I think it's difficult to get that agreement in the current social climate, and remember, men haven't yet had a real choice not to have kids unless they want to give up sex or have bad sex. When this changes there will be a further bite out of the inclination to make the sacrifice.

I'm amused by and a bit embarrassed for all those people (mostly middle-class) who want the status associated with parenthood but who haven't quite come to terms with the fact that they can no longer live as though they don't have children. Recent Broadsheet postings have mentioned issues involving screaming children on long plane trips and free admission for infants to expensive theatre productions--both of which allow a certain kind of parent to continue to delude themselves that having children hasn't drastically altered their lives. Or the Patron Saint of Self-Delusion Herself, Caitlin Flanagan, who advocates that mothers stay at home and devote themselves to childrearing and housework, but who appears proud of the fact that she knows neither how to cook or do laundry and couldn't even get her sons through toddlerhood without a nanny. And the SUV stampede of the last several years--it has less to do with being safe and more to do with not driving a minivan, which just screams domesticity. Oh, and have you heard about the $85 designer diaper bag designed not to look like a diaper bag?

That's about as pathetic as married middle-aged guys on business trips who take off their wedding rings and pretend to be single.

Raising a kid is hard work and requires sacrifice. It sounds as though these younger men and women have grasped this, at the same time that their counterparts in their 30s and 40s are wringing their hands and whining all over the Style section of the New York Times and the bestseller section at Borders about how haaaarrrrd it is and how they had to give up their identities and lives and so forth and why are all those mean-spirited people in the expensive restaurants giving them dirty looks when they bring their "quietly fussing" broods in, anyways? Doubtless some of these kids will in fact change their minds ( pace my childfree compatriots), but I like to think they'll be going into it with their eyes open...and that, as a result, they'll be better parents.

This isn't terribly relevant, but I live in London- I'm American- and am always surprised by these reports. I've never seen so many crusty old ladies (like, in their 30s) with babies- often two or three at a time- in my life. And I'm talking middle class ladies whose children are dressed in adorable rainbo colors. British women seem very, very into having children. Prolific, shall we say. Though I do live in the baby making capital of London (Stoke Newington, where all the freelance graphic designers live and buy baby stuff).

I live in the UK, and found the Guardian article quite surprising, so I had a look at the original poll:

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Guardian%20-%20fertility/The%20Guardian%20Poll%20-%20fertility%20poll.asp

The questions mostly begin with the phrase "Do you think the attitude of people generally ..."

Perhaps I'm naive about polling, but I got the impression from the Guardian article and the Broadsheet entry that the questions reflected what people said they thought themselves. Guessing at why other people make a very significant and personal choice seems like a different matter.

Also, I agree with the person who posted from Stoke Newington - London is crawling with babies.

is a serious global concern. Just the other day Japan was considering putting dating services on TV ads (which are currently a no-no).

The problem isn't overpopulation. There's no such thing. There's over-consumption and over-waste, but not overpopulation.

Many highly industrial countries are experiencing drastic fertility declines because of, yes, education and work opportunities for women. This isn't a trait you can pass on to your children, it is a standard of living that people grow up in and expect to continue.

For example, in the U.S. we have the baby boom generation that is going to retire, but there is no comparable generation to completely replace them. So no wonder countries are all freaked out about low birth rates, who's going to pay into the tax system to provide funds for all these people who will need social services? The government needs to find a way to bear the brunt of the costs--how better to encourage childbirth, preferrably among native-born citizens? Why do you think George Bush is even considering amnesty among immigrants? It does double duty: helps business and helps keep taxes rolling in.