This is a special post for quick takes by DanielFilan. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Rationality-related writings that are more comment-shaped than post-shaped. Please don't leave top-level comments here unless they're indistinguishable to me from something I would say here.
A bunch of my friends are very skeptical of the schooling system and promote homeschooling or unschooling as an alternative. I see where they're coming from, but I worry about the reproductive consequences of stigmatising schooling in favour of those two alternatives. Based on informal conversations, the main reason why people I know aren't planning on having more children is the time cost. A move towards normative home/unschooling would increase the time cost of children, and as such make them less appealing to prospective parents[*]. This in turn would reduce birth rates, worsening the problem that first-world countries face in the next couple of decades of a low working-age:elderly population ratio [EDIT: also, low population leading to less innovation, also low population leading to fewer people existing who get to enjoy life]. As such, I tentatively wish that home/unschooling advocates would focus on more institutional ways of supervising children, e.g. Sudbury schools, community childcare, child labour [EDIT: or a greater emphasis on not supervising children who don't need supervision, or similar things].
[*] This is the weakest part of my argument - it's possible that more people home/unschooling their kids would result in cooler kids that were more fun to be around, and this effect would offset the extra time cost (or kids who are more willing to support their elderly parents, perhaps). But given how lucrative the first world labour market is, I doubt it.
Kids will grow up and move away no matter if you're rich or poor though, so I'm not sure the investment explanation makes sense. But your last sentence rings true to me. If someone cares more about career than family, they will always have "no time" for a family. I've heard it from well-paid professionals many times: "I'd like to have kids... eventually..."
2Wei Dai
I think you're overstating the stigma against not having kids. I Googled "is there stigma around not having kids" and the top two US-based articles both say something similar:
USA Today:
[...]
Times:
[...]
I think you're overstating the stigma against not having kids. I Googled "is there stigma around not having kids" and the top two US-based articles both say something similar:
Agreed. Per my latest reply to DanielFilan:
However, I've actually been overstating my case here. The childfree rate in the US is currently around 15%which is much larger than I expected. The childfree rate for women with above a bachelor's degree is 25%. In absolute terms, these are not small numbers and I've gotta admit that this indicates a pretty high
Rationality-related writings that are more comment-shaped than post-shaped. Please don't leave top-level comments here unless they're indistinguishable to me from something I would say here.