The Modern World is Busted
Responses to Comments at The Garden of Earthly Delights
I had a conversation with Alex Kaschuta the other day, which you can listen to at her substack. There’s quite a lot there—more than I can address in a single post—but there were a few comments there that I’d like to respond to.
Is Pronatalism Related to Happiness?
The first comment is by Sixth Finger, who writes:
In my experience there is no question that there is a strong correlation between a person's general level of happiness/optimism and their support for the pro-natalist perspective. Surveys have shown that conservatives are generally happier than leftists and it no surprise that the former have larger families on average than the latter. Virtually every "progressive" couple I know has zero or one child, and they tend to be more sympathetic to the notion that the human race is a scourge on the planet...
Of course conservatives are very happy to make claims that paint themselves in a positive light. Unfortunately, the correlation between conservatism and happiness is actually quite small (around r = 0.11), while procreation and happiness don’t even go together at all. In fact, worldwide, it is the least happy nations in Africa where people desire the most children. This is well known to demographers, who report things like “The desired number of children is markedly higher in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) than in other major regions“2 and “A common explanation for the high fertility prevailing in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a widespread desire for large families”3 Just take a glance at the countries that procreate the most, and compare that to countries where people are happiest:
It seems pretty obvious that there is a strong negative correlation between fertility and happiness worldwide.
Granted, the situation within countries is somewhat more nuanced, but even here it’s not really the case that happiness is greater with more children. For example a 2012 report broke down the relationship between childbearing and happiness within countries in a variety of ways.4 I do encourage you to check that footnote, as there are a number of findings there worth looking at in detail, but here’s their main graph, showing that within countries, the association between number of children and parental happiness depends on age. Specifally, childbearing is associated with much less happiness for most age groups, but it turns very slightly positive in the oldest groups, where children are already grown:
In other words, children generally seem to go together with reduced happiness within countries, not because there’s any evidence of happier people procreating at different rates than others, but rather because having young children around makes things hard. (Put another way, the evolutionary explanation why babies are so cute is to stop them from mysteriously dying of SIDS.)
Ultimately, I didn’t have six children because I think life is wonderful. I never set out to have a large family because I was optimistic about taking care of tantruming toddlers. One of the biggest reasons I have many children is because I’m unusual, and I knew I would relate better to people who were unusual in the same way. Finding another physicist to settle down with has given us a family we can relate to much better than we do to the typical person.
There is much, much more to it than this! Yet the idea that people take a pronatalist stance and have many children mostly because they are happy and think life is wonderful is silly, and showcases one reason I wanted a large family: by the time they’re grown, I highly doubt my own children will try my patience by making foolish claims that can be dispelled by 10 minutes in front of a search engine.
Is the World a Good or Bad Place?
So what about the bigger question for pronatalism? Rather than just asking whether happier people are more pronatalist, or just whether children go along with happiness, the real question is whether or not this is a world where life is good—whether bringing children into it blesses them with a gift, or burdens them with a curse.
This is what Alex Kaschuta was really alluding to in our conversation. It’s a complex and difficult question, but let’s just consider the one issue we’ve already brought up. Doesn’t it seem troubling that so many unhappy people are having children? When I look at the fact that worldwide, it’s overwhelmingly people in unhappy countries having children, I find it hard to shrug and accept that this is just the way it is. Shrugging is what we’re supposed to do, of course, since its widely regarded as deeply racist to question whether people from the most miserable countries in the world shouldn’t be bringing more children into situations that are already tumultuous, dangerous, or mired in poverty.
But in a world where everything were just fine, wouldn’t the unhappy people have fewer children, rather than more?
We’re the dominant species here. Tarantulas, dolphins, and dung beetles live their lives on our sufferance. (Mosquitoes had better watch out: it doesn’t seem mosquitoes do anything for Earth’s ecosystems that other organisms can’t do just as well without spreading malaria.5) Even if Sarah Perry is horrified life is so bad for the animals, maybe it’s understandable that things might not turn out well for all of them, if we’re the ones in charge. But how great a place is planet Earth if the dominant species is still increasing its numbers into the billions in conditions that would horrify even hardened CPS workers?
And this still leaves aside the way Nature works: Traits are passed on from parents to children. Now there’s obviously some complication to the issue when it comes to happiness, given the way happiness can both influence and be influenced by children. Being happy has an impact on people’s decision to reproduce, and children in turn have an impact on parental happiness. But to a substantial extent, happiness is also genetic, with studies returning heritabilities ranging from 0.27 to 0.67 (roughly two thirds of this being attributable to personality, and the remainder unique to subjective well-being).6
What would it mean if more unhappy people than happy people had children? What would it mean if more bad parents than good parents had children?
I’m not going to answer these questions right now, but the mere fact that they can be asked raises questions about whether a responsible person should sit back and idly allow the whole system to do whatever it does. Shouldn’t a responsible person really be looking at themselves, at their spouse, at their traits and abilities and circumstances, and thinking about their ability or inability to pass on something positive to future generations? Shouldn’t our decision to have children or not be related to the kind of children we make, the kinds of lives they will have, and the impact they will have on the world?
This is why I’m neither a pronatalist, nor an antinatalist. I’m not at all convinced this is a wonderful world we live in. I’m not at all convinced the world needs more miserable, malnourished children. All I can do is choose the best spouse that I can, be the best husband and father that I can, and support my children as best I can—or else look at my situation and admit, “no, future generations are better off without more of what I would add to it.”
Too Many Phones, Not Enough Hammers
The other comments I wanted to reply to were from Kryptogal.
Her reaction to my complaints about phones and modern media was:
I understand your feelings and also feel you're a bit excessively negative about them. To me, at least, there is a very big difference between passively scrolling through random things on your phone, alone, and watching things together. Yes they are both passive in a sense, but one is at least social and prompts conversations, and the other does not.
It's easier to just give examples than try to give a theory here. But when I first moved to Utah around 20ish years ago, I was completely astounded by the fact of Mormons. I had never been around true-believing religious people before, and what's more, many of them were actually intelligent, doctors and scientists and such, and I simply could not comprehend this. The nation was also in a period of religiousity surrounding GWB and 9/11. This caused me to find a forum online for Ex-Mormons (which I'm not) and start spending time there discussing religion. Eventually I became quite popular there, and it was intellectually stimulating for me debating people, and I ended up spending basically every evening there getting into long debates with strangers about religion and philosophy and society. This was a HUGE waste of time. My views never changed, ultimately, eventually I lost interest, and all those people I'd spent a year or two talking two were ultimately just strangers with a screen name and I have no idea who they are.
In contrast, I DO spend every evening watching Netflix (or HBO Max, or Prime, or whatever it is) with my husband in the evenings. You assume it's just staring glass eyed at the screen and that really is not true. It's a social activity much like any other. We push pause about 20 times during any show, to discuss what's going on or ask questions about it, or something might happen that brings up a question or historical issue we want to know about so then we end up looking it up, we get into debates, we end up talking stories, etc. A one hour show will often take us 3 hours to watch, because of all of this pause-pushing and digressions and discussions. I don't think that's particularly uncommon...we might be a bit more extreme than most, but people aren't just sitting like zombies, if you're watching with other people it's a social activity. It really isn't that different than playing a board game...it's a sort of meaninglessly entertaining activity that's a prompt and excuse for social interaction. Then if our siblings or other couple friends have watched the same show, it leads to more of the same.
Similarly, at work we all had a group that would meet and discuss the show Succession. These were fun discussions. We met up for lunch and everyone gave their theories and predictions. We had a betting pool and a prize for the winner who guessed the most plot points. I think there is more of this type of thing that goes on than you are assuming, but you're out of the loop with what other people are watching, so you don't participate in it.
I know you are probably reading this with a little contempt and revulsion, and it probably seems like a very low brow waste of time to you. I can understand that because that is how I feel when I watch my husband's family and how they are about sports. They watch them during daylight (which thoroughly disgusts me) and it seems SO pointless and stupid and like a gross waste of time to me, because I see nothing interesting there whatsoever. But it is also how they bond. It's what they talk about, and it brings them together. So how can I really look down on that too terribly?
FWIW, I do plenty of real "stuff" that you seem to privilege. I go on a walk every day. I've planted over 45 trees of different varieties on my property the past two years, which took a lot of muscle and research. We hike, we go camping, we sing karaoke together at home. We learned to rock climb. He's constructed various infrastructure on the property. Etc etc. But I'm not really sure why you think some of those things are inherently better than others. I appreciate the conversations I get into with my husband that are often prompted by what we watch on TV...I've learned stories about him from his childhood I wouldn't have otherwise, I've learned a lot about history, we know each other better because of it. It has not prompted any more or less conversation than it does when we play board games when we're camping. Sometimes that stuff is just a prompt for what you're really doing, which is spending time with someone and enjoying their company.
FWIW, I do have a problem with a Substack addiction that is likely somewhat wasting my time just like the Ex Mormon board did. And I'm ignoring my husband to type this right now, when he wants to start a show. Anyway, have you tried watching something engaging with your wife or kids?? Not saying you have to, but also saying I don't think it's quite as bad as you make out.
My reply is to say that you’re responding to my unvarnished feelings rather than to any carefully considered opinion. My loathing of phones is pretty reflexive; when I see a phone my first thought is usually “Where’s my hammer?”
My dislike of most modern media is similar; the most positive thing I can say about just about any movie produced in the last twenty years is “Sorry, that’s really not for me.” Given a Scottish accent and a YouTube channel on the subject I’d be extremely difficult to distinguish from The Critical Drinker (only he’s more patient about crap on the screen than I am).
When I reason more carefully, I can more constructively say that the influence of TV and phones is pretty well understood. Television negatively impacts body weight,7 and screen time in general has an addictive quality, distrupting sleep patterns and reducing our physical and psychological health.8 Ubiquitous cell phones damage our culture by removing people’s attention from the real social interactions around them, and by increasing general anxieties.910
Sure, there are ways of bonding over phones, or sports, or online discussions about religion. I’m not averse to lowbrow entertainment. And one of my wife’s favorite things to do is listen to me read people’s posts from Substack. But overall? If you won’t let me solve your problems with a hammer, then my best advice is just to be reflective about what you’re doing, and keep your usage to a minimum.
The Mask is the Message
Lastly, Kryptogal writes:
Apple Pie, I'm surprised you feel the need to be so vigilant about concealing your identity from your work people! You don't write anything offensive or that seems particularly controversial to me. I am wondering what it is exactly that makes you think it would be so unacceptable?? If it's just that you're shy and don't want anyone to know your private thoughts and persona, that's understandable. But you seemed to indicate it was more of a political issue, and it makes me wonder exactly what you've written about that would be so beyond the pale in your workplace?
There are three reasons for my taking care to preserve my anonymity. The first is [redacted], while the second is [also redacted].
And I can give you some hints about the third reason by pointing out what happenned to Scott Alexander. He was an absolute dynamo up until the last shreds of his anonymity fell away. Then came the end of Slate Star Codex, the infamous New York Times article, the transition to Astral Codex Ten, and the end of anything worth reading from Scott Alexander. He is running so scared now that he publishes articles arguing it’s only natural to refuse to call a spade a spade anymore.
Why did that happen at all? What is it about my ideas that are so unacceptable that I have to remain anonymous? The fact you can ask is revealing. Why would any thoughtful, honest, hardworking individual ever need to worry about thinking outside the box in a free country? What has happened to America—and really to the entire Western world—that a responsible person who makes a sincere effort to benefit his family and his community feel such a need to self censor all the time? I do. So, why might that be?
The mask is the message.
Briki, W., & Dagot, L. (2022). Conservatives are happier than liberals: The mediating role of perceived goal progress and flow experience—A pilot study. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1267-1278.
Church, A. C., Ibitoye, M., Chettri, S., & Casterline, J. B. (2023). Traditional supports and contemporary disrupters of high fertility desires in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Reproductive Health, 20(1), 86.
Bongaarts, J. (2020). Trends in fertility and fertility preferences in sub-Saharan Africa: the roles of education and family planning programs. Genus, 76(1), 32.
Margolis, R., & Myrskylä, M. (2011). A global perspective on happiness and fertility. Population and development review, 37(1), 29-56.
Fang, J. (2010). Ecology: A world without mosquitoes. Nature, 466(7305).
Van de Weijer, M. P., de Vries, L. P., & Bartels, M. (2022). Happiness and well-being: The value and findings from genetic studies. In Twin research for everyone (pp. 295-322). Academic Press.
Guo, C., Zhou, Q., Zhang, D., Qin, P., Li, Q., Tian, G., ... & Hu, D. (2020). Association of total sedentary behaviour and television viewing with risk of overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes and hypertension: A dose–response meta‐analysis. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 22(1), 79-90.
Nakshine, V. S., Thute, P., Khatib, M. N., & Sarkar, B. (2022). Increased screen time as a cause of declining physical, psychological health, and sleep patterns: a literary review. Cureus, 14(10).
Allred, R. J., & Atkin, D. (2020). Cell Phone Addiction, Anxiety, and Willingness to Communicate in Face-to-Face Encounters. Communication Reports, 33(3).
Silmi, Z. K., Rachmawati, W. R., Sugiarto, A., & Hastuti, T. P. (2020). Correlation of intensity of use of social media with the level of social anxiety in adolescents. Midwifery and Nursing Research, 2(2), 60-64.
Regarding pro/anti-natalism: imagine a young couple that you care for and admire is currently trying to conceive a child. Imagine, next, that it has just been announced that an asteroid capable of ending life on earth has just been detected and is on a collision course with our home planet—impact in 10 years. Would you counsel them to abandon their quest for a family or to persevere?
I'd suggest that it's not that high birth rates cause misery, or that misery causes high birth rates, but that they have a common cause: illiteracy and poverty.
Worldwide, once female average education hits about eighth grade level, their total fertility rate drops below replacement level (2.1 children per woman). Taking it to tertiary level drops it towards 1. Cultural factors can of course push this up (Amish women are all educated to 8th grade, and have 6+ children) or down (see South Korea with 0.7 children per woman), but that's the dominant effect. Even Iran has dropped under replacement, and Saudi Arabia is close to it, and we can't exactly say it's because of women's liberation in those places - let alone access to birth control.
The link between literacy and happiness is well-established, too.
Similarly, poorer countries tend to have more children than well-off countries, and this relationship holds within countries too (putting the lie to the idea "I can't afford to have kids"). There are a number of reasons for this, including poverty leading to less personal agency (both real and perceived), but I think it can also be due to evolutionary factors. In nature, there are two basic reproductive strategies: have few children and coddle them, vs having zillions and neglecting them, letting the strongest survive. But individuals will adjust their reproductive strategies based on the environment: in times of drought, for example, they have more offspring, in times of plenty, more. The instinct is obviously to have their genetic material survive them. In a time of difficulty, if there's only a 1 in 10 chance of your offspring surviving, you'd better have 10 just in case; in a time of plenty, now it's 9 in 10, you can have just 1. Even birds and lizards do this.
The "have lots so some survive" approach used to be necessary, though nowadays it's not, since thanks to sanitation, vaccination, international food aid and the like, generally speaking we're not going to see the mass deaths we used to historically. But the instinct remains. And so poorer countries or regions within countries have more children.
Thus, poverty increases fertility, and wealth decreases it.
And I think it's well-established that increasing prosperity increases happiness.
So I don't think it's that misery causes lots of children to be born, or lots of children causes misery. I think it's simply that poverty and illiteracy together cause high fertility and also cause misery, and wealth and education cause low fertility and also cause happiness.