I met David Paxton again this week, president of World Population Balance,
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/.
I had talked to him probably 9 years ago at a sustainable society convention. Back then I took in his argument and accepted a problem. My main issue was that focusing on population alone made it appear the problem was "somewhere else" - those other people are the ones having too many children, you know? WHILE we are perhaps unsustainably using 100x more resources in our lifetimes than some people who may have more children.
Another thought wondered why women would WANT to have more than 2 children? In part I imagine male-dominated repressive societies which disallow women to participate publicly, which limit education for women, such societies that recognize women's social standing by her husband and her children, many such women will have lots of children simply because they don't see an alternative.
I considered the idea of quality versus quantity, and imagined women would tend more towards fewer children with a higher quality care, and men might tend towards hedging their evolutionary bets on many children, hoping a few will be successful, even if some will fail to thrive, and some might have done better with more attention.
Generalized speculation all of course, but maybe worth something.
Even if you argue women might want quality over quantity of children, there is something like a 15-20 year investment in a child, and 2,3, or 4 children spaced a few years apart do not add a proportional increased demand in attention, and only a few more years of devotion, so whatever you believe on how many children an average women SHOULD have, there is an economy of scale - that is to say women who LIKE caring for children, and gain proficiency, perhaps can well raise 4, 5 or 6 children, as well as raising 2, and society should be happy if such familiesALSO are in a position to support that many children.
Now myself, since I accept keeping average children below 2 is not bad with the world's current population, if I say it's good some women have 6 kids, then some women ought to have zero or 1 child to compensate. AND since I lean towards thinking 1 child is the "least efficient" use of time and resources, then a good number of women might be best off having zero children. Whether or not balancing women who WANT no children and those who WANT 6 children will come out to a desired 2ish, I can't guess.
On the larger family size, I believe this can be good for the socialization of children, learning to cooperate and learn how to set boundaries, as well as a sense of belonging. In contrast my imagination says single-child families could be less healthy, perhaps creating a "spoiled child" by parents banking success on one child, and generally not being as experienced how to response to demands of parenthood.
Wel, thoughts such as these, along with external demands of a successful household, suggest that perhaps the nuclear family isn't the idea, at least not under less abundant times, and maybe we're heading that way with work peak oil production and reduced resources available.
So I imagine people who choose zero or one child ought to "get together" with people who want to have more children, and build a bigger collective "household". Even if you imagine 2 "single child" families coming to together, it seems helpful to liven things up.
All that said, I accept in my mind, it difficult to imagine me (and people in general) to abandon the "nuclear family" ideal. Well certainly from the point of view of having no children myself, my life is pretty comfortably quiet and low-maintenance. I'm not against "sharing my house" with a family - especially since I now live alone in a 3 bedroom house.
I don't mind "sharing space", but I admit my simple quiet life doesn't necessarily want "intrusion" in the sense of expanding time demands on me. I could "take a bedroom" in a larger house and be content, but mostly would expect to do my own thing most of the time. I say this mostly out of opposing expectations of strong social attachments within the household necessary. This is a sticky issue for me, probably left over from my own childhood - having two siblings, my own bedroom since I was about 12, and not overly participating in shared chores or outings.
In a time of abundance as now, I can afford to live alone in an empty house. I have minimal chores to do with cleaning, at least inside, and don't mind weekly lawn mowing and raking and such, so life is simple. It seems strange to imagine living with others ought to require MORE work, or a least more time, communicating and negociating and everything.
Sharing is hard. Before I lived alone, I had my divorced brother, sister, and brother-in-law living with me, and sometimes a niece as well. We all basically did our own things. I set up a housework chart - a simple weekly chart with tasks, and you put your initial by a task you did each week. It worked pretty well. Sharing money was a little harder. Initially I defined "shared expenses", including food, and divided costs equally each month. My brother, behind in "his share", claimed he ate out most of the time, so we reduced his food share.
Later when my sister as well had trouble keeping savings for the bigger months, like when property tax was due, I set up a "household checking account", and computed "rents" for all as a fixed monthly expense to cover predicted costs. The GOOD thing on the rent idea is rent amounts need not be equal between us, and so I paid more since I could make more. Sharing costs unequally is tricky, and basically acceptable only by volunteerism of the more wealthy participants. The TRICKIEST aspect perhaps was that although I could EARN more, I also judged that I spent more wisely as well. It might NOT have done my siblings any favor by allowing them to live more cheaply than the standard economic costs would usually allow. Part of me said to myself that it's THEIR future to throw away if they can't save anything or plan better for their own future. In that sense I accept the "household" as I experienced it was dysfunctional. I was "parenting" my siblings.
When I finally got tired of my brother-in-law complaining about how he had no money to pay rent, I got uppity and demanded records of how he was spending his money. I managed to get a hold of a few bank statements and he used a debit card, so most was documented. Well, short version of the story is he wisely rebelled against my nosiness, and through negociations with his MOTHER, he agreed to pay his rent share on the 15th of every month, and though some whining on my part some months, mostly followed through. What REALLY allowed me to stop letting him make me feel guilty over my own abundance, is my sister told me the $1200 TV he claimed was purchased long ago and taken from his parents was in fact brand new. Anyone who can't pay $100/month rent but can afford a $1200 TV, and LIES about it, deserves no pity from me. Again, sad sad dysfunctional relationships.
Well perhaps I know now why my life is so much more peaceful now. Why the HECK do I want to deal with deadbeat "roommates"? To be far, my cousin and her friend took two bedrooms for 6 months last year and paid rent on time every month. So at least it shows the value of setting clear boundaries and expectations. Kindness is easy on occassion, but it risks abuse if stretched too long. Exceptions to rules require "new rules", negociated new expectations. It's not "my fault" for not expressing clear expectation that "waiving this months rent after a big car repair bill" means "double rent" next month. It ought to be implied, or negociated, but talking about money can be uncomfortable for both sides.
I would be interested in new roommates in my house, and thinking next fall generally is the time I'll start getting more serious about a "search" or considering what I'm looking for. A big part of me is interested in "charity", in helping others with smaller means have a safe secure home, but I admit my charity may be too passive, and too trusting, where I can just set myself up AGAIN for feeling my kindness abused.
PERHAPS I could even imagine my "kindness" is some sort of defense in me, like a chance to feel superior or whatever. Well, I don't know. I like feeling independent myself, and FEAR being dependent upon uncertain kindness in others. In fact, having my top financial priority to pay down my mortgage comes from this fear of dependence upon income.
A friend said when he went to grad school, he maxed out a couple credit cards to make ends-meet. That seemed crazy since his parents could help him. He didn't trust he'd repay his parents, so would rather pay extra to a "godless" credit card company, than feel obligations to his parents. I consider that more extreme than my own position, but the difference is he's confident he can pay off his credit cards, while for me that debt would worry me, and I'd feel exploited for the interest.
I have a coworker from China, not a citizen, and because of his status that he can't get a mortgage for a house. We joked about his family living with me. He just had his second child. The problem is he wants a 3 bedroom house, so there'd be no room for me! It might work out real well. He only has one car, and I have none, and I have a one car garage. There's also an optional basement bedroom, but not overly attractive - could be finshed off a little more, like the ceiling. Perhaps even add sound proofing in the ceiling.
I keep my basement cold in the winter and it gets humid in the summer, because cooler, so a dehumidifier could help. Generally there's just not a lot of air flow which concerns me for living down there.
Welll, funny I went from abstract population issue to household, but easier to consider my own life and have some idea that I know what I'm talking about.
In the future, especially a harder future, I'd expect more creative households to arise, many most out of necessity, short term arrangements, but some might be intentional and planned and considered more permanent.
I admit I was disappointed when my favorite cousin only stayed for 6 months last year. The ambition for "one's own home" is strong, even if costly. I don't know if my cousin really can afford her choice. It's funny people complain about $3/gallon gas, while less united voice against properly value appreciation for buyers. The difference is we'll never own an oil well, while we can all aspire to own a home and have appreciation as well.
So I guess as long as things are pretty good economically, I can't easily expect any "roommate" situation as long term. I'm just giving people a breather space to "upgrade" to their own home. It is discouraging. I suppose for new home buyers the duplex approach is not bad - buy "two homes in one", and rent half. Since living space is divided, more chance perhaps people will see it as a long term option. While sharing space, one owning, the other(s) renting, is UNEQUAL and harder to maintain.
If I didn't have a house, I'd look at small one-bedroom apartments, or even smaller. I'd look into sharing a 2-bedroom apartment to reduce costs, but I imagine that is at least as hard as what I'm looking for. A roommate requires trust and sharing expectations and if that person leaves with rent unpaid, or leaves in general you're stuck paying double rent until a replacement is found.
Anyway, these issues are interesting to me for the challenges of sharing. Maybe it's crazy to even try, but from the rich american point of view it is impossible to imagine how many people in the world live - families sharing beds even! My mom, with her 4 sisters and 2 brothers, she talks of sharing a bed with her sister. We're pretty darn spoiled, and for all our expanded living space, not clearly better off.
