Tarun isn't really a Punjabi, but he certainly drinks, laughs and eats chicken leg piece like a Punjabi, hence the moniker, Arora-ji (name changed to
project identity).
We were talking about the death of certain trends, like hats, on expiry of their social utility. In my classic style I diverted the topic towards the impending death of marriage, as a social institution, the time for which is now past. Something hit a chord, the matter escalated quickly and we found ourselves asking the question that, as mankind, "
do we still need children?"
Now Arora-ji, in true Punjabi manner, likes to make it large. So the debate could not be confined to two, it had to have at least 15 of the brightest intelligentsia, a third of whom had children, sitting under a tent in the bright, sunny lawns at a fancy destination hotel near Jaipur. Masala tea was being served in artisan
kulhads for good measure.
Quite aware that we were treading on moral grey ground, we posed the question, "Do we still need children? The debate was polite, dominated mostly by parents professing with passion, but without supporting logic, that we needed children. Someone quoted Khalil Gibran, "Children are life's longing for itself". I would summarize what I could grasp of their submissions in two words- animal instinct.
Because I did not receive a convincing answer, I will present here our arguments on why we don't need children, in the hope to attract some logical counter arguments.
The Case for Legacy
People procreate with a desire to leave behind an imprint on the world, to leave a legacy. Children have been our means of self propagation. However, in this fast changing world, there are so many more ways of leaving our imprint- achievements, businesses well built, art, even words. Further someone argued that people need children, in whose name to leave their assets, such as property. As assets are becoming less material and more digital, do we still need children?
The Case for Micro Economics
In previous generations, people had multiple children with the primary aim of introducing them into the labour force. As jobs are becoming more automatic, the investment in child bearing and rearing is far more than the return in many cases. Given that it does not make economic sense, that DINK couples seem to have all the fun, do we still need children?
The Case for Environment
One among the intellegentsia (who works at a capitalistic company that sells cars, surprisingly), made the point that the single most powerful way to combat climate change would be just to not have any more children/ consumers. Further with the advancements in medical science, life spans are increasing and we are just going to hang around longer. Given the immense strain on our natural resources, do we still need children?
The Counter Case for Macro Economics
Multiple developed economies like Sweden and Japan have seen a negative population growth rate. Once fairly closed, they are turning in alarm to the rest of the world, inviting foreigners to live in their lands.
Russia and some
Swedish towns have gone as far as giving off days to employees to have sex and make babies. Their rationale is that in the absence of children, there would be reduced consumption and hence economies would slow down. Who will they sell all the cell phones to? (Maybe if Nokia's headquarters were in India/ China, the company would have seen a brighter fate). Here again my argument is, now that AI and robots are going to be the only beneficiaries of a growing economy, do we still need children?
Mommies and daddies out there, help Arora ji with his family planning, wont you?
