Post by Day BrownPart of the problem is that with earlier generations that had large
families, there was a clan safety net that knew every single individual,
and if need be, too them into their own homes rather than a homeless
shelter.
This can be seen in poorer countries. Their higher birthrates are a
direct result of parents trying to have enough kids so that when they
get old, they'll be cared for.
Post by Day BrownBut with the onset of birth control, now the extended family was not
that many people, did not have that many resources, and could not, often
scattered like it was, organize a unified response.
It started even before that. Americans have been the most mobile
people on earth thanks to cross continental trains and covered wagons
and in the last century, the automobile. Such mobility can break down
families into smaller units. But the real enabler was Social
Security. It guaranteed some income to the elderly thereby reducing
their dependence on their children in their old age as well as
mitigating some of the responsibility.
When the Pill became widely available, adults could choose to have
fewer or no kids. As the mainstream in our nation came to have fewer
children, which are expensive to raise, they put that money into
retirement investment so they wouldn't *need* any kids in old age.
Individual liberty has also taken it's toll on the family unit.
Post by Day BrownI was born on a farm in 1939, in the upstairs hall cause there were so
many kin still living there who'd lost city jobs in the depression. My
grandpa just hooked up the team, plowed a few more acres of garden, and
everyone got to eat. No food stamps.
An agrarian society really is simpler.
Post by Day BrownToday, we cant raise the wages to what the real income was when the
American nuclear family was more functional. Its a global market, and
investors will either move the jobs or fund competition driving anyone
who paid higher wages, but could not ask higher prices, out of business.
Wages are depressed because there are so many more workers. Both
parents work, for example. A city man could work odd jobs and
gardening and if he was a smart businessman and a hard worker could
support a family and even buy a house. Today, lots of folks have
fewer kids but both parents work. More workers lowers wages. Lower
wages reduces prices so everybody has more stuff *if* they make the
costly investment in children. Economies of scale.
Post by Day BrownWhat we can do, is return to the clan system, extended family housing,
with the per capita carbon footprint low enuf that even low wages, at
3rd world levels, would still provide a comfortable life.
Only reducing population density would accomplish that. That means a
mare agrarian society with stricter moral values and a return to
emphasis of human values over material ones. The problem with that is
that agrarian living is remarkably inefficient for large populations.
Which is cheaper, running power lines to 500 people in an apartment
building or running power lines to 500 people living on 100 farms? You
lose industrial revolution efficiency as well as reducing the quality
of life and increasing the use of resources. You don't even get as
much benefit out of economies of scale. In any case, the fashion of
individualism would fade as people submerged themselves into new
groups.
Post by Day BrownAnd while we see grown children move back in with parents, many now are
just too dysfunctional and neurotic for that to work for long. Some of
us in my neck of Ozark woods, who've been here for years and own real
estate outright, no mortgage, are now in negotiations with younger folks
for various co-housing plans and coop businesses.
Interestingly enough, such efforts all occur in rural districts. How
would you accomplish the same social benefits in a densely populated
city?
Swill
--
No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
He knows changes arent permanent,
But change is.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html