But for the child-free, the benefits go beyond dollars and cents. There's less guilt, less worry, less responsibility, more sleep, more free time, more disposable income, no awkward conversations about Teen Mom, no forced relationships with people just because your kids like their kids, no chauffeuring other people's kids in your minivan to soccer games you find less appealing than televised chess. Read More http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201104/no-baby-boom-non-breeders#ixzz1IkaevdkJ
Before anyone else states: "Kids are over- rated." Let me be the first ot say "Adults are over-rated". I can get my kids to take out the garbage for 25 cents a day, try that with some adult. Ps I introduce my kids as "This is my Butler". This invaribaly leads an adult to ask "Does your 'butler' have a name?
They list a negative as "dad picking up dog shit". Well my youngest daughter (2.5 years old) already does that with her little pink shovel and bucket. I walk with her...but she does it. What we have here is an example of typical American laziness of not wanting to actually be a parent and do the work. I drive a pickup with crew cab. Wife drives a VW passat. Paying for sports equiptment is a negative? Seeing a live show with your kids is a negative? We go out to the most expensive resuarant in our area once a month while my mom watches them. We are homebodies naturally. Sippie cups are for babies. They do grow up..and fast Enfamil? Whats that..we breast fed like humans have been doing since the cavemen. PTA? Nah...we tutor ourselves and dont do extra curricular govt sponsered crap. College? They can earn their way themselves if they choose that route. I would never push to have kids on someone cause its your choice. But the article makes weak juvenile points.
Unfortunately this is disgenics at work. As average population quality declines the fewer remaining intelligent or perhaps even super-intelligent people might might find it necessary to eradicate the lower disgenic ranks. Darwin predicted this might happen as evolutionary pressures drive adaptation that rewards extreme specialization, which then leads to new species. This is far far in the future though, assuming we do not nuke the world first.
The history of Life on Earth indicates that extreme specialization is NOT rewarded. But your final qualification is good, though, since predicting that intelligence is Man's best attribute for life on evolution's vast timescale is exceedingly premature. From what I see now, Man does not appear to like his self-consciousness and could very well nuke himself, as you say.
This could be some sort of natural cycle that slows down the rate of growth of world population as to keep a harmonious balance between land, resources,etc and humans, and it will pick back up at some point in the future.
the rich will want kids to help rule their empire. the poor will want kids for hope of brighter future and...more stamps. the middle class just wants to enjoy life. then so be it. but it'll all even out. magic of the market!
While the middle class abides by the economics of raising a child (and the recessionary decline in child births), I'd be curious to see the statistics amongst the lower classes that have been subsidized to pump out multiple babies to receive greater government support. This gets right to the heart of a misallocation of resources. Spending money to encourage single mother's living off of welfare giving birth to babies from multiple father's. End that bullshit ASAP.
Kids seem to follow the idea put forth by Ed Seykota in market wizards. You can get what you want out of the market (your kids).