It is tragic but true the US, in an attempt to liberate it citizens of a very mundane and costly habit, have completely missed the point. I think this is yet another example of legislation without vision. Rather than looking at why people smoke, why people take up smoking and finding ways to intervene and to encourage the nation to take up different habits like papercrafts and cycling they will try to intervene and tell people what they cannot enjoy.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Having babies
I was recently in a discussion with two student about the birth rate in Japan. About how the birth rate is plummeting. As the discussion progressed I recognized I had been maintaining some pretty fatal ideas about why children have or don't have children. I recognized this largely because of the male student in the discussion. Somehow hearing the arguments I have heard a million times from a rich successful doctor with at least 1 child (I don't know much more about him) showed me how totally fallacious these beliefs are.
Chiefly we say there are two reasons for falling birthrates: more women are working and children are expensive. And I think every time we good philosophers hear them we think...hmm. But being lazy we take what appears logical at face value and don't investigate further. But we must. So here I go:
The male student largely maintained that women didn't want children as they wanted to work. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw. Supposedly more women of my generation, and at least the two generations before mine, are working in more diverse fields of employment.
But somehow I don't think that more women are working. I think women have always worked just as much as they do now. The only difference is we are recognizing their manner of social participation as working. Not just they are moving into "traditionally male dominated" profession (I even contest that many professions are traditionally male dominated), but that work like nursing, prostitution, educating young children (being a governess, elementary teacher etc), writing are being recognized as professions for both men and women. With our change in perspective of what constitutes work, we have mistakenly concluded that participation in this new perspective is also new. This is like when you first come to understand quantum physics. Just because you have only come to understand it now, doesn't mean it hasn't been governing the universe for ...well forever.
Further, women of my grandmother's generation worked like mad; both my grandmothers maintained full time employment during their working years. And they had 3 and 5 children. Also many of my friends have told me about their grandmothers working, and again they have 2 and 3 aunts or uncles a side... so then we say, ah but women are working at jobs with schedules that are less conducive to child rearing...but I remember hearing stories of my grandmother working graveyard shifts at her hospital...so I don't think that is true either.
But if it isn't the case that more women are working more then why are fewer women wanting children. Well then the argument goes that children are expensive, people don't feel they can afford to have children. Really? Cars are expensive...but most people feel they can afford a car. Houses are really expensive...but most people feel they can afford a house...take out a loan right?So, how expensive is a child? I have no idea, but in university my cost of living without tuition books etc was about $600 a month, for rent, food entertainment etc...so $7200 a year. Now of course a baby doesn't pay as much rent as I did, or eat as much food and alcohol. Now of course there are start up costs on having children you have to invest in infrastructure like beds and strollers, ante-natal training and stuff...so lets say $10,000 a year for the first year, and then $6000 a year subsequently for the first 10 years. Its true...that is a lot of money... But on my single income minimum wage income I save that in a year after travel and celebrating life as I do.
So let's compare: how much is a university education...most people without thinking would take out a $10,000 a year loan for a university education that may or may not help them gain more lucrative employment. how much is a car...most people would take out a loan to buy a new $18,000 car. Most people would tie themselves into a 25 year mortgage for a $250,000 house.
So are children so expensive?
But we have to look at what you get for the money you invest. A child enriches every aspect of ones life, bring validation to many, meaning and motivation to succeed and thrive. Many people find it difficult to be successful for themselves, but when told this will help your family friends etc they have little difficulty overcoming great obstacles.
So, not only do I disagree that children being expensive is a valid argument but I don't even agree that children are expensive.
So why are fewer babies being born in Japan. I contest that even that is true. Yes the current trend is of lower birth rates. But I think that is just because women are having children at a later age. Women are marring later. My future sister in law is well in her thirties. I have many friends too in the same situation. But I think even women who start a decade later we will find will still have 2 and 3 children.
Another very serious reason we need to consider is that men don't want children. It is often placed on a woman's want or not want, but who much is it really? If we were to interview childless couples about why they are childless would the reason really be 1 she's working and 2 kids are expensive... Somehow I think we have been fed these fallacies that we need to reexamine and deconstruct. They don't account for the reality of lowered birthrates and we owe it to our society to figure out why.
Chiefly we say there are two reasons for falling birthrates: more women are working and children are expensive. And I think every time we good philosophers hear them we think...hmm. But being lazy we take what appears logical at face value and don't investigate further. But we must. So here I go:
The male student largely maintained that women didn't want children as they wanted to work. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw. Supposedly more women of my generation, and at least the two generations before mine, are working in more diverse fields of employment.
But somehow I don't think that more women are working. I think women have always worked just as much as they do now. The only difference is we are recognizing their manner of social participation as working. Not just they are moving into "traditionally male dominated" profession (I even contest that many professions are traditionally male dominated), but that work like nursing, prostitution, educating young children (being a governess, elementary teacher etc), writing are being recognized as professions for both men and women. With our change in perspective of what constitutes work, we have mistakenly concluded that participation in this new perspective is also new. This is like when you first come to understand quantum physics. Just because you have only come to understand it now, doesn't mean it hasn't been governing the universe for ...well forever.
Further, women of my grandmother's generation worked like mad; both my grandmothers maintained full time employment during their working years. And they had 3 and 5 children. Also many of my friends have told me about their grandmothers working, and again they have 2 and 3 aunts or uncles a side... so then we say, ah but women are working at jobs with schedules that are less conducive to child rearing...but I remember hearing stories of my grandmother working graveyard shifts at her hospital...so I don't think that is true either.
But if it isn't the case that more women are working more then why are fewer women wanting children. Well then the argument goes that children are expensive, people don't feel they can afford to have children. Really? Cars are expensive...but most people feel they can afford a car. Houses are really expensive...but most people feel they can afford a house...take out a loan right?So, how expensive is a child? I have no idea, but in university my cost of living without tuition books etc was about $600 a month, for rent, food entertainment etc...so $7200 a year. Now of course a baby doesn't pay as much rent as I did, or eat as much food and alcohol. Now of course there are start up costs on having children you have to invest in infrastructure like beds and strollers, ante-natal training and stuff...so lets say $10,000 a year for the first year, and then $6000 a year subsequently for the first 10 years. Its true...that is a lot of money... But on my single income minimum wage income I save that in a year after travel and celebrating life as I do.
So let's compare: how much is a university education...most people without thinking would take out a $10,000 a year loan for a university education that may or may not help them gain more lucrative employment. how much is a car...most people would take out a loan to buy a new $18,000 car. Most people would tie themselves into a 25 year mortgage for a $250,000 house.
So are children so expensive?
But we have to look at what you get for the money you invest. A child enriches every aspect of ones life, bring validation to many, meaning and motivation to succeed and thrive. Many people find it difficult to be successful for themselves, but when told this will help your family friends etc they have little difficulty overcoming great obstacles.
So, not only do I disagree that children being expensive is a valid argument but I don't even agree that children are expensive.
So why are fewer babies being born in Japan. I contest that even that is true. Yes the current trend is of lower birth rates. But I think that is just because women are having children at a later age. Women are marring later. My future sister in law is well in her thirties. I have many friends too in the same situation. But I think even women who start a decade later we will find will still have 2 and 3 children.
Another very serious reason we need to consider is that men don't want children. It is often placed on a woman's want or not want, but who much is it really? If we were to interview childless couples about why they are childless would the reason really be 1 she's working and 2 kids are expensive... Somehow I think we have been fed these fallacies that we need to reexamine and deconstruct. They don't account for the reality of lowered birthrates and we owe it to our society to figure out why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
