Neo - I think you need to distinguish between 'generalisations', which can be anecdotal, general impressions/read in the media or research based, and your own personal circumstances. In the article I cited, the facts are in the research findings and the 'generalisations' are the summing up of the research to make it more accessible for people like me.

Your own personal circumstances are just that - they don't apply to me, Newsroo or Dr Leslie Cannold - and therefore, although meaningful to you, cannot be used to compare the lot of all men and women in the general population. What I am talking about is sociological research which can't be used to compare the lot of individuals, only groups - but this is what people talk about when they take phrases from research and 'generalise' them for all of us.

Missed your point on the financial planning/banking reference Neo but - sticking my neck out here as I have nothing to back up my thoughts - in my parent's generation, where generally speaking the man was the wage earner, the financial side, (apart from stretching the grocery budget), was in the male domain. These days, with more married women in the workforce, financial management seems to be more of a joint decision thing.

Newsroo - Oh that everything was black/white, one dimensional and simple! Don't get me wrong - I'm not referring to your points as that - in fact I agree with everything you say.......but then I immediately see the gray area and counter my own arguments! For example - women having their reproductive choices made by their culture. I agree, but be we women from the west or the 3rd world none of us live in a vacuum. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation we are all constrained by our own cultures so all and every life decision is made in that context - even if we are working to change it. I don't think the article was so much 'ignoring' this point as addressing another one - you could write a book on all the influences on reproduction, in fact many people have!

That was an interesting titbit about Bush and birth control - where did it come from? If only he would learn to 'just say no'! lol!

Again on the individual circumstances vs group research theory - the comments on population increase/decline are to do with economic theory. They have nothing to do with the welfare of individual women/families or children. I think the article is just addressing something else and we have gone off on one of the many related tangents.

On the personal level I can state I have never felt the need to use my uterus - but I do have three dogs, a rooster, a galah, a cow and five sheep - feel free to jump in there anytime Neo! lol!

My wife is doing bloody well at both I can tell you and thank God for that too, so I can go lay on the couch and watch sport on TV.

Its a much better world when everybody can make choices without feeling they have to use their uterus or be a "good mother" etc. Pro-Growth people want everybody to believe that we will be impoverished if we don't have a constant supply of young workers. The Productivity Commission says it is just NOT true. Dr. Leslie Cannold either missed that report or doesn't believe it. Population growth has to stop some day. Hopefully it will be a soft landing not a crash.

It's a better world where couples can decide how many children they personally want in their own lives, without pressure from business people saying you must procreate or environmentalists saying one child only. The parents and the kids are more important than the economy or the environment and unless we have good kids, the economy and the environment will be screwed anyway.

Have you got a link for the Productivity Commission report please Ericc?

Jo Jo, I’ve read through some of the studies you referred to but I’m still not greatly satisfied that we live in a patriarchal type society where men purposely try and make women do housework etc, etc, etc as many of these studies purposely try and portray.

There are only a few organisations in Australia that I would regard as being reliable for studies on social issues. Some of the studies from the HILDA survey are interesting, and some studies from AIFS are worth considering, but there are also many papers that are obviously so biased that it becomes almost impossible to believe how they were approved for release. I know that in areas such as engineering, study papers are now heavily scrutinised before release, and if they are released at a conference they can be heavily slammed if someone finds any bias at all in that paper, but this does not seem to be the case with the School of Social Science, which could also be called the School of Social Conjecture.

In a practical sense there would need to be at least 3 things required to have children

1.The money. This would be somewhat controversial, as we live in a society where most people are wealthier than what they were in the past, but there are less children being born. I remember hearing someone say recently that Australians have become too materialistic, and not spiritualistic enough or concerned enough about human relations, and I am inclined to agree. It could be that some people are now choosing material things over say haeing children.

2.The time to raise children. Time is important as there are only 24 hrs in a day, 7 days a week etc. If we are being required to spend more time at work then the only option is to reduce time spent on family, time spent on R&R, or time spent on unpaid work such as housework. The last option is probably the best, and perhaps we need creditable research undertaken by people on how to reduce the time spent on housework. This is probably better than spending time arguing about who should do housework. In my case I can get housework down to 1 Hr per day, and another hr spent on cooking, and I think most families could easily do this without much trouble.

3.A mother and a father. Controversial again as I do see an attempt by certain sections in society to eliminate fathers. However most children have a natural wish or instinct for both a mother and a father, and it is a well founded instinct as both parents become necessary for raising children. Society does not last for too many generations if you take mothers or fathers out of families.

So, as far as “choice” goes in having children, the three criteria above would still have to be met as priorities.

The report is called Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia. The best link is the one below. It is a massive report (4 part download), but this page also has a link for a media release and another which has the key points in their opinion. If you download the whole thing it is pretty easy to skim because there is a summary at the start of each chapter.

Considering that it is a report that was paid for by a government that has come out and said that we should all "have one for Mum, one for Dad and one for Australia" it actually says we will be okay economically with 1.7 children per woman and the same net immigration we have now. In fact we will be about twice as rich in 40 years. I must admit I was surprised. Premier Steve Bracks and others imply that the economy will be ruined unless we get a bigger population. Its a common theme but not backed up by any data I have seen.

http://www.pc.gov.au/study/ageing/draftreport/index.html

It is undeniable that men and women have the right to choose not to have children. The concerns raised in the fertility debate, are that too many are choosing not to. Although there must be some economic consequences down the line for such trends, none of them appear serious enough to warrant urgent change. There are likely to be some social impacts also. As with with long term climatic change, people’s attitudes are likely to change over time to adopt models that work best. All part of evolution.

Declining population is good for the environment, right? Eco-feminism would most likely confirm this.

It is however unfortunate, that people best placed to have children, are having the least number. Intelligent, educated men and women, are opting out. Most successful young women are choosing not to pass on their genes. That may or may not be good for society, or the environment.