Five Reasons to Have Children

As fertility rates in Europe plummet to less than 1.5 children per woman – well below the stable rate of 2.15 – social, economic, political, and structural challenges are mounting. Eurostat and Poland’s Central Statistical Office data reveal a dire situation: Poland’s fertility rate has dropped below 1.3, and the EU average is under 1.5.

The continent is aging rapidly, with a shrinking population increasingly dominated by retirees. In an era where the prevailing ideology of “self-development” and individualism portrays children as burdens on time, finances, and personal interests, or as contributors to CO2 emissions, it is crucial to reconsider the benefits of bringing new life into the world. Though pragmatic and less romantic, raising children fundamentally connects to social altruism and the poetry of a fulfilled ordinary existence and passing.

The Demographic Argument

No one goes to bed simply because their neurons feel fatigued and irritable; they do so to rest and feel refreshed the next morning. Similarly, few people have children for demographic reasons, yet understanding fertility’s role from a practical and theoretical perspective is crucial. Demography is a key factor influencing the development of societies and states, affecting economic, scientific, and cultural growth. 

This relationship is not direct, though, as evidenced by populous yet impoverished African countries compared to much smaller yet affluent European nations – it is nonetheless of enormous significance. In essence, a high population number, from a certain development threshold, increasingly accelerates growth.

In heated debates on socially challenging immigration from Islamic countries to Europe, the core issue is often overlooked. The persistent effort by European politicians and business leaders over the past three decades to bring in people from populous Muslim countries is not merely an act of benevolence or a desire to share prosperity, as figures like Angela Merkel have portrayed. It is driven by the stark reality that dramatically low fertility rates have led to a shortage of workers, hindering economic growth. What is faster and easier: implementing pro-natalist policies that yield educated adult citizens between 18-25 years old, or swiftly opening up to workers from Asia and Africa? The dominant factor behind Europe’s migration challenges is the persistently low fertility rate among native Europeans, a trend ongoing for three decades.

The Social Argument

Social psychology research clearly shows that the presence of children fosters more honest and altruistic behavior among people. This effect extends beyond family members to all individuals interacting with children. However, this crucial psychological-evolutionary mechanism, which socially binds and integrates communities, is waning as the number of children declines. Furthermore, the few remaining children are often generally restricted to fenced plastic playgrounds, which are not beneficial for their development (as discussed in The Coddling of the American Mind by Professor Jonathan Haidt).

As the number of children decreases and the number of retirees increases, the demographic burden grows, necessitating higher taxes on workers’ wages for health and social contributions. While taxing robots and algorithms – which perform tasks like human workers but avoid equivalent taxes – might partially address this issue in the future, the immediate need is to increase the working population. Given the myriad problems migration brings, whether sociocultural issues from Islamic countries or brain drain in emigration nations, the most prudent and long-term solution is to invest in boosting fertility rates.

It is also crucial to debunk populist myths surrounding Poland’s Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), suggesting that eliminating it would solve the problem. Through discussions with numerous economists and demographers, I learned that privatizing pensions would still necessitate the creation of ZUS-like structures, albeit private ones. Establishing these would create new opportunities for corruption, unlike the established ZUS.

Additionally, many people lack the expertise to invest money effectively. When a single public institution no longer manages these funds and various private entities take over, the risk of fraud increases. Furthermore, as a large organization managing substantial funds, ZUS has significant leverage, negotiating power, and resources to invest contributions in ways that multiply their value for the future, counteracting depreciation from factors like inflation. If individual citizens or smaller private firms were to undertake such actions independently, their efficiency would be significantly lower. Thus, closing ZUS would not solve the problem of a declining workforce and contribution revenues; it would instead create further serious complications.

Moreover, the notion that those who were not savvy enough to save and invest during their lifetime should starve in old age is more aligned with psychopathic thinking than humane reasoning. It also exacerbates problems, as masses of starving retirees become a politically exploitable force, likely to support anyone promising change, even if they are a demagogic radical cynically seeking retirees’ votes.

The Political Argument

Low fertility rates are driving social unrest far beyond migration-related concerns. The increasing number of retirees without children or grandchildren is creating cultural social stratification. Those with children are more adept at understanding new social and technological trends, while the childless are more likely to become embittered in isolation. Additionally, the relative dominance of retirees advocating for increased spending on senior services and voting for politicians who support such measures is frustrating the younger population.

On the international stage, population size – whether of a nation or a confederation like the EU – translates indirectly into economic, military, and diplomatic strength. Demographic size is a crucial argument in international forums across various formats. It cannot be overlooked, whether for moral reasons or purely consumer-based ones because greater populations offer broader markets for exporting products and services. Populous countries also serve as powerful carriers of ideas: each mind is a potential replicator of a given ideology or religion.

We recommend: “It is just a slap”. About the psychological effects of violence

The Biological Argument

In one of my previous articles for Holistic News, I discussed how, over the last century, urbanization, marketing, and technology have drastically altered our living environment, rendering it incompatible with the physiological and psychological needs shaped by human evolution. In sprawling, urbanized, and technologically advanced metropolises, we feel akin to a polar bear in southern Europe or a giant panda in Białowieża Forest.

This mismatch between our modern living conditions and our biological and psychological needs is compounded by severe social isolation and a decline in forming families. Developing social bonds and establishing families with children are among the most fundamental human needs. While these deficiencies can be temporarily masked – even to oneself – through a consumerist or hedonistic lifestyle (“self-development,” travel, partying, or pets as cheap substitutes for children), sooner or later, a moment of reflection or a reality check will reveal that this is, at best, a way to enhance life while leaving a void in one of its most crucial aspects. It is no coincidence that reproduction is a key criterion in the definition of life.

The Relational Argument

Psychologists have yet to resolve the debate over which drive is stronger: sexual or emotional attachment. In healthy relationships, both drives complement each other, leading to the birth of children. New lives are not brought into this world for a specific purpose; all previous arguments intellectualize the subject a lot. Perhaps the future would look differently if parenthood was detached from relational and attachment drives, and reduced to biotechnological procedures and artificial wombs. Fortunately, for most people today, parenthood itself answers the question “why?” – because they love each other, because they are starting a family, they have a biological and psychological desire, and the joy of their first child naturally leads to another. There is no need to answer the question “For what purpose?”. 

One thing leads to another, unless hindered by adverse external factors such as individualistic culture, antinatalist media messages (for example, promoting bans on children in restaurants, mocking parents, especially mothers, for being parents), infrastructure unsupportive of parenthood, exorbitant housing costs making it difficult to start and raise families, and job instability. In this context, demography serves as a good indicator of prosperity and social development, signaling whether economic growth is beginning to diverge from social progress.

Translation: Klaudia Tarasiewicz