06-18-2008, 03:50 PM
Saurav, first, let me clarify my stand:
I believe that every family should decide how many children it wants to have, <i>completely disregarding the state's recommendation of 2</i>. It should be aware of the possibility that the best number of children might be higher than 2. I also believe that, in the case of families who are not poor and who have a steady income, the number is probably higher than 2. So, I will confine myself to arguments about the lower-middle-class, the middle-middle-class, the upper-middle-class and the richer classes. Now, with this in mind, let me go on.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my logic: your children make much more money than you do IMPLIES they can provide better for your retirement than you can from your own savings. In any case, your savings are more likely to be affected by inflation than their earnings. Your savings are remnants of past earnings before the inflation happened and will therefore suffer devaluation, while your children's earnings have already taken the inflation into account.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well yes and no. Income streams from savings also take into account inflation depending on the interest rate regime that you may have opted for. Present earnings by your scions may account for inflation but it does not mean that they are necessarily <i>higher in real terms.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->But, again, this is a good argument for not having any children at all. I am curious, why do you think it is a good idea to have even the 1 or 2 children you advocate?
In the case of those who are not poor, in most circumstances, the children are going to end up making more money than their parents. Now, if that is true, I don't see why the middle classes to restrain themselves to having only 2 children.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of kids there is utility as well as disutility. in the case of the addictions mentioned above there is only disutility . Of course addictions can also be "rational" if you say that smoking now will give me more pleasure when i smoke later , since I will get addicted ,. this particular line of reasoning is called adjacent complementarity. However the fact is, in the case of pregnancy you interrupt a current income stream for expected utility .
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->If you replace the word "interrupt" to "trade-off", this would be true of any kind of life/auto/home insurance. In fact, this is true of most capital investments, it seems to me. Actually, for most expenditures as well. So, again, what makes this particular trade-off (more-kids vs mom's-health) so different that the rule of "2" must be imposed on all and sundry without exception?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the standpoint of a poor family where the woman necessarily works , pregnancy means a severe interruption in the income chain. Moreover women do a lot of other activities for the household such as collecting firewood , water etc. All of this will then have to be done by somebody else or if indeed the woman continues to do this , she does so at serious risk to her health and to the life of her baby. Unfortunately, this is indeed the fate of many women in our country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will confine my argument to the non-poor only. So, I will not respond to this one.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vishwas , if you were a woman you would not be looking at pregnancy as kindly as you are now. Ask a woman's perspective on it. because they are the ones having to do the" work" .<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. I am not looking kindly at pregnancy - I see it merely as an instrument.
2. I suspect most women do the same. They look upon it mostly as an instrument for fulfillment and as an investment for greater good for self and family.
In any case, you cannot declare certain arguments out-of-bounds for half of humanity. If you think a woman's perspective is so valuable, go ahead and share it with the rest of us.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the problem with ideologues lies precisely in this issue. they tend to look at women as bags to further their own devious agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Everybody does it. Ideologues, non-ideologues, modernists, all kinds of people. Reproduction is so important to the species that virtually every ideology, ancient or modern, wishes to control it for the greater good, according to its definition of good.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->while having multiple births may reduce the risk of some forms of cancer, the fact is , health hazards multiply with every pregnancy. And by health risks i don't mean a disease or two but mortality. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What are these health hazards that multiply with every pregnancy? Remember, I am talking about middle-class women mostly. Can you cite some studies, that control for socioeconomic circumstances? Even wikipedia references will do.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover the age profile of the mother is also important . the safe age for having kids is the 18-26 bracket . older and juvenile females run the risk of death with every pregnancy.
[right][snapback]82970[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How large is this risk of death with every pregnancy? From the wikipedia: In 2000, the United Nations estimated global maternal mortality at 529,000, of which less than 1% occurred in the developed world. However, most of these deaths have been medically preventable for decades, because treatments to avoid such deaths have been well known since the 1950s.
I suspect that most Indian middle-class women have not heard of maternal death for the last 15 years.
I believe that every family should decide how many children it wants to have, <i>completely disregarding the state's recommendation of 2</i>. It should be aware of the possibility that the best number of children might be higher than 2. I also believe that, in the case of families who are not poor and who have a steady income, the number is probably higher than 2. So, I will confine myself to arguments about the lower-middle-class, the middle-middle-class, the upper-middle-class and the richer classes. Now, with this in mind, let me go on.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my logic: your children make much more money than you do IMPLIES they can provide better for your retirement than you can from your own savings. In any case, your savings are more likely to be affected by inflation than their earnings. Your savings are remnants of past earnings before the inflation happened and will therefore suffer devaluation, while your children's earnings have already taken the inflation into account.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well yes and no. Income streams from savings also take into account inflation depending on the interest rate regime that you may have opted for. Present earnings by your scions may account for inflation but it does not mean that they are necessarily <i>higher in real terms.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->But, again, this is a good argument for not having any children at all. I am curious, why do you think it is a good idea to have even the 1 or 2 children you advocate?
In the case of those who are not poor, in most circumstances, the children are going to end up making more money than their parents. Now, if that is true, I don't see why the middle classes to restrain themselves to having only 2 children.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of kids there is utility as well as disutility. in the case of the addictions mentioned above there is only disutility . Of course addictions can also be "rational" if you say that smoking now will give me more pleasure when i smoke later , since I will get addicted ,. this particular line of reasoning is called adjacent complementarity. However the fact is, in the case of pregnancy you interrupt a current income stream for expected utility .
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->If you replace the word "interrupt" to "trade-off", this would be true of any kind of life/auto/home insurance. In fact, this is true of most capital investments, it seems to me. Actually, for most expenditures as well. So, again, what makes this particular trade-off (more-kids vs mom's-health) so different that the rule of "2" must be imposed on all and sundry without exception?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the standpoint of a poor family where the woman necessarily works , pregnancy means a severe interruption in the income chain. Moreover women do a lot of other activities for the household such as collecting firewood , water etc. All of this will then have to be done by somebody else or if indeed the woman continues to do this , she does so at serious risk to her health and to the life of her baby. Unfortunately, this is indeed the fate of many women in our country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will confine my argument to the non-poor only. So, I will not respond to this one.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vishwas , if you were a woman you would not be looking at pregnancy as kindly as you are now. Ask a woman's perspective on it. because they are the ones having to do the" work" .<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. I am not looking kindly at pregnancy - I see it merely as an instrument.
2. I suspect most women do the same. They look upon it mostly as an instrument for fulfillment and as an investment for greater good for self and family.
In any case, you cannot declare certain arguments out-of-bounds for half of humanity. If you think a woman's perspective is so valuable, go ahead and share it with the rest of us.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the problem with ideologues lies precisely in this issue. they tend to look at women as bags to further their own devious agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Everybody does it. Ideologues, non-ideologues, modernists, all kinds of people. Reproduction is so important to the species that virtually every ideology, ancient or modern, wishes to control it for the greater good, according to its definition of good.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->while having multiple births may reduce the risk of some forms of cancer, the fact is , health hazards multiply with every pregnancy. And by health risks i don't mean a disease or two but mortality. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What are these health hazards that multiply with every pregnancy? Remember, I am talking about middle-class women mostly. Can you cite some studies, that control for socioeconomic circumstances? Even wikipedia references will do.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover the age profile of the mother is also important . the safe age for having kids is the 18-26 bracket . older and juvenile females run the risk of death with every pregnancy.
[right][snapback]82970[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How large is this risk of death with every pregnancy? From the wikipedia: In 2000, the United Nations estimated global maternal mortality at 529,000, of which less than 1% occurred in the developed world. However, most of these deaths have been medically preventable for decades, because treatments to avoid such deaths have been well known since the 1950s.
I suspect that most Indian middle-class women have not heard of maternal death for the last 15 years.