number three

This is what I have so far, sans conclusion, though. It also lacks a clever title- I'm working on it. Comments, as always, are appreciated.

           The English economist Thomas Malthus is well know for creating the branch of population thought know eponymous as Malthusian theory. His beliefs about the behavior of the human population are, “It may safely be pronounced, therefore, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years, or increases in a geometrical ratio” (Malthus). He was right in his time, the late 18^th century, but has become wrong. As stated in Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population, human population does tend to increase rapidly, but that rate of increase has slowed to a near halt in economically developed countries (Eberstadt). Something has clearly changed about the human condition since Malthus wrote his commentary. The 18^th century to 2010 is a rather large time span, but two particular factors which contribute to the fertility drop in developed countries can be isolated. Broadly, they are the economic and social components, more specifically, economic structure and opportunity cost, along with religion.

            The economic structure of what are now called the ‘developed’ countries is highly specialized, with people working in one skill area (Glossary). Those developed countries also have a much higher percentage of inhabitants in urban areas than in developing areas (Global Change). Those factors, together, tend to contribute to a high cost of living for a specific area. Because of that high cost of living, any action tends to have more of what is called “opportunity cost”. Opportunity cost is, in economics, the loss incurred by a person by taking a specific action over another, or doing nothing (Britannica). Before the urbanization of the developed countries, there was great incentive to have many children, as each child was a net economic gain at a very young age. This is because they might work on a family farm or contribute to a family-run business (Kröhnert, Klingholz). Now, the opportunity cost of children continues to rise.

            That cost reached new heights recently, a child born in 2009 will cost a middle-class family roughly one-quarter million dollars to raise to the age of 18 (Lino). Even as the cost of raising a child increases, the opportunity cost also increases. Currently, women have a much greater chance of earning more money than men, meaning they are giving up much more should they choose to take leave to have or raise a child (Fry, Cohn). Those factors are very important to a person when deciding to change their life as much as a having a child will. On a standard psychological scale of 0-100, with 100 being the death of a spouse, pregnancy was rated a 40 in terms of stressful events (Fontana). With that type of change in routine, it is very likely that a person would consider the long term consequences. This analysis, however, takes into account only impersonal economic factors, not ideals. Religion is also strongly correlated to the fertility drop, or lack thereof.

            The Washington Post columnist Nicholas Eberstadt offers a well phrased indictment of only examining the economic factors:

The main explanation for the U.S.-European fertility gap may lie not in material factors but in the seemingly ephemeral realm of values, ideals, attitudes and outlook. In striking contrast to Western Europe, which is provocatively (but not unfairly) described as a "post-Christian" territory these days, religion is alive and well in the United States (Eberstadt).

His statement is clear, but not necessarily well-supported. It is supported elsewhere, however. Three German psychologists conducted a study which found that the decisively religious are far overrepresented among those with the largest families. After controlling for confounding variables, they found that religiosity continued to be the sole strong correlation (Blume et. al). Their argument concludes with a pithy explanation, “…it is a matter of the readiness to pass up on options. Making no decision often amounts to a decision against having children. Becoming a bit pregnant is literally an impossibility (Blume et. al).” In essence, as people become less religious, their attitudes toward children become more ambivalent, as opposed to the strident pro-natal attitudes fostered by almost all religions.