I am kind of an in between here as due to several severe medical conditions, my wife and I had to go through the IVF process for child bearing. This I think is where we have a small percentage of control over our population even without heterosexual desire for children as there are more and more homosexual couplings as well as single women who utilize this process for procreation. Perhaps another question would address what our anthropological definition of marriage is. It uses to be defined as a socially acceptable form of sexual reproduction. Should we change the term to go with the definition or should we rewrite what a socially acceptable form of reproduction is?
You've identified a crucial point here, Bob. If marriage no longer has a monopoly on procreation, what is marriage for? Religious groups might still have marriage rites, but is marriage any longer the business of the state? Would civil partnerships - for the mutual support of the partners - suffice? I'm pretty sure we're closer to the beginning of this discussion than to the end.
Due to my background, I don't think that I'm the best commentator on this issue. I don't have any children of my own (as I am still unmarried), but the culture where I live puts *a lot* of emphasis on families (resulting in us having the youngest population per capita in America). As such, several of my classmates from high school are up to 4-5 kids already, and we haven't even had our 10-year reunion yet. However, several of my friends come from very large families (8-10 kids), but I can't think of anyone my age who wants to have 8-10 kids. It just doesn't seem feasible economically. So yes, while I completely agree with you that there is a national trend towards having fewer children (resulting in population decline), if extinction is to be our specie's fate, perhaps the last human in America will be the lone surviving Utahn. And due to religious influence in the state, Utah will never say enough is enough, because the majority faith has said that that will never be the case.
Interesting observation, Jake. Yes, particular groups will continue to have more children, but as you point out, even there the numbers are going down. I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood in Portland, where families of 8 or 10 weren't unusual. But there is nothing like that today. It's intriguing to think about SLC or a smaller Utah city being the last struggling community in America. And I'll be the first to admit that all this is very speculative.
Something else to ponder on is a Brands's Law that you've discussed elsewhere in the past: Sex makes babies; war makes heroes (Which is why humans are so attached to both). With the accessibility of contraceptives (as well as abortion), is modern society revealing that they care for sex just for the sake of pleasure and not as a mode to make babies?
I think that has always been the case at the individual level, but not at the level of society. Which is why societies have built so many rules and taboos around sex. Individuals want sex, societies want babies. It used to be that the two went together, with minor exceptions. Now they don't, and we're seeing sex without so many babies - leading to the population declines in many countries, with more likely to follow.
I am kind of an in between here as due to several severe medical conditions, my wife and I had to go through the IVF process for child bearing. This I think is where we have a small percentage of control over our population even without heterosexual desire for children as there are more and more homosexual couplings as well as single women who utilize this process for procreation. Perhaps another question would address what our anthropological definition of marriage is. It uses to be defined as a socially acceptable form of sexual reproduction. Should we change the term to go with the definition or should we rewrite what a socially acceptable form of reproduction is?
You've identified a crucial point here, Bob. If marriage no longer has a monopoly on procreation, what is marriage for? Religious groups might still have marriage rites, but is marriage any longer the business of the state? Would civil partnerships - for the mutual support of the partners - suffice? I'm pretty sure we're closer to the beginning of this discussion than to the end.
Due to my background, I don't think that I'm the best commentator on this issue. I don't have any children of my own (as I am still unmarried), but the culture where I live puts *a lot* of emphasis on families (resulting in us having the youngest population per capita in America). As such, several of my classmates from high school are up to 4-5 kids already, and we haven't even had our 10-year reunion yet. However, several of my friends come from very large families (8-10 kids), but I can't think of anyone my age who wants to have 8-10 kids. It just doesn't seem feasible economically. So yes, while I completely agree with you that there is a national trend towards having fewer children (resulting in population decline), if extinction is to be our specie's fate, perhaps the last human in America will be the lone surviving Utahn. And due to religious influence in the state, Utah will never say enough is enough, because the majority faith has said that that will never be the case.
Interesting observation, Jake. Yes, particular groups will continue to have more children, but as you point out, even there the numbers are going down. I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood in Portland, where families of 8 or 10 weren't unusual. But there is nothing like that today. It's intriguing to think about SLC or a smaller Utah city being the last struggling community in America. And I'll be the first to admit that all this is very speculative.
Something else to ponder on is a Brands's Law that you've discussed elsewhere in the past: Sex makes babies; war makes heroes (Which is why humans are so attached to both). With the accessibility of contraceptives (as well as abortion), is modern society revealing that they care for sex just for the sake of pleasure and not as a mode to make babies?
I think that has always been the case at the individual level, but not at the level of society. Which is why societies have built so many rules and taboos around sex. Individuals want sex, societies want babies. It used to be that the two went together, with minor exceptions. Now they don't, and we're seeing sex without so many babies - leading to the population declines in many countries, with more likely to follow.