What to do with children? Have or not have?
Referring to the recent incidence of foot-in-the-mouth-disease at a conference in California, I said [1] that I have a chance to milk that post – “font of a series of posts” – for a few more posts. This is one of them.
Between then and now, I put up another one, my perennial rant, on the eco-unconsciousness of the general public, Aam Aadmi included [2]. A very good friend of mine with whom I have a running conversation on a private channel responded to the latter post and that goaded me into posting the current one. Well, that is the history of this post.
I will get to the personal correspondence first. My friend, in response to my “Green” post [2], in a fit of frustration, indeed exasperation, said, “As for the earth’s condition in 2050, let’s not think about it. The huge majority [includes Aam Aaadmi, I would suspect] doesn’t care anyway, and just wants to indulge in life, and a few voices of sanity are powerless.” In reproducing the above in toto, you would discern a level of hopeful vanity – my friend was calling me a voice of sanity!
But, going beyond that personal note of self-congratulation, let me refer to someone’s understanding of what Niall Ferguson had said at the conference: “Keynes didn’t care about the long run ‘cause he …had no children.” Ferguson himself explained his off-the-cuff remark in the following way: “[I]n the long run, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are alive and will have to deal with the consequences of our economic actions.” If you distilled Ferguson’s sentiment, what you would get is child-free people do not care about the future.
I am child-free, by choice. I have a few friends who are also child-free, again by choice. I am close to many child-free families. I am also surrounded by people, relatives and close friends whose families are populated by children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If at all any statistically valid conclusion could be drawn from the limited data set I have and the behavioral pattern I can analyze, it is that child-free families are no less concerned about future generations, no matter they have made no obvious investment in them. Indeed, here I am discarding my self-assessment, I find them more open to universal considerations, be they economics or environment, as regards the future.
Take that assessment with a pinch of salt. Yet, it is not fully devoid of validity. More importantly, compare my estimate of how child-free families respond to future challenges with how my friend thinks the “huge majority” behaves – “doesn’t care [about the future] anyway.”
So, between Niall Ferguson and my friend, families, no matter with or without children, do not care about the future. While Ferguson talked about economic consequences, my friend talked about environmental consequences. There is not a whole lot of difference between them, as it is the economics of going “Green” that stops people from going “Green”.
After all, then, Ferguson was telling the truth, at least half the truth and if not about Keynes, about all those child-free people; my friend, likewise, on the other side of the fence.
Having children is as good/bad as not having.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2013/05/niall-ferguson-v-ashis-nandy.html
2. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2013/05/do-you-have-to-worry-about-400.html
Referring to the recent incidence of foot-in-the-mouth-disease at a conference in California, I said [1] that I have a chance to milk that post – “font of a series of posts” – for a few more posts. This is one of them.
Between then and now, I put up another one, my perennial rant, on the eco-unconsciousness of the general public, Aam Aadmi included [2]. A very good friend of mine with whom I have a running conversation on a private channel responded to the latter post and that goaded me into posting the current one. Well, that is the history of this post.
I will get to the personal correspondence first. My friend, in response to my “Green” post [2], in a fit of frustration, indeed exasperation, said, “As for the earth’s condition in 2050, let’s not think about it. The huge majority [includes Aam Aaadmi, I would suspect] doesn’t care anyway, and just wants to indulge in life, and a few voices of sanity are powerless.” In reproducing the above in toto, you would discern a level of hopeful vanity – my friend was calling me a voice of sanity!
But, going beyond that personal note of self-congratulation, let me refer to someone’s understanding of what Niall Ferguson had said at the conference: “Keynes didn’t care about the long run ‘cause he …had no children.” Ferguson himself explained his off-the-cuff remark in the following way: “[I]n the long run, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are alive and will have to deal with the consequences of our economic actions.” If you distilled Ferguson’s sentiment, what you would get is child-free people do not care about the future.
I am child-free, by choice. I have a few friends who are also child-free, again by choice. I am close to many child-free families. I am also surrounded by people, relatives and close friends whose families are populated by children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If at all any statistically valid conclusion could be drawn from the limited data set I have and the behavioral pattern I can analyze, it is that child-free families are no less concerned about future generations, no matter they have made no obvious investment in them. Indeed, here I am discarding my self-assessment, I find them more open to universal considerations, be they economics or environment, as regards the future.
Take that assessment with a pinch of salt. Yet, it is not fully devoid of validity. More importantly, compare my estimate of how child-free families respond to future challenges with how my friend thinks the “huge majority” behaves – “doesn’t care [about the future] anyway.”
So, between Niall Ferguson and my friend, families, no matter with or without children, do not care about the future. While Ferguson talked about economic consequences, my friend talked about environmental consequences. There is not a whole lot of difference between them, as it is the economics of going “Green” that stops people from going “Green”.
After all, then, Ferguson was telling the truth, at least half the truth and if not about Keynes, about all those child-free people; my friend, likewise, on the other side of the fence.
Having children is as good/bad as not having.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2013/05/niall-ferguson-v-ashis-nandy.html
2. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2013/05/do-you-have-to-worry-about-400.html
2 comments:
right
makes no difference..
Thanks DS sir ...
It is all in the mind ... you can do good by the subsequent generations, no matter you have or do not have children.
RE
Post a Comment