Parenting has become more expensive in non-financial as well as financial terms. It takes up more time and emotional energy than it used to, and there's less reward in terms of social approbation. This is like a big social tax on parenting and, as we all know, when things are taxed we get less of them.If anything, the trends Reynolds observed over a decade ago have since become more pronounced. Speaking with the other DrC a couple of days ago, I mused about whether our species can survive its members getting control over the choice to bear children? Current evidence suggests a tentative answer: No.
Yes, people still have children, and some people even have big families. But at the margin, which is where change occurs, people are less likely to do things as they grow more expensive and less rewarded.
—————
The human species may be able to escape the too-busy-or-self-indulgent-to-parent trap by producing effective-and-affordable robot nannies within the next, say, 40 years. Then we can reproduce like the wealthy do, have lots of children but let someone (something) else raise them.Indulge, for a moment, my inner science fiction author. Let us imagine a future in which each human infant is paired with a smart robot that can be its lifelong companion.
Nurse and nanny to us when we’re small, companion and tutor for children, friend and minder for teens, valet/butler as we become adults, nurse and chin-wiper again as we grow elderly. Imagine, never lonely, never lacking services, it’s a Downton Abby life for us all.
As the Instapundit is fond of saying, "Faster, please."
