12:00 PM, by Jake Young

It has been a big month for talking about the demographic transition here at Pure Pedantry. (See here and here.) Ronald Bailey at Reason had this interesting article speculating why people choose to have less children: children don't make you happy. If economic security no longer requires having children and they don't make you happy, why have them? To wit:

"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.

Read the whole thing. Incidentally, I also highly recommend Gilbert's book. He has some compelling insights particularly why people are not good at predicting what is going to make them happy.

Comments

This article was pretty good (despite appearing in Reason). I'm one of those voluntarily childless people who is just now thinking of exactly what all I'd have to remove from my allegedly empty life if I were to decide to have children. That is, as I keep saying to people, "I can't have kids, I don't have the time!"

Posted by: Interrobang | February 27, 2008 12:43 PM

Are you sure that there are no longer any economic benefits?

Several old people in my family have received enormous amounts of care from their children - far more than they or the state could afford to provide.

Maybe the incentive is to have someone to help out in your last decade, long after the children have grown up.

Posted by: woodchopper | February 27, 2008 1:49 PM

If you're having kids to take care of you in old age, you're crazy. How many adult children really do that? Gimme a break. Oh, sure, they help out, but you can't count on it. Another book recommendation: Maybe One by Bill McKibbin.

Posted by: teacherninja | February 27, 2008 7:00 PM

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.

The observation may be correct, but the deduction certainly is not. This could simply be a classic omitted variable result (the prime candidate is wealth).

Posted by: Jas | February 29, 2008 7:29 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most German

Search All Blogs

Top Science Stories

powered by SEED - seedmagazine.com