Depopulation and childlessness

So, I'm listening to the Phillip Longman Long Now lecture on depopulation, and it has me buzzing a bit about childlessness.

For quick clarification, I don't believe he said anything that was remotely sexist. I do, however, have some feeling about the topic as being sexist. I hear and read all these (male) experts bemoaning that population isn't at replacement levels, and the subtext is the fact that all over the world, when women are given the opportunity to choose, they choose not to have children until later in life, which necessarily means that they have fewer children if they have any. I tend to feel an accusing finger pointed my way, as though I'm not doing my womanly duties, but maybe I'm just too sensitive.

Quick note: one of the major concerns in this conversation is the tremendous cost of caring for an elderly population. But it seems to me that isn't, in fact, long term thinking. It seems to me that forty or fifty years ago, a combination of industrialization (increase in food resources and wealth) and improvements in medical care created an unnatural population explosion that has traveled all over the globe. I think that we will be dealing with the consequences of that population explosion for the next forty or fifty years. I do, however, think that time will pass, and that world population will more or less settle out, and that fewer people on the planet means less competition for resources, as well as better educated children that can operate in a highly technical, mechanized workforce that has less need for raw labor. So this lecture seemed to me to be out-of-keeping with the spirit of the other Long Now talks in that sense- it was looking at a very narrow Now.

So let's come back to the touchier question, the one that seems to lie at the heart of this debate and pose a real problem for people. That issue is reproductive choice.

So why do women, given the choice, decide to delay childbearing, to have fewer children or none at all? The answers come pretty easily- having children is financially expensive, it takes a tremendous toll on a woman physically, it has negative consequences for her career... the short answer is that before a woman wants children, she generally seems to want to have established for herself a home, a career, and a stable relationship with a partner. Getting your life in order, in that sense, takes a long time- depending on how long she wants to spend on her education or starting her career, she may be in her late twenties to late thirties before she feels ready to enter that phase of her life.

Certainly that's a change from, say, an agricultural society, where one enters the work force in adolescence, and isn't looking ahead to build a career- she has, at 18, as much chance for financial stability as she ever will. She's also as sexy as she'll ever be- if she's going to get into a long-term stable relationship, she probably already knows all the likely partners in her community, and it's reasonable for her to make her choice and commit to it. Or to get knocked up and stick with it. But clearly many of us don't live in that world- women who want to be lawyers have as much reason to delay childbearing as women living in a war zone.

Phillip Longman suggests that society needs to offer financial incentives for people to have children, which makes sense. But I also don't think it speaks to the issue he perceives as a problem, because I don't believe that it's a problem at all. I think that children should be born deliberately, to people who really want them, at a time when the parents are prepared to undertake the physical, emotional, and financial responsibility. I think that often does mean that people will have children later in life, and have fewer of them overall.

The question for people thinking about the future, then, is what does that mean? How do we develop technology that can accommodate a shrinking workforce? How do we manage the almost prohibitive cost of a college education, if it acts as a barrier to financial stability for prospective parents, and a financial disincentive to having children? How do we make sure that people accumulate enough resources during their work lives to be able to afford a long post-retirement life and extensive health care? Can we develop a plan now that accommodates not just urban growth, but urban decay as populations contract? Just something to think about...

How did I miss this?

Just watched Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog yesterday. I remember hearing something about it, but blah blah lost in the shuffle. It's delightful! I bought it on iTunes, not only because I believe in paying for content I like, but also so that I can watch it again and again.

The Long Now blog has a great post about conversing with a person vs a machine, and how you can tell the difference. It's a funny conversation- see if you can tell which is which. Also, tell me what a dubject is.

The Superstruct game was supposed to launch today, but they tell me it will be running in the morning. The game is based on some studies done by the Institute for the Future (click around that link, you'll find them) that predict the extinction of the human race by 02042 or so, due to a lethal combination of factors (disease, food shortages, competition for energy, etc). So they have started this MMO to see if people can't solve those problems. Essentially, the game will be running various scenarios to see if the actions the players take will positively impact the survivability of the species. I'm really interested in it, although more as a spectator than as a participant. It's the opposite of the Long Now.

I've been thinking about how I intended this blog to be about connection, about responding to and interacting with a larger community, but, like so many of my undertakings, it has become mostly about my private thoughts. I don't want it to become a journal, though, so my hope is that over time the comments will become a source of interaction and response, to open up the conversation. I have to admit, for that reason, I'm more interested in promoting this blog than I would be otherwise. So welcome and hail, my two subscribers! Kisses!

Finally, let's close with another poem:

Lucille Clifton- i am not done yet

as possible as yeast
as imminent as bread
a collection of safe habits
a collection of cares
less certain than i seem
more certain than i was
a changed changer
i continue to continue
where i have been
most of my lives is
where i'm going

Steampunk

Okay, one of the main things I wanted to blog about here is steampunk, because I was thinking about it a lot before my thinking got hijacked by the economy and the Long Now.

Hijack: It's been surreal this week because I've spent most of my evenings bouncing between learning about what's going on in the economy, listening to the SALT lectures, and then checking in with my buddy Jon Stewart. So I vacillate between a sense of urgency and drama, to a sort of "lensing out" of time, and back then again to Jon's increasing anger and impatience. It's weird, mentally stepping in and out of this millennium, particularly right now. But then, how long is Now? And how big is Here?

What I want to say about steampunk, though:

Firstly, I've always been interested in alternate history literature. From The Anubis Gates, which I read in the late 80s, to the Temeraire books I picked up last year, and my long love affair with Robert Anton Wilson-- it's an interesting thought experiment, and I love it when the authors dovetail into and out of recorded history.

Secondly, I have to admit that I love the steampunk aesthetic. Which is funny, because I also really like the Apple aesthetic, which is pretty much the diametric opposite of the lovely baroque ornamentation of steampunk. (although I really don't care for Baroque as an art movement- I liked Rococo better. Art swings through a pendulum toward and away from excess and ornamentation- either peak doesn't appeal to me. It's the "just before" and the "reaction away" parts of the pendulum that are particularly interesting and visually compelling to me)
And I think about that quite a bit- what it is it about those objects that I like so much? Steampunk harkens back to a time when everyone with the means could be a scientist, an explorer, could discover new things and tinker with new technology. The Victorian era didn't expect expertise- all the technology was wonderfully mechanical. Machines and tools could be made from other machines and tools, and everything worked on principles that could be understood by a common person with a little experimentation. One can look at a set of gears and tubes and see how they are connected, derive the purpose of the machine from it's design, solve problems with experimentation... currently it seems like all our machinery is hidden inside sleek cases that one hesitates to open, and even if you did all you'd see are circuit boards and wires and wouldn't gain any understanding of how to fix it, how to make it work differently. A car used to be a machine, and now it's a computer, and computers need to be diagnosed and repaired by experts, by specialists who have chosen to pursue one interest above all others. Our current culture discourages dabbling. I like to dabble. Just look at my resume.

Finally, there has emerged a steampunk movement. This movement draws from the literature and pays homage to the aesthetic, but isn't those things. As expressed (very well, I think) on The Steampunk Home, the steampunk movement says "Make it unique, make it your own, make it yourself". Another blog calls it "sustainable rebellion". Again, I find this value system interesting and compelling. This vast world of consumer merchandise doesn't offer what I want, so I'll make it myself. Furthermore, I don't want to buy things made in this vast consumer merchandise system- I don't want to be a consumer of goods, but a creator of the environment in which I live, a creator of my own life. At the cre8 conference, Jelly Helm asked what advertising/our economy/our culture would be like if it weren't about Things. He doesn't know the answer, and neither do I. But I think we all intuitively know that Things aren't meaningful. Steampunk is delightful because it has so many wonderful Things, but knows that Things aren't that important.