“I argue the cultural costs - no more is there a sense of sacrifice to raise the next generation, or a sense that children are inherently precious - are higher.”

Seems to me that if there are fewer children in the future, we cannot help but see even homeless children as valuable and treat them accordingly (for a change), even if “selfish” people still insist on not having more than X number of children, if any. Right now, in a world of 6.8 billion, human life is cheap all over the world, simply because “nothing except diamonds is above the law of scarcity value.”

Not to mention that poor married people have every right to be suspicious of those who make it difficult for them to get access to good birth control - heaven forbid everyone should be well-fed, well-educated AND politically active due to careful family planning!

And, to repeat something:

It was inevitable the automobile would be invented.

It was inevitable that, as a result, many, many businesses would be destroyed, along with the families that created them.

It was inevitable that many of those people would pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and learn new skills to avoid going homeless and hungry. Many, of course, went into the auto industry. In short, they accepted the idea of a new kind of economy, horribly painful though it was.

In the same vein, since good contraception methods have been pursued
since biblical times, it was inevitable that we would have all the methods we do after several thousand years, and that women, especially, would make great use of them because they want to. Yes, this means we will have great economic problems. Maybe it’s time to develop a “sense of sacrifice” for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, since we cannot continue relying on the traditional economic means to support them. (A lot more personal frugality would be a nice start, since that was the way of most of the world until the 20th century, according to David M. Tucker.) Many countries believe in putting the elderly first. Why don’t we?

Also, I remember reading a column by a veterinarian who said that it’s ridiculous to urge the public to go and adopt more animals from shelters, because in this have-it-all society, anyone who doesn’t already have a pet shouldn’t have one. Seems to me the same holds for having babies. Oh, and even if we can’t remake the economy and we
really HAVE to keep adding billion after billion to the world population (pyramid scheme, anyone?), shouldn’t we at least be treating welfare mothers a lot more generously, since they often feel that it’s better to raise children in severe poverty than not to have any at all?
(See the recent book “Promises I Can Keep.”) Not to mention immigrants.

In short, just because our economy is based on buying piles of things we don’t need, polluting, credit card debt, and not-so-wanted babies doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. Let’s consider other methods. Besides, free will being what it is, it’s foolish to expect your child to become another Albert Schweitzer when it could just as easily become a criminal and a waste of space, despite your best efforts.

Great blog, subscribed to your rss feed. Thanks.

That was a great show and I like the hour long format. I listened on my mp3 player while jogging and burst out laughing a few times from some of your and Steve Moore’s comments. I hope you’ll have more guests who are funny like Moore in the future.

Just wanted to say, did you know that two very good reasons for Italy’s low birth rate are the incredibly high cost of living there and the high unemployment rate? Hardly proof of “selfishness.”

Also, according to one source, about 1 in 5 people in the world can’t get a clean drink of water (that’s more than a billion people) - and nearly 30,000 children die every day from hunger or hunger-related problems. Seems to me that’s quite ominous enough; shouldn’t we be solving those problems before effectively adding to them?