Ethical Implications of Remaining Childless By Choice

[Gestalt]

I would like to start off by saying that I am 25 years old, childless, and plan on remaining childless, although I also freely grant that my feelings on the matter could change.

I've heard from childless-by-choice people, sometimes on this board, that when they explain their lifestyle decisions to folks with kids, they are sometimes accused of being "selfish." Upon first glance, I found the idea that deliberate childlessness is selfish to be ridiculous. It doesn't hurt anyone, and I think of selfish acts as the type which cause others misfortune for personal gain.

However, probing a bit deeper into the issue, it seems like there are more complex ethical ramifications. My decision to not have children is simply because I don't want that level of responsibility, and would like to spend the time and disposable income that I would save on things I want. My argument applies to people whose reasons for childlessness are similar to mine; if you want to remain childless so you can devote your whole being to charity work or something like that, the implications are different.

Okay, so I think many people would agree that we as a society have a collective obligation to ourselves and to future generations to preserve the environment to the best of our ability, hence the effort by people of all persuasions to be more "green." In a similar vein, does the current generation of people of childbearing age and means have an obligation to raise a future generation of productive individuals, both for our own collective benefit and for the future of the human race? Obviously if everyone chose like I did, humanity would be in deep fudge. Also, raising good citizens is a difficult and often thankless job. However, unlike recycling, most people who have children don't do it out of a sense of societal obligation, but rather because they have a personal desire to.

So, my questions are, do we as a society have a societal obligation to raise productive citizens? If no, do you think we have an obligation to recycle, and if we do have an obligation to recycle, what are the differences between recycling and child-rearing that make one obligatory and the other not?

If you say yes, what are the limits of this obligation? Are people just obliged to produce at a replacement rate? If people like the Duggars effectively have 19+ kids who will contribute positively to the world (or at least neutrally), does that in effect remove the burden of childrearing for 19 people/9 couples?

Or, because of issues of overpopulation, do you think people with means in both the developing and developed worlds should limit their reproduction? If you think this is the case, do they have some other obligation to ensure that the existing children of the world are properly cared for and raised well? Why or why not?

I do believe that there is a general social obligation to produce a productive future generation, but as to the rest of my questions, I'm not sure where I stand . . .

[Oakminster]

I believe that people should only bring a child into this world if they are ready, willing, and able to raise that child properly. I am able to do that, but I am neither ready nor willing to do it, so I won't.

I feel no personal obligation to reproduce. The human race ain't gonna die out for lack of a Little Oak. If the human race eventually dies out, so what? In umpteen jillion years, the Sun will go super-kablooey, and obliterate most* evidence that we ever existed.



*I suppose Voyager and similar probes will still be roaming the cosmos somewhere.

[Gestalt]

I feel no personal obligation to reproduce. The human race ain't gonna die out for lack of a Little Oak. If the human race eventually dies out, so what? In umpteen jillion years, the Sun will go super-kablooey, and obliterate most* evidence that we ever existed.


If you don't mind me asking, do you feel a personal obligation to recycle as your means allow? If you do, what is the difference between recycling and childrearing? If you personally choose not to recycle, it probably won't make that much of a difference either . . .

[mswas]

I would like to start off by saying that I am 25 years old, childless, and plan on remaining childless, although I also freely grant that my feelings on the matter could change.

I've heard from childless-by-choice people, sometimes on this board, that when they explain their lifestyle decisions to folks with kids, they are sometimes accused of being "selfish." Upon first glance, I found the idea that deliberate childlessness is selfish to be ridiculous. It doesn't hurt anyone, and I think of selfish acts as the type which cause others misfortune for personal gain.

It's selfish by definition. That doesn't make it a bad thing.

However, probing a bit deeper into the issue, it seems like there are more complex ethical ramifications. My decision to not have children is simply because I don't want that level of responsibility, and would like to spend the time and disposable income that I would save on things I want. My argument applies to people whose reasons for childlessness are similar to mine; if you want to remain childless so you can devote your whole being to charity work or something like that, the implications are different.

That's all well and good. Hopefully things will balance out in the end.

Okay, so I think many people would agree that we as a society have a collective obligation to ourselves and to future generations to preserve the environment to the best of our ability, hence the effort by people of all persuasions to be more "green." In a similar vein, does the current generation of people of childbearing age and means have an obligation to raise a future generation of productive individuals, both for our own collective benefit and for the future of the human race? Obviously if everyone chose like I did, humanity would be in deep fudge. Also, raising good citizens is a difficult and often thankless job. However, unlike recycling, most people who have children don't do it out of a sense of societal obligation, but rather because they have a personal desire to.

That's true, but you have to wake up and recognize your responsibility to society as you raise a child. My only problem with childless people is more with the radicals the 'childfree' set who think that the normal English word 'childless' oppresses them. These are the people likely to vote against funding schools and parks and such. That's where the ethical obligations come in. My children are people, and you have as much an obligation to them as they have to you.

So, my questions are, do we as a society have a societal obligation to raise productive citizens? If no, do you think we have an obligation to recycle, and if we do have an obligation to recycle, what are the differences between recycling and child-rearing that make one obligatory and the other not?

Well if you want ethical adults in a few years, then yes. Unless we have no children at all which means the last generation of people dies basically in agony with no one to man the nursing homes.

I am not sure I am comfortable with your comparison of recycling and child-rearing. If you have children you are responsible for raising them well. If you create garbage you are responsible to recycle. Past consideration for children as your fellow human beings I don't think there is much that you are obligated toward. One day you will be old, and it will be my grandkids that are your nurses at the nursing home, remember that.

If you say yes, what are the limits of this obligation? Are people just obliged to produce at a replacement rate? If people like the Duggars effectively have 19+ kids who will contribute positively to the world (or at least neutrally), does that in effect remove the burden of childrearing for 19 people/9 couples?

I think it all balances out in America where we hover around replacement rate. Places like Japan and Germany are starting to see some serious economic concerns as GDP is contingent upon having the workers to produce it. Ultimately yes the Duggars have effectively removed the burden of childrearing for 9 couples, if you look at it from an economic standpoint.

Or, because of issues of overpopulation, do you think people with means in both the developing and developed worlds should limit their reproduction? If you think this is the case, do they have some other obligation to ensure that the existing children of the world are properly cared for and raised well? Why or why not?

Having wealthy people reduce their breeding doesn't help overpopulation as overpopulation is a condition of poverty, and whether or not I have a third child doesn't really impact the goat herders in Mozambique who are having ten kids and whose goats are eating the scrub brush and expanding the Sahara making that country even less livable. In Bolivia, they are having water problems, and I read an article where people were actually considering not having kids because it was hopeless.

I do believe that there is a general social obligation to produce a productive future generation, but as to the rest of my questions, I'm not sure where I stand . . .

It's an interesting thread, and I think you've hit the right points. Economics basically works by the old lending their savings to the young who then produce the GDP of the society.

On a personal level, if you are childless and you live a long and fruitful life you could one day find yourself in a nursing home with no personal advocate.

[Malthus]

My impression is that the decision of whether or not to have kids simply lacks an ethical component in the abstract. I don't believe that many seriously choose to have kids to perpetuate humanity, or refrain from having kids to save the planet. That stikes me as ex post rationalization for choices already made.

The ethics of the choice have to do with the particular situations of the individuals involved. A person refraining to have kids because they are not ready, willing or able to care for them properly, for example.

[Lemur866]

To all the people who tell you it's selfish not to have kids, tell them, "You're right. It's selfish of me not to have kids. Why would you want an incurably selfish person like myself to become a parent?"

The solution is that people who want to have children should have children, and people who don't want to have children should not have children. It ain't complicated.

[Der Trihs]

Obviously if everyone chose like I did, humanity would be in deep fudge.Thing is, that's just as flawed as the "what if everyone were gay, the human race would die out!" line you sometimes hear from homophobes.** It's not going to happen, so it's a non-issue.

So, my questions are, do we as a society have a societal obligation to raise productive citizens?No. If we collectively as a species were to decide that it just wasn't worth the effort, then that's our collective choice to make. Humanity is primarily valuable because humans value it; if we don't consider humanity worth propagating, then it's not.

If no, do you think we have an obligation to recycle, and if we do have an obligation to recycle, what are the differences between recycling and child-rearing that make one obligatory and the other not?Recycling is a matter of not harming other things than yourself; reproduction is about your personal choice. A better reproductive analogy to not recycling would be producing poorly raised children; badly raised enough that other people have to try to repair the damage you have done to them. It's a matter of causing active harm.

Or, because of issues of overpopulation, do you think people with means in both the developing and developed worlds should limit their reproduction? If you think this is the case, do they have some other obligation to ensure that the existing children of the world are properly cared for and raised well? Why or why not? Yes, we should cut down on our reproduction; something the "developed world" has already generally done. And yes we have an obligation to already existing children just like we do to everyone else.




** And no, that's not meant as an accusation of some sort of bigotry on your part; it was just the example that sprung to my mind of such a "what if everyone" argument

[Icarus]

To me there are four parts to this:

1. We as a species / society are obligated to continue the species / society.

2. I, as an individual (organism), am not obligated to continue the species / society.

3. However, I, as an individual (organism), am obligated to enable (not prevent) others from continuing the species / society.

FWIW - Personally, I am unable to have children. It is not a choice.

4. By my enabling others to continue the species, my implied contract is that those others will not interfere with my right to exist (because I am unable to continue the species).

Granted this last one is the most tenuous. I could conceive of a society that culls the infertile. History has taught us much.

[mswas]

To me there are four parts to this:

1. We as a species / society are obligated to continue the species / society.

2. I, as an individual (organism), am not obligated to continue the species / society.

3. However, I, as an individual (organism), am obligated to enable (not prevent) others from continuing the species / society.

FWIW - Personally, I am unable to have children. It is not a choice.

4. By my enabling others to continue the species, my implied contract is that those others will not interfere with my right to exist (because I am unable to continue the species).

Granted this last one is the most tenuous. I could conceive of a society that culls the infertile. History has taught us much.

History has also taught us that fertility is not the final measure of value to society. I hope you are living a fulfilling and fruitful life in some other manner, being good and kind to the people around you.

[Oakminster]

If you don't mind me asking, do you feel a personal obligation to recycle as your means allow? If you do, what is the difference between recycling and childrearing? If you personally choose not to recycle, it probably won't make that much of a difference either . . .

No obligation. As far as I know, recycling is not required by law where I live. For that matter, it isn't even really an option, as there is no recycling program out in the county--I think there is one in town. However, if there were a program where my house is, I'd likely choose to participate. May or may not do any measurable "good", but it does no harm and doesn't require much effort, either.

[Voyager]

Just for the record, I have two kids and I'm glad I do.
There are ethical implications, but on both sides of the issue. Yes it is selfish in a sense not to have kids, but it is also selfish to have them, since you are taking up more of the earth's resources. If you think you have good genetic material which can contribute to society you might be considered selfish in not producing offspring who could do good, but on the other hand if the world goes to hell you might regret producing offspring who will have to suffer through a terrible future.

So, since there is no obvious answer, I take the pro-choice position. I'd never criticize anyone for not having kids, and I hope no one will criticize me for having them.

[mswas]

Just for the record, I have two kids and I'm glad I do.
There are ethical implications, but on both sides of the issue. Yes it is selfish in a sense not to have kids, but it is also selfish to have them, since you are taking up more of the earth's resources. If you think you have good genetic material which can contribute to society you might be considered selfish in not producing offspring who could do good, but on the other hand if the world goes to hell you might regret producing offspring who will have to suffer through a terrible future.

So, since there is no obvious answer, I take the pro-choice position. I'd never criticize anyone for not having kids, and I hope no one will criticize me for having them.

Certainly, I'd rather kids not be raised by people who don't want them.

But, I know people will criticize me for having kids. People I know have already done so. 'The world is overpopulated!'

[Jackmannii]

...most people who have children don't do it out of a sense of societal obligation, but rather because they have a personal desire to.Change this to virtually all and I agree.

It's just as "selfish" in general to have children as not to. Like Malthus, I think that ethics doesn't come into play, with the exception that people who do not have the capacity to properly raise children or have a high likelihood of producing kids with certain fatal genetic disorders (and don't intend to get prenatal testing when available), are not behaving ethically if they carelessly or deliberately act to create pregnancies.

[alphaboi867]

...On a personal level, if you are childless and you live a long and fruitful life you could one day find yourself in a nursing home with no personal advocate.

True, but the same thing can happen if you have children.

[mswas]

True, but the same thing can happen if you have children.

It's less likely.

[Anaamika]

Who really has kids because of a societal obligation? Having children is an eminently selfish decision!

Not having kids - well, my primary reason is I just don't want them and never found anything appealing in them. However, another reason is, I want to be an aunt!. I had a single aunt who had no kids who showered love and affection on me and that extra love really helped me out a lot - now my nephews and nieces will have the extra love, too.

Anyway, come back and talk to me when the human race is in any danger of dying out, and yes, I will absolutely have children if that is the case. As it is? Hell no.

[Oakminster]

On a personal level, if you are childless and you live a long and fruitful life you could one day find yourself in a nursing home with no personal advocate.

I absolutely refuse to go out that way. When the time comes that I can no longer manage my own affairs, I intend to eat a magnum. Oak rides alone. Oak dies alone. So mote it be.

[Gestalt]

Anyway, come back and talk to me when the human race is in any danger of dying out, and yes, I will absolutely have children if that is the case. As it is? Hell no.

So, just to clarify, you do think there is some obligation of the current generation to propagate the human race? And if the global birthrate fell significantly, say by 25%, you would rethink your decision to remain childless?

[mswas]

I absolutely refuse to go out that way. When the time comes that I can no longer manage my own affairs, I intend to eat a magnum. Oak rides alone. Oak dies alone. So mote it be.

That's respectable. I appreciate an ice floe kind of guy.

[mswas]

Who really has kids because of a societal obligation? Having children is an eminently selfish decision!

While I agree it's a selfish decision, people do certainly have kids because of a societal obligation. It features quite largely in many Christian faiths, and Judaism and Islam as I understand it as well.

The notions are not mutually exclusive.

[otternell]

I am childless by choice: female (no known repro issues), hetero, married, mid-30's.

I have chosen to be childless for a couple of reasons:
1. I don't particularly like children (cue assorted gasps of horror). Everyone has always said "its different when its yours" and all I can say is that there are an awful lot of people who kill their own children, therefore you don't know that "its different when its yours". Maybe it was for you, but maybe it wouldn't be for me. As I see it children = 9 months of giving up my supremacy of my body. Once I become pregnant every decision I make from thereon is supposed to be guided by the thoughts of the little sproutling. Then for the next 18 years, I have to raise and care for this child, putting their concerns above my own, and in the meantime generally having to succumb to society's expectations, or else I will be a bad mom.

2. I believe I would be a terrible parent, based on the fact that my dogs are mis-behaving monsters, I would likely be the parent with the mis-behaving brats in public and the thought of turning into that nauseates me.

It is nice that the use of my time and money are solely directed by me, but that wasn't one of the primary reasons, but it is a very nice benefit.

choosing to remain childless is not selfish, its not like there's a shortage of humans on the planet.

BTW: your grandkids helping me in the nursing home? they already owe me for paying for schools and parks, which I gladly do, as I know that it is an important societal need. ;)

[Lemur866]

I absolutely refuse to go out that way. When the time comes that I can no longer manage my own affairs, I intend to eat a magnum. Oak rides alone. Oak dies alone. So mote it be.

Everybody dies alone.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

My SO and I are childless by choice.

As others have said above, having children is just as much a selfish decision as not having them. Either way, it's about what I and my partner want. People don't have kids because of what is good for society. It's either because they want them, or because they had unprotected sex.

No one owes it to society to have kids. Not now, not ever. I personally feel that I owe it to society to help raise all kids. That's everything from helping out friends and family with their kids, to supporting the local schools, to supporting global efforts to reduce hunger and increase education. If I have a social obligation to impact future generation, I can do much more good by providing third world education then by raising a couple kids of my own.

As for the "who will take care of me when I'm 90" question, I'm trying to plan things out so I will be taking care of me when I am 90. Even this question is an argument for havin children being a selfish thing. Just as I am responsible for taking care of myself now, I am also responsible for making sure that there will be sufficent funds for me to live out my life.

Please note, selfish isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just states that the reasons for doing something are for your own benefit. Hell, breathing could be seen as selfish, as it's purpose is to extend my life.

[Oakminster]

Everybody dies alone.

Maybe in a metaphorical sense, but not in a literal one. There are often bystanders--medical people, family, religious officials, fellow soldiers, cops, etc. depending on circumstances. I intend to go out alone in the literal sense--no other human present for the bang/splatter.

[mswas]

Please note, selfish isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just states that the reasons for doing something are for your own benefit. Hell, breathing could be seen as selfish, as it's purpose is to extend my life.

Thank you. That usage of selfish as though it's only negative drives me crazy. Any act which benefits one's self is selfish. And yes, breathing is selfish. ;)

[begbert2]

However, probing a bit deeper into the issue, it seems like there are more complex ethical ramifications. My decision to not have children is simply because I don't want that level of responsibility, and would like to spend the time and disposable income that I would save on things I want. My argument applies to people whose reasons for childlessness are similar to mine; if you want to remain childless so you can devote your whole being to charity work or something like that, the implications are different.I reject this definition of selfish - if choosing to do things in the manner you think will produce an optimal result is itself selfish regardless of the harm or lack thereof it generates, then it's impossible to be both unselfish and rational at the same time. Merely taking care of onesself is not selfish; it's rational. Only when you accrue benefit at the expense of a detriment to somebody else is it selfish - and even then, you have to accrue a disproportionate benefit! If you're splitting a pie between four people, then it's not selfish to take a quarter of it, even though that deprives the others of the opportunity to divide that fourth among themselves. It's only selfish if you take more than your share and thus deprive them.

So. The question becomes, how does my failure to have children increase the burden on others disproportionately? Offhand I can't think of a way it could, unless we were running a severe people shortage - by which I mean, there are literally so few people around that if I don't have kids, then we wouldn't have enough hands to bail the ship of society and it would somehow sink or collapse. Short of that situation, it seems impossible to be selfish by not having kids.

(I think you can be selfish by having kids, though, if you are not able to support them properly. But there is no cost to society if you don't - presuming that you support yourself in your dotage through other means, or support societal institutions to do so in a sufficiently proportionate manner to your means and circumstance.)

[mswas]

So. The question becomes, how does my failure to have children increase the burden on others disproportionately? Offhand I can't think of a way it could, unless we were running a severe people shortage - by which I mean, there are literally so few people around that if I don't have kids, then we wouldn't have enough hands to bail the ship of society and it would somehow sink or collapse. Short of that situation, it seems impossible to be selfish by not having kids.

Which is indeed what's happening in parts of Europe, and particularly Japan.

[begbert2]

Which is indeed what's happening in parts of Europe, and particularly Japan.Is it really? I find that a little tough to believe. Maybe they can't maintian the same standard of comfort or prosperity as they've had, or whatever, but I find it hard to believe that they can't find enough physical people to keep essential services running.

[Palo Verde]

I don't see the decision to not have children as necessarily selfish, but many people don't have them for selfish reasons. If you don't want kids because you think you would be a bad parent, or have hereditary problems, etc, those are not selfish reasons to not have children. Wanting to spend all your money on gee-gaws and nights out on the town, well, those are selfish reasons.

However, I would certainly not want such a person to be a parent. If he or she has selfish reasons for not wanting a baby, then by all means don't have a baby. The last thing in the world we need are more babies being raised by selfish parents, or ones who would resent the children being there.

My sister and her husband have a son and I think they should have remained childless. They love him, but they clearly are more interested in their careers and are always thinking of ways to have other people care for him as much as possible. Selfish maybe.

But it is better to be selfish and childless than selfish with children.



Palo Verde (mother to 4 children)

[LavenderBlue]

I have a lot more respect for the childless by choice than I do for people like the Duggars and their nineteen kids by choice decision. If you recognize that being a parent isn't for you then good for you. There are many people who don't realize that fact until after they've had children.

[mswas]

Is it really? I find that a little tough to believe. Maybe they can't maintian the same standard of comfort or prosperity as they've had, or whatever, but I find it hard to believe that they can't find enough physical people to keep essential services running.

It's more of an issue when the society becomes top heavy, particularly in a welfare state. If too high a proportion of the population is taking from retirement funds, and not enough paying in, then it depletes the coffers. Services of course are relative to the size of a population. As the population determines the needs. But too many old people can indeed hurt a society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2809843/Japan-leads-world-in-demographic-decline.html

[mswas]

I have a lot more respect for the childless by choice than I do for people like the Duggars and their nineteen kids by choice decision. If you recognize that being a parent isn't for you then good for you. There are many people who don't realize that fact until after they've had children.

I don't get it. Why is the choice to remain childless better than the choice to have lots of kids?

Is it culture war aesthetics or is there some other reason?

[begbert2]

It's more of an issue when the society becomes top heavy, particularly in a welfare state. If too high a proportion of the population is taking from retirement funds, and not enough paying in, then it depletes the coffers. Services of course are relative to the size of a population. As the population determines the needs. But too many old people can indeed hurt a society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2809843/Japan-leads-world-in-demographic-decline.htmlThis sort of thing is a temporary situation, though - eventually the old folks will die off and society will restabilize to some degree. And regardless the problem in question is when people utterly fail to prevent themselves from requiring extra societal support in their old age - having kids is not the only way to do so. Personally I consider paying into social security or the equicalent to be sufficient, morally speaking, if you can live off your promised payments. And if that fund has been pillaged, then there are indeed moral issues - but not necessarily with the old people.

[begbert2]

I don't get it. Why is the choice to remain childless better than the choice to have lots of kids?

Is it culture war aesthetics or is there some other reason?When I hear of that, I generally doubt that they have the means or time to raise all those children properly. Admittedly, people who have lots of kids might be rich, maybe, but being Child#11 of 15 sounds like a sure recepe for parental attention to be spread thin regardless.

By comparison, it's difficult to neglect a kid you don't have.

[Cat Whisperer]

Japan has made their own bed by creating a society where the burden on women of having children is too massive for newly-somewhat-liberated women to consider taking it on. They need some serious societal change to get women back in a child-bearing state of mind again there. Their xenophobia isn't helping their situation either, I imagine. Canada doesn't have a fantastically high birth rate, but we have the highest rate of immigration in the world.

I think talking about obligations to continue the human race are somewhat absurd, because humans are so fertile and can hardly help themselves from reproducing wildly. There would have to be a significant change in human fertility for this part of the discussion to become relevant. Like Anaamika, I can see a situation where I would give birth to children if I had to, if it was "have kids or the human race dies," but we're nowhere near that (quite the opposite, in fact - it's more like, "keep having kids and we all die").

Being childfree by choice doesn't mean you don't feel any obligation to society, either. I belong to a childfree by choice social group, and we are a very generous bunch with charities and volunteer work - not to sound too obnoxious, but we have the time and money to do so.

[kanicbird]

My belief, based on faith, is that the desire of what we call sexuality, is spiritually the longing of the soul to give and bring forth life to a very aspect of their own being. As such is it the desire of our hearts, but we seldom listen to our hearts, and instead we listen to our heads, and build walls of protection around our hearts, which acts to imprison it, and most of the time live by our heads, which perceive the physical, instead of our hearts that perceive the spiritual.

Choosing to be childless, is of the mind as described by the OP, not of the heart, and can not fulfill the longing of one's heart, but just can serve to distract a person from that longing of their heart by substituting some other activity, such as charity work, which may also sometimes serve as a form of self inflicted punishment over guilt of not having a child.

[Cat Whisperer]

It's more of an issue when the society becomes top heavy, particularly in a welfare state. If too high a proportion of the population is taking from retirement funds, and not enough paying in, then it depletes the coffers. Services of course are relative to the size of a population. As the population determines the needs. But too many old people can indeed hurt a society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2809843/Japan-leads-world-in-demographic-decline.html
On the other side of that coin, we're now seeing our crime rates drop with an aging population.

kanicbird, my belief is that your belief is erroneous.*

*Please feel free to substitute a much stronger opinion here, but I won't post it because we're in Great Debates.

[mswas]

This sort of thing is a temporary situation, though - eventually the old folks will die off and society will restabilize to some degree. And regardless the problem in question is when people utterly fail to prevent themselves from requiring extra societal support in their old age - having kids is not the only way to do so. Personally I consider paying into social security or the equicalent to be sufficient, morally speaking, if you can live off your promised payments. And if that fund has been pillaged, then there are indeed moral issues - but not necessarily with the old people.

Sure 75 years from now Japan can recover. You do understand that social security is a Ponzi scheme that cannot pay out without population growth, or at the very least increase in GDP right?

[LavenderBlue]

I don't get it. Why is the choice to remain childless better than the choice to have lots of kids?

Is it culture war aesthetics or is there some other reason?

More along the lines of the choice to do it the way the Duggars do -- media whoring, strict gender roles, making the older kids care for the younger ones. The Duggars push it to extremes and deserved to be despised for it.

Most childless people aparently recognize that they aren't cut out to be parents. As long as you're not arguing against reducing the funding for my daughter's school I respect that decision more than I respect someone's decision to have a lot of children if they clearly cannot parent.

[suranyi]

I think all the talk of "selfishness" is a pure red herring.

If you don't want children, for any reason whatsoever, that's perfectly fine. Don't have children.

If you want children, and are willing and able to raise them, then go ahead and have children.

I've known people with wonderful, fulfilling lives in both categories.

The people I don't understand are the hard-core "childfree" who don't seem to want ANYONE to have children, and are resentful that most people do.

[begbert2]

You do understand that social security is a Ponzi scheme that cannot pay out without population growth, or at the very least increase in GDP right?I realize that no person can honestly compare social security* with a Ponzi scheme. Is that close enough?


* presuming it's honestly run, and the coffers aren't pillaged. If it is, it's turned into a ponzi scheme - but it's not one by nature.

[/off topic]


The people are don't understand are the hard-core "childfree" who don't seem to want ANYONE to have children, and are resentful that most people do.Such people exist? :dubious:

[mswas]

When I hear of that, I generally doubt that they have the means or time to raise all those children properly. Admittedly, people who have lots of kids might be rich, maybe, but being Child#11 of 15 sounds like a sure recepe for parental attention to be spread thin regardless.

By comparison, it's difficult to neglect a kid you don't have.

I think that's a very narrow view. First off you are defining neglect as not having individual attention from the parent. The idea that this is completely necessary is a presumption. Also, there is this general assumption that having to help raise your younger siblings is some kind of terrible hardship for older siblings. If they don't like that situation they can move out when they turn 18. Lots of people from large clans are very close, and sometimes they barely know their older siblings who moved out of the house before they were born. It's a different dynamic from our 2.5 kids suburban paradigm, but I don't see that as being the end-all be-all arbiter of social value.

When I got beat up in school, I kind of wish I had a couple of older brothers. ;) I was envious of the the Mexican kids who had these massive clans around them.

Japan has made their own bed by creating a society where the burden on women of having children is too massive for newly-somewhat-liberated women to consider taking it on. They need some serious societal change to get women back in a child-bearing state of mind again there. Their xenophobia isn't helping their situation either, I imagine. Canada doesn't have a fantastically high birth rate, but we have the highest rate of immigration in the world.

Immigration can solve some problems while creating others. If they properly assimilate then it's all good.

I think talking about obligations to continue the human race are somewhat absurd, because humans are so fertile and can hardly help themselves from reproducing wildly. There would have to be a significant change in human fertility for this part of the discussion to become relevant. Like Anaamika, I can see a situation where I would give birth to children if I had to, if it was "have kids or the human race dies," but we're nowhere near that (quite the opposite, in fact - it's more like, "keep having kids and we all die").

Sure, I agree.

Being childfree by choice doesn't mean you don't feel any obligation to society, either. I belong to a childfree by choice social group, and we are a very generous bunch with charities and volunteer work - not to sound too obnoxious, but we have the time and money to do so.

Well, to be honest when I hear the word, 'childfree', I automatically assume the person is a fanatic. You don't sound like a fanatic, and I am glad you have some social group that works for you, but to me it's an odd way to arrange yourself. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just odd to me. Even when I didn't have kids, I didn't see myself as childfree or anything, I just was a person who doesn't have kids. I think it's very cool that you're using your free time to volunteer and that you see contributing to society as a valuable thing.

[mswas]

More along the lines of the choice to do it the way the Duggars do -- media whoring, strict gender roles, making the older kids care for the younger ones. The Duggars push it to extremes and deserved to be despised for it.

The media whoring is one thing. The strict gender roles I can understand. I don't get at all the part where making older kids care for younger ones is a bad thing. Taking care of your younger siblings is more important and worthwhile and endeavor than playing X-Box all day.

Most childless people aparently recognize that they aren't cut out to be parents. As long as you're not arguing against reducing the funding for my daughter's school I respect that decision more than I respect someone's decision to have a lot of children if they clearly cannot parent.

Yeh, that's cool.

I realize that no person can honestly compare social security* with a Ponzi scheme. Is that close enough?

* presuming it's honestly run, and the coffers aren't pillaged. If it is, it's turned into a ponzi scheme - but it's not one by nature.

It's a Ponzi scheme by definition, you pay in and then when you get paid out it's from other people who came into it later who are currently paying in. It's not 'like' a Ponzi scheme. It's not at risk of becoming one due to mismanagement. It IS a Ponzi scheme, in the strictest sense.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>

Such people exist? :dubious:
Maybe he's talking about The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. (http://www.vhemt.org/) Like I said earlier, I belong to a CBC social group, and the most rabid amongst us don't want anything more than people respecting OUR reproductive choice - we'd also like it if people would look after their own children and not allow them to negatively impact us when we're out in the community. Maybe that's what suranyi is talking about; getting people who don't worship at the altar of children confused with people who don't think anyone should have kids.

[begbert2]

I think that's a very narrow view. First off you are defining neglect as not having individual attention from the parent. The idea that this is completely necessary is a presumption. Also, there is this general assumption that having to help raise your younger siblings is some kind of terrible hardship for older siblings. If they don't like that situation they can move out when they turn 18. Lots of people from large clans are very close, and sometimes they barely know their older siblings who moved out of the house before they were born. It's a different dynamic from our 2.5 kids suburban paradigm, but I don't see that as being the end-all be-all arbiter of social value.

When I got beat up in school, I kind of wish I had a couple of older brothers. ;) I was envious of the the Mexican kids who had these massive clans around them.Piffle on your "narrow view". I believe that as the number of children increases higher, the amount of proper parenting per child decreases. Does that mean that the children will all automatically turn into ax murderers after the tenth? Of course not. But it does mean that the parents are at best shoving off their own parental obligations onto others, like older siblings or their clan. And as the question is of parental selfishness, whether others pick up the slack or the kids manage just fine unattended is completely irrelevent.

I don't care if you think it's wonderful if everyone had twenty kids and ignored them completely. That's no reason for me to think such parents are being responsible or laudable, and it's not 'narrow' of me to continue to hold my opinion on this matter.

[mswas]

Maybe he's talking about The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. (http://www.vhemt.org/) Like I said earlier, I belong to a CBC social group, and the most rabid amongst us don't want anything more than people respecting OUR reproductive choice - we'd also like it if people would look after their own children and not allow them to negatively impact us when we're out in the community. Maybe that's what mswas is talking about; getting people who don't worship at the altar of children confused with people who don't think anyone should have kids.

No no, I am just saying the word, 'childfree', strikes me as a sort of PC fanaticism, as opposed to the standard English word, 'childless'. The word as I've had it explained by people who adhere to it came out of a sense that they were being oppressed by English syntax. 'I am not less because I do no have a child!'.

You know kind of like terms like, "worship at the altar of children.", which is a derogatory way to refer to people who propagate the species. Underneath it lurks a profound disrespect for people who do have kids.

I don't have any problem with you not having kids, I don't give a shit really. I have plenty of friends who are adults and have no kids nor any plans to. It simply is not something that bothers me particularly. I just always find it odd when people define themselves in relation to a negative characteristic. Negative in the mathematical sense. Defining one's self as being 'without children'. It's odd to me that something you choose not to do impacts you socially. You associate with other people who didn't decide to have kids. That the decision NOT to have kids is such a defining factor in your life.

I certainly know the difference between childfree and VHEMT. VHEMT is a whole 'nother animal. Childfree seems to me to be just another PoMo logical reduction that assumes that one can change people's attitudes by retuning the syntax of the language. It doesn't really work like that. Too much Chomsky on someone's shelf somewhere down the line.

'Worship at the altar of the child.', tells me that what undergirds the childfree movement is a kind of bigotry. It treats kids as a consumer product and reduces their value as real human beings, and forgets that you were once a child raised by parents too. There's also the common chip on the shoulde that assumes that every parent disapproves of your choices. Which is false, I don't disapprove of your choices at all, I just think that the way you choose to manifest it in your life is sort of weird. Kind of like Straight Edgers who think about drugs probably just as much as most drug users. For the vast majority of people who don't smoke pot, they simply don't think about pot very often, and do not belong to clubs of people who do not smoke pot. But for you, the fact that you don't want kids has become a central feature of your identity. So, that's weird to me. Seems a bit fanatical.

I am not carfree, I am carless, I do not own a car. So I guess what carfree says to me is that not owning a car is a feature of one's identity is some kind of cultural statement, rather than just the condition of not owning a car.

[suranyi]

Maybe he's talking about The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. (http://www.vhemt.org/) Like I said earlier, I belong to a CBC social group, and the most rabid amongst us don't want anything more than people respecting OUR reproductive choice - we'd also like it if people would look after their own children and not allow them to negatively impact us when we're out in the community. Maybe that's what suranyi is talking about; getting people who don't worship at the altar of children confused with people who don't think anyone should have kids.

Some people think they should never have any interaction with children in the world. That's impossible, unless nobody ever has any children.

[begbert2]

I am not carfree, I am carless, I do not own a car. So I guess what carfree says to me is that not owning a car is a feature of one's identity is some kind of cultural statement, rather than just the condition of not owning a car.I am carefree, but not careless. Does that count?

[mswas]

Piffle on your "narrow view". I believe that as the number of children increases higher, the amount of proper parenting per child decreases. Does that mean that the children will all automatically turn into ax murderers after the tenth? Of course not. But it does mean that the parents are at best shoving off their own parental obligations onto others, like older siblings or their clan. And as the question is of parental selfishness, whether others pick up the slack or the kids manage just fine unattended is completely irrelevent.

And what do you base these ideas off of? Your entire view looks at it negatively as though the benefits of having a clan are irrelevant, it is only what they don't have that we should judge the value of their cultural existence upon. They don't have 1 on 1 time with Mom and Dad like an only child does, and for every child past 1 it is some increment of abuse and neglect. I don't think it's abusive to have a 17 year old change a diaper, and I don't think it's neglectful as long as you are aware of who has what responsibility at what time.

I don't care if you think it's wonderful if everyone had twenty kids and ignored them completely. That's no reason for me to think such parents are being responsible or laudable, and it's not 'narrow' of me to continue to hold my opinion on this matter.

Are you even talking to me, or are you just going to make shit up? No one said, anything about 'laudable' but your assumption that it's irresponsible is simply an assertion. It is not harmful for a kid to be taken care of by an older sibling, not harmful to either sibling. And you don't know how much time the parents spend with their kids or not. Lots of only children are dumped with the nanny while their parents go do Yogalates.

[begbert2]

And what do you base these ideas off of? Your entire view looks at it negatively as though the benefits of having a clan are irrelevant, it is only what they don't have that we should judge the value of their cultural existence upon. They don't have 1 on 1 time with Mom and Dad like an only child does, and for every child past 1 it is some increment of abuse and neglect. I don't think it's abusive to have a 17 year old change a diaper, and I don't think it's neglectful as long as you are aware of who has what responsibility at what time.I base it off the idea that parenting should not be taken lightly. This is not rocket science.

Note that I only start really disapprooving when I have reason to believe that neglect (of parental responsibility - others may be picking up the slack as the child is concerned) is likely occurring. I know families where that started happening around the seventh kid. I've seen it happen on the fifth. (Heck, I've seen it happen on the first.) My disapprooval with regard to large families that I've never met is based on extrapolation, probability, and speculation. When I hear of some family having ninteen kids, I have to wonder whether they can handle it. If I hear that these kids happened in four -tuplet birth sets in rapid succession due to fertility treatments, I start to doubt it a lot faster. If I learn that those nineteen kids were on four wives in succession across thirty-two years, I doubt it a lot less. But absent further information I don't assume competent parenting of giant herds - that's silly.


Are you even talking to me, or are you just going to make shit up? No one said, anything about 'laudable' but your assumption that it's irresponsible is simply an assertion. It is not harmful for a kid to be taken care of by an older sibling, not harmful to either sibling. And you don't know how much time the parents spend with their kids or not. Lots of only children are dumped with the nanny while their parents go do Yogalates.I'm talking to you. Perhaps if you figure out what you're arguing that would help. 'Cause I'm not arguing that all single parents are good parents here (though all childless ones are). I was specifically answering "I don't get it. Why is the choice to remain childless better than the choice to have lots of kids?" My answer is that for certain definitions of "lots", I suspect that the parents are having the kids for other reasons than that they want to be good parents to them, and thus there's an increasing chance that they're going to be pooching the job of parenting as the number of kids goes up. Whereas with single parents, there's no real way they can screw up the non-parenting.

[Voyager]

Piffle on your "narrow view". I believe that as the number of children increases higher, the amount of proper parenting per child decreases. Does that mean that the children will all automatically turn into ax murderers after the tenth? Of course not. But it does mean that the parents are at best shoving off their own parental obligations onto others, like older siblings or their clan. And as the question is of parental selfishness, whether others pick up the slack or the kids manage just fine unattended is completely irrelevent.

I don't care if you think it's wonderful if everyone had twenty kids and ignored them completely. That's no reason for me to think such parents are being responsible or laudable, and it's not 'narrow' of me to continue to hold my opinion on this matter.

It will be interesting to read what the Duggar kids have to say in twenty years, assuming that they escape from their brainwashing. However, I'd worry more about those families without TV contracts and iron hands, and how their 12 kids turn out.

[mswas]

I base it off the idea that parenting should not be taken lightly. This is not rocket science.

And still more argument by assertion. Why do you think that someone who has that many kids takes their obligations lightly?

Note that I only start really disapprooving when I have reason to believe that neglect (of parental responsibility - others may be picking up the slack as the child is concerned) is likely occurring. I know families where that started happening around the seventh kid. I've seen it happen on the fifth. (Heck, I've seen it happen on the first.) My disapprooval with regard to large families that I've never met is based on extrapolation, probability, and speculation. When I hear of some family having ninteen kids, I have to wonder whether they can handle it. If I hear that these kids happened in four -tuplet birth sets in rapid succession due to fertility treatments, I start to doubt it a lot faster. If I learn that those nineteen kids were on four wives in succession across thirty-two years, I doubt it a lot less. But absent further information I don't assume competent parenting of giant herds - that's silly.

Ok, this has some more meat in it, at least your anecdotal experience. I am not sure it's a quantity issue. Some people are neglectful of their first and only kid. Agreed about people spreading franchises all over the country, but that's not what the Duggars have done.


I'm talking to you. Perhaps if you figure out what you're arguing that would help. 'Cause I'm not arguing that all single parents are good parents here (though all childless ones are). I was specifically answering "I don't get it. Why is the choice to remain childless better than the choice to have lots of kids?" My answer is that for certain definitions of "lots", I suspect that the parents are having the kids for other reasons than that they want to be good parents to them, and thus there's an increasing chance that they're going to be pooching the job of parenting as the number of kids goes up. Whereas with single parents, there's no real way they can screw up the non-parenting.

You just made this comment about 'laudable' as though you have to either think their choice is pure awesome, or pure terrible. I don't have to think that having 19 kids is the way to go just because I don't automatically assume it's a bad thing.

Your argument really does boil down to an armchair psychoanalysis of people you've never met. Though I do respect that if you've known a lot of families that were very large and feel they were neglectful then I can see where you are coming from. I really don't see why having older kids help raise younger kids is a bad thing. It seems to come down to this nebulous idea of 'liberty' that the freedom of children to be indolent is somehow paramount and sacrosanct.

[mswas]

It will be interesting to read what the Duggar kids have to say in twenty years, assuming that they escape from their brainwashing. However, I'd worry more about those families without TV contracts and iron hands, and how their 12 kids turn out.

What do your kids say now that they have escaped their brainwashing? ;p

[Voyager]

My belief, based on faith, is that the desire of what we call sexuality, is spiritually the longing of the soul to give and bring forth life to a very aspect of their own being. As such is it the desire of our hearts, but we seldom listen to our hearts, and instead we listen to our heads, and build walls of protection around our hearts, which acts to imprison it, and most of the time live by our heads, which perceive the physical, instead of our hearts that perceive the spiritual.

Choosing to be childless, is of the mind as described by the OP, not of the heart, and can not fulfill the longing of one's heart, but just can serve to distract a person from that longing of their heart by substituting some other activity, such as charity work, which may also sometimes serve as a form of self inflicted punishment over guilt of not having a child.

You should consider the possibility that for some people not having kids is definitely of the heart. My head and my heart both agreed that having children is something I wanted to do, but I accept that lots of people are not like me.
It is possible that in 20 years some people who didn't want children will regret it, but it is just as possible that some who did want children will regret that decision also. The former mistake only affects the person making it, while the latter affects the person, the children, and possibly society as a whole. Do we really want to pressure people to possibly make this mistake?

[panache45]

Considering that we're closing in on a worldwide population of 7 billion, I don't think the addition of one more squalling brat is a virtue.

[mswas]

Considering that we're closing in on a worldwide population of 7 billion, I don't think the addition of one more squalling brat is a virtue.

Would you be willing to give up your social security so that you can decrease the burden on my squalling brats when you retire?

[vivalostwages]

My belief, based on faith, is that the desire of what we call sexuality, is spiritually the longing of the soul to give and bring forth life to a very aspect of their own being. As such is it the desire of our hearts, but we seldom listen to our hearts, and instead we listen to our heads, and build walls of protection around our hearts, which acts to imprison it, and most of the time live by our heads, which perceive the physical, instead of our hearts that perceive the spiritual.

Choosing to be childless, is of the mind as described by the OP, not of the heart, and can not fulfill the longing of one's heart, but just can serve to distract a person from that longing of their heart by substituting some other activity, such as charity work, which may also sometimes serve as a form of self inflicted punishment over guilt of not having a child.

Yeah, every time I have a period, I put a bag of stuff into the charity drop box.

[Jackmannii]

My belief, based on faith, is that the desire of what we call sexuality, is spiritually the longing of the soul to give and bring forth life to a very aspect of their own being. As such is it the desire of our hearts, but we seldom listen to our hearts*, and instead we listen to our headsMostly it's other organs that are involved.

Although I think your comments could be the genesis of some interesting pickup lines.

*This caused quite a bit of trouble for the lead character in Miller's Crossing.

[Steve MB]

In a similar vein, does the current generation of people of childbearing age and means have an obligation to raise a future generation of productive individuals, both for our own collective benefit and for the future of the human race? Obviously if everyone chose like I did, humanity would be in deep fudge.

A few examples to highlight the underlying fallacy (equating the individual with the group):

I choose not to personally maintain the sewer system. Obviously if everyone chose like I did, epidemics of cholera and suchlike would break out within weeks.

I choose not to personally police the streets. Obviously if everyone chose like I did, our cities would be overrun with criminals (at least until they died of cholera along with the rest of us).

I choose not to personally join the military. Obviously if everyone chose like I did, foreign invaders would be contesting the control of the cities with the aforementioned criminals. (Memo to invaders: bring plenty of medical support for the cholera epidemic.)

I trust that the point is well and truly illustrated, and that I need not continue in this vein.

[Steve MB]

we seldom listen to our hearts, and instead we listen to our heads

On the contrary -- all my experience is that people are rather too inclined to follow their hearts off a cliff when their heads are desperately yelling "Whoa!"

[Steve MB]

It will be interesting to read what the Duggar kids have to say in twenty years, assuming that they escape from their brainwashing.

Is escape from brainwashing indicated by eating their porridge with sugar, or without?

[Anne Neville]

Obviously if everyone chose like I did, humanity would be in deep fudge.

And if everybody chose to pay off their credit card bills in full every month like I do, the economy would be even worse than it is. Just because society would be worse off if everybody chose to do something doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do.

It is possible that in 20 years some people who didn't want children will regret it, but it is just as possible that some who did want children will regret that decision also.

No decision you will ever make comes with a guarantee that you won't ever regret it.

Yes, there are people who regret having kids. It's not considered a good thing to say out loud, but that doesn't mean nobody ever feels that way.

Yeah, every time I have a period, I put a bag of stuff into the charity drop box.

Gross! That's not what you're supposed to do with your used pads/tampons!

[TruCelt]

I think the selfishness is more toward your antecedents. Generations of people have sacrificed greatly in order to provide for children in your line, specifically for the purpose of continuing the line. (Or I hope they have. Not every parent does, unfortunately.) If you have siblings (or even cousins) with children, it's a very different decision than if you are an only child. (Unfair, but true.)

That doesn't say that I think it's a good idea to pressure anyone to procreate. I absolutely do not believe that anyone should have a child unless it is the be-all end-all desire of their life; because I believe that children do deserve to be raised by devoted and loving parents. And once you have kids, it really does become the primary focus of your existence, at least for quite a few years.

That said, I also think that the primary purpose of a society is to cooperate in the raising of children. In the days when I thought it would never happen for me, I never minded paying taxes for schools, and even ran a reading program for children in the local homeless shelter on a volunteer basis. So yeah, I feel pretty strongly about that one. ;)

In the final analysis, only the individual can decide what he/she owes to the family. And the primary thing we owe to society is an honest and well-considered decision on whether we are willing to devote the necessary energy to raising children well.

The worst thing we can do to society is create children we don't intend to raise well. This can mitigated by an early and honest appraisal of the situation, and a willingness to allow the child to be raised by someone who does want the responsibility.

[begbert2]

And still more argument by assertion. Why do you think that someone who has that many kids takes their obligations lightly?

Ok, this has some more meat in it, at least your anecdotal experience. I am not sure it's a quantity issue. Some people are neglectful of their first and only kid. Agreed about people spreading franchises all over the country, but that's not what the Duggars have done.This meat goes with the potatoes of the first line, of course - not every paragraph break is a complete change of subject. Say what you're going to say, say what you're saying, say what you said...

Logically, if a parent has a large number of small children, they will be less able to spend as much time on each child as a person with fewer children, absent knowledge of other distinguishing factors. So, it is certainly a quantity issue. This is not subject to debate. I'm not sure why you're trying to debate it.

Of course, there are many factors that influence this one way or the other, most notably the spacing of the children. If you have a newborn, a one-year-old, a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old, and a five-year-old, then I can personally guarantee that you're not going to be spending large amounts of individualized quality time with each child. That is a *given*. (I can also say with a fair amount of certainty that you'll be an exhausted wreck, unless you're not participating in raising them at all.) Whereas if you have those same six kids all two or three years apart from one another, that's a very very very different situation. And that's only one of many factors that influence this. Is there a parent who stays at home 24-7? How long and hard do the working parents work? And what's the temperament of the parents, anyway?

And that's not even mentioning the factors that have nothing to do with the parent's ability and incliniation to discharge their personal responsibilities, like number of other siblings and whatnot - which are omitted because they are irrelevent to the current discussion.

You just made this comment about 'laudable' as though you have to either think their choice is pure awesome, or pure terrible. I don't have to think that having 19 kids is the way to go just because I don't automatically assume it's a bad thing.Piffle, it's possible for something to be slightly laudable too. There's no need to push everything towards desperate hyperbole, even though it might be convenient for you if I was as extremist and irritational as you're trying to present me as.

Your argument really does boil down to an armchair psychoanalysis of people you've never met. Though I do respect that if you've known a lot of families that were very large and feel they were neglectful then I can see where you are coming from. I really don't see why having older kids help raise younger kids is a bad thing. It seems to come down to this nebulous idea of 'liberty' that the freedom of children to be indolent is somehow paramount and sacrosanct.This thread is about personal responsibilities. Is it "selfish" to avoid having children or not, that's the question.

I think it's more selfish to have kids and dump them on your older children to raise. In fact, I think that's obviously the more selfish of the two situations!

It's a true fact that kids are remarkably resilient - you can be a pretty bad parent and get pretty good kids out of it, presuming you don't go to horrific extremes in your abuse of them. But this just means that having kids turn out okay does not show that the parents were good and responsible regarding their parental duties.

[norinew]

The worst thing we can do to society is create children we don't intend to raise well. This can mitigated by an early and honest appraisal of the situation, and a willingness to allow the child to be raised by someone who does want the responsibility.
QFT! Having just moved out of an economically challenged city, into an even more economically challenged town, I have seen more than my fair share of people who have had children not because they wanted children, but because they couldn't be bothered not to have them. Ugh.

If you want children (as I did) and can support them (as we could, though we did have a couple of tough years when we had to seek heating assistance and such), and you love and care for them, good on ya! And if you recognize that you are one of those folks who should not have children (my mother was one such person; she should never have been allowed to reproduce, though she did it five times!), and do not want to care for/support/discipline children, then choose to take measures to not reproduce, good on ya!

I do not understand this mindset certain people seem to get that what they feel is right for them is right for everyone.

It could be having children vs not having children
Homeschooling vs not homeschooling
Religion vs atheism
Vegetarianism vs carnivorism (is that even a word?)

Anything.

There is no one right answer for everyone.

But the world would be a better place if everyone based their answers on what they think rather than the fact that they can't be bothered to think!

[Grumman]

There is no one right answer for everyone.
Not in this particular case, but I disagree with this as a general statement. Sometimes one choice is objectively worse than the other.

[mswas]

Logically, if a parent has a large number of small children, they will be less able to spend as much time on each child as a person with fewer children, absent knowledge of other distinguishing factors. So, it is certainly a quantity issue. This is not subject to debate. I'm not sure why you're trying to debate it.

Sigh, here you go again. Not understanding the person you are arguing with and then acting superior as a result. So lets break it down in bite-sized chunks for you, the purpose of those line breaks BTW.

Now, you are arguing that quantity of parental attention is the only arbiter of value in a familial relationship. The quantity of attention by other family members is ignored in order to suit your argument.

Of course, there are many factors that influence this one way or the other, most notably the spacing of the children. If you have a newborn, a one-year-old, a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old, and a five-year-old, then I can personally guarantee that you're not going to be spending large amounts of individualized quality time with each child. That is a *given*. (I can also say with a fair amount of certainty that you'll be an exhausted wreck, unless you're not participating in raising them at all.) Whereas if you have those same six kids all two or three years apart from one another, that's a very very very different situation. And that's only one of many factors that influence this. Is there a parent who stays at home 24-7? How long and hard do the working parents work? And what's the temperament of the parents, anyway?

So what? The children interact with one another. I didn't get a lot of individualized attention from my Father because he read Sci Fi novels, and my daughter would get more attention if there wasn't so much to do on the internet. I don't buy the idea that a kid needs constant individualized attention. The trick is to be available when they need you.

And that's not even mentioning the factors that have nothing to do with the parent's ability and incliniation to discharge their personal responsibilities, like number of other siblings and whatnot - which are omitted because they are irrelevent to the current discussion.

Right of course, because a parent can be 'organized' and delegate responsibilities in the home. I'd imagine a home with a dozen kids would be pretty easy to get mopped. Therefore it's something the parent doesn't need to do. After the first kid hits about 7 or so, you shouldn't have to touch a vacuum ever again.

Piffle, it's possible for something to be slightly laudable too. There's no need to push everything towards desperate hyperbole, even though it might be convenient for you if I was as extremist and irritational as you're trying to present me as.

Hey man, it's your hyperbole, I can throw it out if you wish. I found it annoying too.

This thread is about personal responsibilities. Is it "selfish" to avoid having children or not, that's the question.

Yes, it is selfish, of course it's selfish. But the real question is whether or not it's bad selfish.

I think it's more selfish to have kids and dump them on your older children to raise. In fact, I think that's obviously the more selfish of the two situations!

'Obviously', he asserts.

Whether or not it is more or less selfish is actually unimportant. Comparative selfishness is a meaningless metric. Selfishness in its negative connotation is a subjective nonsense word that tells us pretty much nothing about the object being observed, and much about the observer. From what you are telling me, I have learned NOTHING about the Duggars but much about your own personal bias. I've never liked the word 'selfish' in that usage because the vast majority of human action can be characterized as selfish. Eating dinner is selfish. Is it more or less selfish than taking a shit?

It's a true fact that kids are remarkably resilient - you can be a pretty bad parent and get pretty good kids out of it, presuming you don't go to horrific extremes in your abuse of them. But this just means that having kids turn out okay does not show that the parents were good and responsible regarding their parental duties.

I don't think that a parent who has lots of kids is automagically a bad parent. You seem like you do. A person can be a good parent and delegate responsibilities to younger children. We aren't talking about objective quantities here but subjective qualities. Large families are not tortured by their environment any more than lonely only children who get lots of attention from a smothering mother. They can learn a lot by being given responsibilities. I had to babysit my sister as a child and had lots of chores, and to be honest, neither of those things would I quote as being what fucked me up.

[Voyager]

What do your kids say now that they have escaped their brainwashing? ;p

Happy campers, both. Atheists too - my brainwashing was very effective. :D

[mswas]

Happy campers, both. Atheists too - my brainwashing was very effective. :D

I see. Congrats.

[Cat Whisperer]

This is just anecdotal, of course, but I did know a woman who was the oldest of 10 kids in a fundamentalist Christian household - she had no kids and didn't want to have any kids because, in her words, she'd raised enough kids already. I can easily see the older Duggar children having similar sentiments (if they haven't been fully brainwashed into thinking that their only purpose on earth is to bear and rear children).

[mswas]

This is just anecdotal, of course, but I did know a woman who was the oldest of 10 kids in a fundamentalist Christian household - she had no kids and didn't want to have any kids because, in her words, she'd raised enough kids already. I can easily see the older Duggar children having similar sentiments (if they haven't been fully brainwashed into thinking that their only purpose on earth is to bear and rear children).

There you go with that brainwashing word again.

I've been brainwashing my daughter into being able to read early as best as I can. I read to her all the time, and she knows her full alphabet both upper and lower case, she's two. The brainwashing seems to be taking.

[Jackmannii]

I think the selfishness is more toward your antecedents. Generations of people have sacrificed greatly in order to provide for children in your line, specifically for the purpose of continuing the line. Yes, it's an awesome responsibility. One's line has a unique genetic complement which must be preserved. After all, what would the Elders say?

[Voyager]

This is just anecdotal, of course, but I did know a woman who was the oldest of 10 kids in a fundamentalist Christian household - she had no kids and didn't want to have any kids because, in her words, she'd raised enough kids already. I can easily see the older Duggar children having similar sentiments (if they haven't been fully brainwashed into thinking that their only purpose on earth is to bear and rear children).

My use of the term brainwashing was snarky, of course, but I have seen a couple of episodes of that show, so I'm not totally working on biases. I suppose brainwashing is kind of required to make life bearable in a family that big, just like we train our dogs to make them well behaved. But how much of their childhood are the older kids giving up for their parents breeding desires? When I was a teenager I read voraciously in all sorts of areas, a habit that has served me well. Would I really be a better person, or more productive to society, if I had been looking after a dozen younger siblings instead? I sense that some people who think that this is great assume that kids not kept busy this way would be drug using, drag racing, fornicating monsters if not kept busy every second. Idle hands may not be the devils tools, they might hold a pen or a paintbrush instead.

[begbert2]

Sigh, here you go again. Not understanding the person you are arguing with and then acting superior as a result. So lets break it down in bite-sized chunks for you, the purpose of those line breaks BTW.

Now, you are arguing that quantity of parental attention is the only arbiter of value in a familial relationship.I read this far and didn't read another word. If you are going to go this far in blatantly, overtly, and deliberately misrepresenting my postion, then you have nothing worthwhile to say, much less respond to.

[norinew]

Not in this particular case, but I disagree with this as a general statement. Sometimes one choice is objectively worse than the other.
I do agree that in some cases, there is a correct answer; I'm referring to those things that are really choices, and yet, some people choose to treat the fact that others make different choices as a personal affront. ;)

[begbert2]

I do agree that in some cases, there is a correct answer; I'm referring to those things that are really choices, and yet, some people choose to treat the fact that others make different choices as a personal affront. ;)The word you want is "opinions". When I choose not to punch babies in the face, that's still a choice.

[Wesley Clark]

It's more of an issue when the society becomes top heavy, particularly in a welfare state. If too high a proportion of the population is taking from retirement funds, and not enough paying in, then it depletes the coffers. Services of course are relative to the size of a population. As the population determines the needs. But too many old people can indeed hurt a society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2809843/Japan-leads-world-in-demographic-decline.html

Replacement total fertility rate is about 2.1 and nations like the wealthy ones in Europe and Asia sometimes only have 1.3 or so. So their population is declining, however it is also spurring innovation.

The abolition of slavery helped promote investments into industrialization. So has crackdown on illegal immigrant labor for agricultural work, it has led to investments in labor saving devices.

In Japan they are investing heavily in robotics because they know the low childbirth rate is going to screw up the country. A nation where 40% are elderly and 25%+ of the working age adults are taking care of them cannot sustain itself.

Is not totally the same thing as a top heavy welfare state, but a society high in elderly with a labor shortage has a strong incentive to innovate to improve productivity which will benefit everyone.

[mswas]

I read this far and didn't read another word. If you are going to go this far in blatantly, overtly, and deliberately misrepresenting my postion, then you have nothing worthwhile to say, much less respond to.

Suit yourself. You haven't made your case very well in any event.

[mswas]

My use of the term brainwashing was snarky, of course, but I have seen a couple of episodes of that show, so I'm not totally working on biases. I suppose brainwashing is kind of required to make life bearable in a family that big, just like we train our dogs to make them well behaved. But how much of their childhood are the older kids giving up for their parents breeding desires? When I was a teenager I read voraciously in all sorts of areas, a habit that has served me well. Would I really be a better person, or more productive to society, if I had been looking after a dozen younger siblings instead? I sense that some people who think that this is great assume that kids not kept busy this way would be drug using, drag racing, fornicating monsters if not kept busy every second. Idle hands may not be the devils tools, they might hold a pen or a paintbrush instead.

Right, and thus your entire position is that children are consumer products and sibling relationships have no value of their own. That holding a pen or a paintbrush is more valuable than say teaching your little brother to fish, or teaching your little sister to paint.

[begbert2]

Suit yourself. You haven't made your case very well in any event.I made it well enough that you felt the need to resort to blatantly fraudulent argument to try and refute it, which is good enough for me.

[mswas]

I made it well enough that you felt the need to resort to blatantly fraudulent argument to try and refute it, which is good enough for me.

So you'd rather believe I was lying than believe that's how I understood what you were saying?

Suit yourself.

[begbert2]

So you'd rather believe I was lying than believe that's how I understood what you were saying?

Suit yourself.It would be more accurate to say that I have a high opinion of your intelligence and reading comprehension.

[Wesley Clark]

Japan has made their own bed by creating a society where the burden on women of having children is too massive for newly-somewhat-liberated women to consider taking it on. They need some serious societal change to get women back in a child-bearing state of mind again there. Their xenophobia isn't helping their situation either, I imagine. Canada doesn't have a fantastically high birth rate, but we have the highest rate of immigration in the world.




I don't think it is Japan's attitude towards women alone that is doing that. There are over 70 countries whose total fertility rate is below replacement levels of 2.1. However Germany, Italy, Spain & Switzerland have replacement rate is just as low at about 1.4. So I don't think you can attribute it towards attitudes towards women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

In fact France has instituted policies to encourage childbirth. I think they have 3 year maternal leave and offer huge incentives to women who have a 3rd child. On top of that tertiary education and healthcare are very cheap in France. But their TFR is still below replacement rates at 1.89.

I'm not having kids because I do not want the obligation. However another part is that I do not want them to suffer in the world we have. I wonder how big a role the latter attitude plays, just not wanting your kids to suffer.

It seems the lowest fertility replacement rates are in western europe, eastern europe and wealthy nations in southeast asia. I'm not sure what that is about.

Going over the TFR list, I think Israel is the only wealthy democracy with a TFR higher than replacement rates at 2.75. All the other wealthy democracies are closer to 1.3-1.8.

I wonder if it is Maslow's hierarchy or something. Maybe as you live in a nation where your basic needs are met you are free to obsess over psychological suffering and injustice instead, which makes you not want to have kids exposed to those things.

[mswas]

It would be more accurate to say that I have a high opinion of your intelligence and reading comprehension.

I think we probably esteem the other about equally.

You kept talking about quantity of time spent with the parents. I'm sorry I am not smart enough to read between the lines on that one. ;)

[begbert2]

I don't think it is Japan's attitude towards women alone that is doing that. There are over 70 countries whose total fertility rate is below replacement levels of 2.1. However Germany, Italy, Spain & Switzerland have replacement rate is just as low at about 1.4. So I don't think you can attribute it towards attitudes towards women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

In fact France has instituted policies to encourage childbirth. I think they have 3 year maternal leave and offer huge incentives to women who have a 3rd child. On top of that tertiary education and healthcare are very cheap in France. But their TFR is still below replacement rates at 1.89.

I'm not having kids because I do not want the obligation. However another part is that I do not want them to suffer in the world we have. I wonder how big a role the latter attitude plays, just not wanting your kids to suffer.

It seems the lowest fertility replacement rates are in western europe, eastern europe and wealthy nations in southeast asia. I'm not sure what that is about.

Going over the TFR list, I think Israel is the only wealthy democracy with a TFR higher than replacement rates at 2.75. All the other wealthy democracies are closer to 1.3-1.8.

I wonder if it is Maslow's hierarchy or something. Maybe as you live in a nation where your basic needs are met you are free to obsess over psychological suffering and injustice instead, which makes you not want to have kids exposed to those things.Is there a correlation with the 'level of religiouosity' of those countries? In my personal life I've seen a strong correlation between being religious and having lots of babies.

[Bryan Ekers]

I intend to go out alone in the literal sense--no other human present for the bang/splatter.

So you're just gonna leave a big stinky mess for someone to discover a week later and have to clean up?


Hmph, talk about selfish....

[Wesley Clark]

Is there a correlation with the 'level of religiouosity' of those countries? In my personal life I've seen a strong correlation between being religious and having lots of babies.

The biggest correlation is between TFR and per capita wealth. Once per capita wealth hits $5000 or so the TFR drops to 3 or less. All the nations with rates of 5-8 are underdeveloped & poor nations.

There doesn't seem to be a big difference via religion. The scandanavian nations and France are extremely agnostic while nations like Italy have higher belief rates. But TFR is roughly the same in all.

There might be a correlation (I think there is) between religious fundamentalists who teach backwards/no information about sex and contraception and as a result have tons of teen pregnancies and no abortions. But I don't know how you'd correct for that.

[mswas]

So you're just gonna leave a big stinky mess for someone to discover a week later and have to clean up?


Hmph, talk about selfish....

Heh, no matter how he dies, this will be the case. Well, leaving a big stinky mess.

[begbert2]

Heh, no matter how he dies, this will be the case. Well, leaving a big stinky mess.You could go out of your way to die in a public place where you would be noticed quickly - something like quietly poisoning yourself at a table in a nice restraunt. That way they'd find you before you stank up the place.

Edit - this is DEFINITELY the generic 'you'. I am NOT suggesting any specific or general person try this at home...

[mswas]

You could go out of your way to die in a public place where you would be noticed quickly - something like quietly poisoning yourself at a table in a nice restraunt. That way they'd find you before you stank up the place.

Sure. Maybe he'll be kind enough to blow his brains out above an incinerator. ;)

[marshmallow]

I'm a little surprised no one's brought up anti-natalism. (http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/)

Choosing to live versus choosing to make a new life are very different things. It is the difference between betting your own money at the casino and betting someone else's.

Some years back, I was about to have our old dog, Barney, put to sleep. As the day of the act approached, the truth of the matter finally sank into my daughter. Crying, she asked me, "But, if this is all life's about, what is the point?" I believe it is this fundamental question, emerging not from the intellect, but from the emotions, that begins this spin into fantasy land, through a heartfelt need to deny reality. Unfortunately, we are all too willing to build utopian bridges with the bones of the subsequent generations we continue to breed, never realizing that all these bridges are, in fact, vicious circles leading back to where we started. Trite, but true.

Let it end, people. Stop breeding.

Every child born, is a child condemned to some degree of suffering according to the luck of the draw, and to death. Always. And yet, all human suffering could be eliminated in a single generation. In a sea of preposterously imaginary solutions, there is one absolutely sure way to end suffering, and death. Simply...stop...breeding. It's as easy as a trip to the drugstore, or an outpatient visit.

Don't have children. There'll be nobody to thank you for it, and that's what makes it such a selfless, philanthropic act. Let each death be final; faced squarely for what it is, instead of buying into this ludicrously deceptive hedging of bets that procreation tempts us with. Let the end truly be the end, and know that, in eliminating human suffering and death, you are doing a good thing. A very good thing.

Summary: Bringing someone from a state of non-existence into existence is committing a serious wrong because all the wrongs in a lifetime are in that single act.

In short, it'd be better if a giant rock hit the earth and we all died in a fire. Otherwise humans may radiate out in space and time. Imagine the untold billions, maybe trillions of suffering souls extending forever into the future. It could be stopped here and now.

That's the philosophy, anyway. Obviously it won't work because of the biological imperative. Fucking is very popular.

[mswas]

I fully support anti-natalists dying out.

Suffering is not a bad thing.

Summary: Bringing someone from a state of non-existence into existence is committing a serious wrong because all the wrongs in a lifetime are in that single act.

I actually knew this going into it and chose to breed anyway. Because it's utterly beside the point. I want to see humanity spread far and wide across the cosmos, suffering all the way.

[begbert2]

Suffering is not a bad thing.Well, it is, and if it seriously was the case that all people suffered all the time sufficiently to counterbalance and override any happiness they might otherwise have, then bring on the comet.

But that ain't the way it is for most of us. Not since the invention of toilet paper anyway.

[mswas]

Well, it is, and if it seriously was the case that all people suffered all the time sufficiently to counterbalance and override any happiness they might otherwise have, then bring on the comet.

Assumption that the hedonic imperative is the primary arbiter of value in life.

I reject such an assumption. Life isn't about being happy. It's about having experiences. Some of those are pleasurable and some are painful.

But that ain't the way it is for most of us. Not since the invention of toilet paper anyway.

Heh, well inventions that make life more pleasant and contribute to overall well-being are all well and good, but they don't end suffering, they just take away suffering piece-meal.

[Clothahump]

I do not have children of my direct bloodline. During the time that would have been my "prime" reproductive years, I did not feel that I would be a good father to any child I produced. That would not have been fair to the child in the slightest.

By the time I felt that I could have been a parent, I was too old. I did, however, raise two stepkids, so I have not missed out on all of the joys of parenthood.

[Measure for Measure]

In an overpopulated world, one less child is a wonderful thing. Would you be willing to give up your social security so that you can decrease the burden on my squalling brats when you retire? ...but once they are born, they are welcome with open arms.

Even in an overpopulated world, the optimal birth rate is somewhere north of zero. So while one less child (for families of any size) is a good thing, there's no need to declare jihad on the rest. I want to see humanity spread far and wide across the cosmos, suffering all the way. In practice, the two goals are in confict. Richer societies are the ones that can afford luxuries such as space exploration. Heck, richer societies are the sorts that can provide a wider variety of experiences for their citizenry as well.

[Cat Whisperer]

Richer societies are the ones where you have the luxury of debating the ethical implications of having children. :)

[toofs]

Male, late thirties, married for six years, together for eight. Happy without children.

I simply don't like kids. I never wanted to give up the independence having children would entail. My wife and I have the freedom to travel when and where we want, do what we want, not deal with the headaches of creating new humans. I personally never saw the appeal.

That said, children are great if you are the right kind of person. Most people would agree that not everyone should become parents regardless of societal pressures to do so.

At the Department of Motor Vehicles I saw a poster of "deadbeat dads" wanted for not paying their child support payments. Those guys clearly should not have continued their geneology. I am amazed when people I meet are genuinely shocked when they find out I don't have little toofs and that I never wanted to make little toofs.

The ethical implications of remaining childless by choice? It is a correct decision if you are not going to be an involved and loving parent. Ignore the cultural, religious and social pressures. There are too many humans alive now anyway. We do not need more.

[Rune]

Summary: Bringing someone from a state of non-existence into existence is committing a serious wrong because all the wrongs in a lifetime are in that single act.

In short, it'd be better if a giant rock hit the earth and we all died in a fire. Otherwise humans may radiate out in space and time. Imagine the untold billions, maybe trillions of suffering souls extending forever into the future. It could be stopped here and now.

That's the philosophy, anyway. Obviously it won't work because of the biological imperative. Fucking is very popular.Reminds me of the opening sentence of the The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Anyway. I see people not wanting children not having children as merely evolution doing its bits: weeding out the evolutionary speaking inferior genes. And for once evolution does seem to help produce a more happy humanity. When those people not wanting to have children tend to remove themselves from the common human gene pool, humanity as a whole will hopefully evolve towards a more loving species.

[Nava]

I think the selfishness is more toward your antecedents. Generations of people have sacrificed greatly in order to provide for children in your line, specifically for the purpose of continuing the line. (Or I hope they have. Not every parent does, unfortunately.) If you have siblings (or even cousins) with children, it's a very different decision than if you are an only child. (Unfair, but true.)

My main reason for not having kids is the antecedents on the female line, though. There's something like two ancestors in that line that sound like their genes might be worth preserving, up to and including my mother's great-grandparents. The other reason has been the notion that if I ever reproduced, there should be a second adult involved in it.


And by the way, "not reproducing" is not the same as "not raising children." Some of us lateral-reproductors help raise other people's children or have taken up the compromise to raise other people's children if the parents can't. People who adopt aren't reproducing, but I think very few people would consider them "childless."

[furt]

You could go out of your way to die in a public place where you would be noticed quickly - something like quietly poisoning yourself at a table in a nice restraunt. That way they'd find you before you stank up the place.I am not sure the restaurant owners would appreciate this. Might dampen trade a wee bit.

[Malthus]

I'm a little surprised no one's brought up anti-natalism. (http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/)

Choosing to live versus choosing to make a new life are very different things. It is the difference between betting your own money at the casino and betting someone else's.





Summary: Bringing someone from a state of non-existence into existence is committing a serious wrong because all the wrongs in a lifetime are in that single act.

In short, it'd be better if a giant rock hit the earth and we all died in a fire. Otherwise humans may radiate out in space and time. Imagine the untold billions, maybe trillions of suffering souls extending forever into the future. It could be stopped here and now.

That's the philosophy, anyway. Obviously it won't work because of the biological imperative. Fucking is very popular.

I ususally think that most people have a grain of sense in what they say, even if I disagree on the whole with their opinion. Can't say that about the anti-Natalists though. They seem to have some fundamental screw loose.

[norinew]

I am not sure the restaurant owners would appreciate this. Might dampen trade a wee bit.
Are you kidding?!?!? I bet it would be better publicity than any they could pay for!;)

[Cat Whisperer]

R<snip> When those people not wanting to have children tend to remove themselves from the common human gene pool, humanity as a whole will hopefully evolve towards a more loving species.
All you can extrapolate character-wise from the people having children is that they are people who were either unwilling or unable to figure out reliable contraception.

[kanicbird]

You should consider the possibility that for some people not having kids is definitely of the heart.

In my personal experience, which I believe is some revelation, I do accept this as a possibility, as we are all on our own journeys, but also very highly unlikely. I can accept that some people's heart leading won't lead to biological children, but we are all made in the likeness of God, who is the Father of us all. Inside each one of us the the desire to be a parent IMHO from that moment of creation.

I believe spirituality (some religions) and evolution agrees in the primary role of humans, and thus the desire of the heart of the human, is to reproduce. While this reduces men to genitalia and women into 'walking wombs' this is only the evolutionary view, which sounds insulting and resisted by our modern society. Spiritually it is much different, it is IMHO GOD giving His very power of creating and raising life to us, as well as the ability to love that creation as He loves us. As such it is one of our highest callings a human can be called to do.
Do we really want to pressure people to possibly make this mistake?

No we want to free people to follow there hearts, having a child with one's heart imprisoned, will just further the cycle.

[Voyager]

I believe spirituality (some religions) and evolution agrees in the primary role of humans, and thus the desire of the heart of the human, is to reproduce. While this reduces men to genitalia and women into 'walking wombs' this is only the evolutionary view, which sounds insulting and resisted by our modern society. Spiritually it is much different, it is IMHO GOD giving His very power of creating and raising life to us, as well as the ability to love that creation as He loves us. As such it is one of our highest callings a human can be called to do.

We clearly have a genetic disposition to having children, since those who don't won't reproduce. However, there is still a lot of variation in the population, and if someone says that she truly does not want children, I believe her. In this society I don't see why anyone would choose to close their hearts to children, so I suspect it is part of their makeup - just like wanting children seems to be part of yours and mine.

[Cat Whisperer]

That's something I wish I could get across to people who choose to have kids, Voyager. They say that they want kids, and I believe them because they have no reason to lie to me, but I have NEVER felt that desire to have a child - I don't know what it feels like. I'm not suppressing an interest in kids - I simply don't have any. I understand that it is a strong drive in them, and maybe that's why they can't seem to understand that other people are different from them.

The part of me that enjoys science fiction also wonders if my genetic condition of not having any interest in children is going to become more and more common as we respond to increased population pressure (like the way rabbit females will resorb their fetuses if conditions are not good for giving birth). :)

[suranyi]

I simply don't like kids. I never wanted to give up the independence having children would entail. My wife and I have the freedom to travel when and where we want, do what we want, not deal with the headaches of creating new humans. I personally never saw the appeal.



Not to pick on you specifically, but this is something I hear the "childfree" say all the time.

The two things are not exclusive.

I've done all that already. I've travelled around the world for the last ten years. Now I want to raise children.

I'll do plenty more travelling in the future, with my children, when they reach the appropriate ages. It's only a break of a few years.

[jsgoddess]

Something I find kind of funny:

So many times, I've heard sneering comments made about single parents, about how it's just such a disaster that women have babies while not being married, how dreadful that is for the child.

And at the same time, I have caught my share of flak from people because I didn't choose to have children with my dying husband--as if being married when the children were conceived somehow would make me not a single parent now.

So, is it really about the "single parent" thing, or is it just another way to attack the sluts?

I didn't have children because I couldn't afford them, emotionally or financially. I never had a desire for children, but if the circumstances of my marriage had been different, I might have changed my mind. It's possible.

I feel like I owe money to society and the world. I don't owe my genes or my uterus.

[Malthus]

That's something I wish I could get across to people who choose to have kids, Voyager. They say that they want kids, and I believe them because they have no reason to lie to me, but I have NEVER felt that desire to have a child - I don't know what it feels like. I'm not suppressing an interest in kids - I simply don't have any. I understand that it is a strong drive in them, and maybe that's why they can't seem to understand that other people are different from them.


I suppose it is similar to the reaction the celebate-by-choice get. Sex is such a big part of enjoying life for most people that it is simply hard to understand someone who *could* have some but *chooses* not to, absent something like a strong religious belief; that some people simply lack any sex drive.

The thought that comes to many (I suppose inevitably) is that this is a lack the person must regret and want to correct. But from their point of view, sex is probably just icky and causes trouble - everyone (gay or straight, man or woman) pisses and moans about their horrible relationships, diseases, bad dates, etc. all caused by sex drive. The freedom to be without such entanglements must seem well worth it.

[norinew]

Something I find kind of funny:

So many times, I've heard sneering comments made about single parents, about how it's just such a disaster that women have babies while not being married, how dreadful that is for the child.

And at the same time, I have caught my share of flak from people because I didn't choose to have children with my dying husband--as if being married when the children were conceived somehow would make me not a single parent now.

So, is it really about the "single parent" thing, or is it just another way to attack the sluts?

I didn't have children because I couldn't afford them, emotionally or financially. I never had a desire for children, but if the circumstances of my marriage had been different, I might have changed my mind. It's possible.

I feel like I owe money to society and the world. I don't owe my genes or my uterus.

Personally, I don't have a problem with single parents as long as they have made a conscious decision to parent, and are prepared to do so responsibly. I have a problem with irresponsible parents, whether single or married.

Certainly, my parents were married when I was born, but they shouldn't have had kids! I have a tenant (female, unmarried) who has three young children by two different fathers. She should not have children. Not because she's single, but because she's an unfit mother. People who are not prepared to be parents shouldn't be parents, regardless of marital status!

[mswas]

That's something I wish I could get across to people who choose to have kids, Voyager. They say that they want kids, and I believe them because they have no reason to lie to me, but I have NEVER felt that desire to have a child - I don't know what it feels like. I'm not suppressing an interest in kids - I simply don't have any. I understand that it is a strong drive in them, and maybe that's why they can't seem to understand that other people are different from them.

How prominent is that belief that you are suppressing a desire though? I mean I think you shouldn't have kids if you didn't want them. It would limit our interaction because we travel in different circles, but I bet we could sit down to dinner and have a wonderful evening shooting the shit about Sci Fi. And I think it's wonderful that you have a community that goes out and gives to society at large as you are able.

Whenever people make an argument like yours here, I often think that you must hang out with some really narrow-minded people. But then again, I guess the topic just never comes up in my presence as I have kids, and I had my first kid in what has become a normal time-frame, at the same age my Father was when I was born, 29.

I'm not trying to come across as condescending, I am just saying that your experience is something I have no corresponding experience for. I never hear long drawn out conversations about people's choice to have kids. Nothing more than, "You don't want kids ever, for sure? Like never ever? Really? Wow!", and that's about the extent of it.

I think a lot of people believe it's deterministic, that we are hardwired to want children. I wanted kids, I always wanted them since I was little I wanted them, and maybe that's unusual for a young man to know that he wants kids as a teenager.

[mswas]

In an overpopulated world, one less child is a wonderful thing. ...but once they are born, they are welcome with open arms.

Depends, honestly, it is the wealthiest and most educated among us who choose not to breed. Therefore the most educated are the least likely to pass on their legacy. Interesting isn't it?

Even in an overpopulated world, the optimal birth rate is somewhere north of zero. So while one less child (for families of any size) is a good thing, there's no need to declare jihad on the rest. In practice, the two goals are in confict. Richer societies are the ones that can afford luxuries such as space exploration. Heck, richer societies are the sorts that can provide a wider variety of experiences for their citizenry as well.

Richer societies suffer too. I'd like to see a world that hovers around replacement rate. But I also would like to see a unified Global order. ;) So I'm an odd duck.

[Voyager]

I suppose it is similar to the reaction the celebate-by-choice get. Sex is such a big part of enjoying life for most people that it is simply hard to understand someone who *could* have some but *chooses* not to, absent something like a strong religious belief; that some people simply lack any sex drive.

It also reminds me of the gay vs straight argument. I no more chose to want to have kids than I chose to be straight, and vice versa I'm sure. I wonder if this comes from those who are sure god wanted us to be one way or another, and thus have a big problem with the concept that people are naturally born with inborn desires going against "what is right."

This is not an attack on religion, just to be clear, since plenty of people feel god likes diversity. It is only about those who think god wants everybody to be just like them.

[Malthus]

It also reminds me of the gay vs straight argument. I no more chose to want to have kids than I chose to be straight, and vice versa I'm sure. I wonder if this comes from those who are sure god wanted us to be one way or another, and thus have a big problem with the concept that people are naturally born with inborn desires going against "what is right."

This is not an attack on religion, just to be clear, since plenty of people feel god likes diversity. It is only about those who think god wants everybody to be just like them.

I think it has more to do with surprise than any distain for people 'not doing what God commanded' - the latter wouldn't of course be a reaction open to atheists, and some atheists are surprised by folks who outright state they never intend to have kids.

Having kids is simply part of the traditional package that constitutes the life well lived. For those that have this template in mind, not having kids is a serious deprivation. They aren't angry that those who deliberately choose not to do it for failing in a duty, they are simply surprised that someone would want of their own free will to suffer such a deprivation. Hence the reaction some people have (if they are not remembering to be polite) to the announcement "we don't have any kids" - "Oh, that's so sad" or "that's too bad" or "have you tried [X]?"

I can sorta understand how this assumption would be annoying to those who have chosen not to have kids, but in the vast majority of cases it isn't meant maliciously. It is similar to an announcement of (say) complete lack of sexual desire.

[jsgoddess]

They aren't angry that those who deliberately choose not to do it for failing in a duty, they are simply surprised that someone would want of their own free will to suffer such a deprivation.

Surprised over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? Isn't there some point where if it's just "surprise" that the person should, I dunno, stop being surprised?

[Malthus]

Surprised over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? Isn't there some point where if it's just "surprise" that the person should, I dunno, stop being surprised?

I can't say. In my experience, the number of people who will state that they do not want kids is vanishingly small; assuming that this is representative, it is not a case of constant re-iteration, since the person expressing the surprise will not have met many (or indeed any) others who feel the same way.

It may of course feel that way to someone who doesn't want kids, because they get the same reaction all the time.

OTOH, if it is the very same person expressing "surpise" over and over again to you, that's not kosher.

[rhubarbarin]

Yes, there are people who regret having kids. It's not considered a good thing to say out loud, but that doesn't mean nobody ever feels that way.

I would go so far as to say many parents have at least a few moments of regret, and a lot of parents know they made a mistake by having children. My own mother is one of them. She hates caring for things and people - and yet had three babies, ended up with a disabled husband, and had a miserable life. She shouldn't have had kids and both she and I know that. I'm glad I'm here though! And she did her best, it just wasn't always great for us.

To the OP: I have a burning desire to have children and have since I was a teenager, and while I've toyed with the thought of the social/global ramifications of having them or not, the effect of my kids on their world really has so little to do with my desire to be a parent.

I think most people either want them, or not (this covers anything from loathing all children to simply never having much of an urge to procreate). And either way we can give some intellectual reasons for our feelings, but it's more of an instinctual thing.

[Voyager]

I can't say. In my experience, the number of people who will state that they do not want kids is vanishingly small; assuming that this is representative, it is not a case of constant re-iteration, since the person expressing the surprise will not have met many (or indeed any) others who feel the same way.

It may of course feel that way to someone who doesn't want kids, because they get the same reaction all the time.

OTOH, if it is the very same person expressing "surpise" over and over again to you, that's not kosher.

It may be something like being an atheist - you don't bring it up until pressed.
I think back when my parents had me you'd be correct, in that there would be few couples deliberately not wanting children (which was not that easy to do back then anyway.) Today though, it is pretty common, and unless you live in a community where not having kids is somehow immoral, it shouldn't be a big shock.

[Cat Whisperer]

I can only speak for myself and the childfree people we socialize with, but we don't go around talking about our childfree status. I never bring it up with people - you'll never find out from me that I don't have kids unless you ask me directly (in real life, that is - I'm much more open about it here). I will say that the reactions of people to finding out that I'm childfree by choice are getting better.

mswas, we probably could hang out and have good discussions that didn't revolve around children, but in my experience, people who have kids like to talk about kids. I don't share that interest.

On preview, Voyager nailed it.

[toofs]

Not to pick on you specifically, but this is something I hear the "childfree" say all the time.

The two things are not exclusive.

I've done all that already. I've travelled around the world for the last ten years. Now I want to raise children.

I'll do plenty more travelling in the future, with my children, when they reach the appropriate ages. It's only a break of a few years.

I can understand this.

For me, though, it is simple: I do not like children. I do not want to live with them, listen to them cry, change diapers or spend time away from the things I would rather be doing. I am too impatient and controlling of my home environment to tolerate children.

There is no altruism here. Why have something I dislike so much?

[suranyi]

I can understand this.

For me, though, it is simple: I do not like children. I do not want to live with them, listen to them cry, change diapers or spend time away from the things I would rather be doing. I am too impatient and controlling of my home environment to tolerate children.

There is no altruism here. Why have something I dislike so much?

Now that is an argument I can understand, though not one I agree with.

[marshmallow]

I ususally think that most people have a grain of sense in what they say, even if I disagree on the whole with their opinion. Can't say that about the anti-Natalists though. They seem to have some fundamental screw loose.

IMO anti-natalists make too much sense. I try not to think about it because it's sorta depressing. But from a different perspective not so much. We all know what it's like to not exist because we all remember being unborn for 15 billion years. So everyone going back to that state would be, on balance, a good thing.

[mswas]

I can only speak for myself and the childfree people we socialize with, but we don't go around talking about our childfree status. I never bring it up with people - you'll never find out from me that I don't have kids unless you ask me directly (in real life, that is - I'm much more open about it here). I will say that the reactions of people to finding out that I'm childfree by choice are getting better.

mswas, we probably could hang out and have good discussions that didn't revolve around children, but in my experience, people who have kids like to talk about kids. I don't share that interest.

That sounds like anyone who is consumed by a particular activity. Stock brokers like to talk about the stock market. If you're around kids all the time, kids are what you have to talk about. Though, I don't talk about my kids constantly to people who are not interested, or at least, I try not to. I try to be aware of cues that the other person isn't interested in what I am saying. ;)

[mswas]

IMO anti-natalists make too much sense. I try not to think about it because it's sorta depressing. But from a different perspective not so much. We all know what it's like to not exist because we all remember being unborn for 15 billion years. So everyone going back to that state would be, on balance, a good thing.

No it wouldn't. It's only a good thing if you hate life, if you are a weak-willed coward who cannot handle suffering. You do not remember being unborn because there was no you until after you were conceived. Maybe we remember on some level the warm embrace where everything was provided to us by our Mother's womb, but we do not remember prior to that.

[Measure for Measure]

Depends, honestly, it is the wealthiest and most educated among us who choose not to breed. Therefore the most educated are the least likely to pass on their legacy. Interesting isn't it? Well in practice, other factors are likely to swamp the effects of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/), to put it mildly.

That said, if a family has 2 kids instead of 4, there's the possibility that the smaller number could benefit educationally from greater attention and possibly even shorter work hours during college. Moreover, those with wholehearted dedication to parenting are probably better at it than those raising kids because they feel a misconceived and dubious obligation to populate the fatherland. So, no, opting out of procreation is hardly a selfish act, quite the contrary.

[mswas]

Well in practice, other factors are likely to swamp the effects of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/), to put it mildly.

Like the fact that very few people know or care about its existence? For a while I wanted to make a line of T-shirts called, "Population Control", with topics intended to induce suicide. I decided of course that I did not want my legacy to be something so cruel so it was more of a black joke I made up than anything else. I wanted to make shirts that said stuff like, "Just because you're anorexic doesn't mean you're not fat." "Just one more taste and then you can give it up for good."

That said, if a family has 2 kids instead of 4, there's the possibility that the smaller number could benefit educationally from greater attention and possibly even shorter work hours during college. Moreover, those with wholehearted dedication to parenting are probably better at it than those raising kids because they feel a misconceived and dubious obligation to populate the fatherland. So, no, opting out of procreation is hardly a selfish act, quite the contrary.

Sure, I wasn't talking about smaller families as much as I was talking about families that have no kids at all.

Like the kind of sad bit in Idiocracy where the smart, wealthy yuppie couple are talking about how they can't have kids in that market, and eventually the husband dies and the wife is past her prime.

Opting out of procreation is selfish by definition. I'm really not interested in the argument about it. It's selfish, but so what?

[Sandwich]

I can sorta understand how this assumption would be annoying to those who have chosen not to have kids, but in the vast majority of cases it isn't meant maliciously. It is similar to an announcement of (say) complete lack of sexual desire.
That's not the analogy I'd have used, if only because I can't quite picture socially conservative people boasting about their hot sex lives in the same way that they drone on about their children's accomplishments.

Mentioning that Mrs Sandwich and I have no interest in children rarely causes any surprise or alarm. Mentioning that I have no interest in spectator sports does seriously confuse lots of people though! :D

[Der Trihs]

Opting out of procreation is selfish by definition. That's not even close to true. What about someone who wants children, but doesn't because they don't want to inflict their nasty genetic disease on the kids? How is that selfish? What about someone who doesn't think they can care for children properly? What about someone who thinks that the future of their country or the world is awful enough that it would be cruel to condemn a child to that? How is that selfish?

In fact, I feel the opposite; someone who believes that sort of thing, and then goes and has children anyway - they are the selfish ones. Having children is quite often a selfish and not at all admirable act.

[Manda JO]

I think that the choice to have or not have children is complicated, and there are selfish aspects to both choices. I don't think you can argue that one is significantly more selfish than the other--is not wanting to change diapers at 3 AM or give up much of your disposable income for 20 years more or less selfish than wanting someone to feel obligated to love you unconditionally and take care of you when you are old? It's about as useful a question as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

That said, everyone seems to think there is a strong correlation between one's desire to have children and one's qualities as a parent. This is the sort of thing that makes intuitive sense, but I am not sure it holds up: I've known people who desperately wanted kids who turned out to be rotten parents and some people who were at best conflicted about it who turned out to be great. Certainly a strong desire to have kids isn't a bad thing, but from my own observations, I think sound judgment, emotional stability, patience, creativity, and intelligence are all more important. You give someone with any three of those traits a baby, and they will do a pretty good job of it, regardless of their desire. You give a child to someone who lacks all or most of those qualities, and they are going to be a trial to their children, however much they love those kids.

[Malthus]

I can only speak for myself and the childfree people we socialize with, but we don't go around talking about our childfree status. I never bring it up with people - you'll never find out from me that I don't have kids unless you ask me directly (in real life, that is - I'm much more open about it here). I will say that the reactions of people to finding out that I'm childfree by choice are getting better.

mswas, we probably could hang out and have good discussions that didn't revolve around children, but in my experience, people who have kids like to talk about kids. I don't share that interest.

On preview, Voyager nailed it.

Except that you are saying slightly different things. While you both say it isn't the sort of thing you bring up, he's saying it is so common as to be non-surprising, except back when his parents where having kids (whereas you say 'reactions are getting better', implying this acceptance is a recent development).

You can't both be right - either this is a recent development, or it isn't.

Fact is, if it isn't the sort of thing anyone brings up, why the "surprise" at anyone's surprise if you bring it up? Naturally people will not be familiar with this attitude, if no-one who holds it speaks of it (the Internet excepted).

[Malthus]

IMO anti-natalists make too much sense. I try not to think about it because it's sorta depressing. But from a different perspective not so much. We all know what it's like to not exist because we all remember being unborn for 15 billion years. So everyone going back to that state would be, on balance, a good thing.

Everyone now alive must on some level disagree with the anti-natalists. They are voting with their existance.

[mswas]

That's not even close to true. What about someone who wants children, but doesn't because they don't want to inflict their nasty genetic disease on the kids? How is that selfish? What about someone who doesn't think they can care for children properly? What about someone who thinks that the future of their country or the world is awful enough that it would be cruel to condemn a child to that? How is that selfish?

Any action taken that benefits one's self is selfish. Please read the whole thread. If you don't think you can care for children, it's still a selfish act. Selfish =/= Evil. It just means that it is motivated by reasons of the self.

In fact, I feel the opposite; someone who believes that sort of thing, and then goes and has children anyway - they are the selfish ones. Having children is quite often a selfish and not at all admirable act.

Well, you're using the pedestrian definition where selfish automagically = bad I suppose. In that case, I agree with you, it's not selfishbad, it's not selfishgood, it's just selfish. Having children is also a selfish act. Whether or not you admire the choice is completely irrelevant.

[Voyager]

Any action taken that benefits one's self is selfish. Please read the whole thread. If you don't think you can care for children, it's still a selfish act. Selfish =/= Evil. It just means that it is motivated by reasons of the self.

By your definition, everything we do is selfish - eat, have sex, give to charities, go to work. So not having children is trivially selfish, but only when you devalue the word to the extent that you do..
Tell me something that we do that isn't selfish, please.

[mswas]

By your definition, everything we do is selfish - eat, have sex, give to charities, go to work. So not having children is trivially selfish, but only when you devalue the word to the extent that you do..
Tell me something that we do that isn't selfish, please.

Yes, it is. Everything we do is selfish.

Using it any other way is doublespeak and that's doubleplusungood.

It allows us to selfishly diminish the actions of others, while obfuscating our own selfishness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others.

Psychologist and primatologist Frans de Waal takes issue with those who equate "selfishness" with "self-serving." He argues that "Selfishness implies the intention to serve oneself, hence knowledge of what one stands to gain from a particular behavior".[1] (2009, 13).

Selfishness is the opposite of altruism (selflessness).

The implications of selfishness have inspired divergent views within religious, philosophical, psychological, economic and evolutionary contexts.

Though I disagree that it necessitates putting one's needs above the needs of others. Many selfish acts can be mutually beneficial.

[Cat Whisperer]

Except that you are saying slightly different things. While you both say it isn't the sort of thing you bring up, he's saying it is so common as to be non-surprising, except back when his parents where having kids (whereas you say 'reactions are getting better', implying this acceptance is a recent development).

You can't both be right - either this is a recent development, or it isn't.

Fact is, if it isn't the sort of thing anyone brings up, why the "surprise" at anyone's surprise if you bring it up? Naturally people will not be familiar with this attitude, if no-one who holds it speaks of it (the Internet excepted).
In my experience as a 43 year old woman who has never wanted children, I'm finding the reactions of people who find out I am childfree by choice to be getting better than they were when I was in my twenties. Those reactions were usually people arguing with me. At this point I don't volunteer the information because of twenty years of not having positive reactions when people find out; the reactions are getting better, and I might start becoming more forthright about my personal choice. I probably won't, though, because it really isn't anyone's business, and there are still the nutjobs out there who feel the need to judge how other people are living their lives (they've even shown up in this thread!).

I'm not going to argue that Voyager's experience is right or wrong; chances are very good that it was different from mine.

[Cat Whisperer]

The discussion of selfish is the reason why I think selfish should just be taken right off the table when discussing matters like this - it is so beside the point as to be completely irrelevant. It's selfish to have kids; it's selfish to not have kids; everyone cancels everyone else out, so how about we discuss other issues around choosing whether or not to have kids (like the OP did - that was a very good OP).

[mswas]

The discussion of selfish is the reason why I think selfish should just be taken right off the table when discussing matters like this - it is so beside the point as to be completely irrelevant. It's selfish to have kids; it's selfish to not have kids; everyone cancels everyone else out, so how about we discuss other issues around choosing whether or not to have kids (like the OP did - that was a very good OP).

I agree. It's an useless word, generally just used to make the other side look bad for pursuing their self-interest. Pretty much in 100% of cases. Hyperbolic rhetorical device, little more.

[mswas]

In my experience as a 43 year old woman who has never wanted children, I'm finding the reactions of people who find out I am childfree by choice to be getting better than they were when I was in my twenties. Those reactions were usually people arguing with me. At this point I don't volunteer the information because of twenty years of not having positive reactions when people find out; the reactions are getting better, and I might start becoming more forthright about my personal choice. I probably won't, though, because it really isn't anyone's business, and there are still the nutjobs out there who feel the need to judge how other people are living their lives (they've even shown up in this thread!).

I'm not going to argue that Voyager's experience is right or wrong; chances are very good that it was different from mine.

That might also be because people in their twenties often just say that. I went through an, "I am never getting married.", phase in my early twenties. In your 40s it's a lot more clear that the decision is one you really believe in.

Also, I think in general mores have changed quite a bit in the last 20 years.

[Malthus]

I'm not going to argue that Voyager's experience is right or wrong; chances are very good that it was different from mine.

... which is my point entirely. It is still possible in this day and age to not have encountered a significant body of opinion that has chosen not to have kids by choice (particularly if you do not haunt the Internet).

[Tastes of Chocolate]

In my experience as a 43 year old woman who has never wanted children, I'm finding the reactions of people who find out I am childfree by choice to be getting better than they were when I was in my twenties. Those reactions were usually people arguing with me. At this point I don't volunteer the information because of twenty years of not having positive reactions when people find out; the reactions are getting better, and I might start becoming more forthright about my personal choice. I probably won't, though, because it really isn't anyone's business, and there are still the nutjobs out there who feel the need to judge how other people are living their lives (they've even shown up in this thread!).

Coming from a very similar situation, I'm also seen less "bad' reactions to being voluntarily childless, now vs 20 years ago. It also seems to be heavily influenced by the age of the person I'm talking to. People my parents generation are still heavily in the "you can't really want to be childless" camp. I see that much less in a 50 yrs old and younger crowd. That age break is not hard, but about where I pin it, based on people I've talked to. My 70 year old father truly believes that children are your shot at immortality/eternity/continuity. I've heard him use the term genetic suicide. I would be very surprised to hear that option from my friends in their 40s.

[mswas]

Coming from a very similar situation, I'm also seen less "bad' reactions to being voluntarily childless, now vs 20 years ago. It also seems to be heavily influenced by the age of the person I'm talking to. People my parents generation are still heavily in the "you can't really want to be childless" camp. I see that much less in a 50 yrs old and younger crowd. That age break is not hard, but about where I pin it, based on people I've talked to. My 70 year old father truly believes that children are your shot at immortality/eternity/continuity. I've heard him use the term genetic suicide. I would be very surprised to hear that option from my friends in their 40s.

Well he's not wrong, but if you do not value his notion of continuity then that's fine. I can see why it would be upsetting for a Father who valued that to have children who didn't.

[Der Trihs]

I agree. It's an useless word, generally just used to make the other side look bad for pursuing their self-interest. Pretty much in 100% of cases. Hyperbolic rhetorical device, little more.No. The definition of "selfish" you are using is the problem. Redefining everything as selfish is only useful as an excuse to exploit or harm others; it lets you handwave "Everyone is selfish" as an excuse.

There is a useful distinction to be made between behavior where the needs and desires of others are taken into account, and behavior in which it is not; the latter is called selfishness. Redefining the word the way you do does nothing except limit the language and enable predatory people.

[mswas]

No. The definition of "selfish" you are using is the problem. Redefining everything as selfish is only useful as an excuse to exploit or harm others; it lets you handwave "Everyone is selfish" as an excuse.

If I redefined it that would be a valid point. But since I didn't, my point stands.

There is a useful distinction to be made between behavior where the needs and desires of others are taken into account, and behavior in which it is not; the latter is called selfishness. Redefining the word the way you do does nothing except limit the language and enable predatory people.

Sure, and that's why grammar exists, so we can articulate more complex ideas than can be adequately encapsulated by a single word.

Again, if I redefined it you'd have a point, but since I didn't...

The idea that people are not having kids for altruistic motives is pretty much nonsense. Maybe in the case of a select few, but I bet that for most people it's a decision made primarily with one's self-interest in mind. (that's the definition of selfish) Maybe a lot of people make some kind of post-hoc rationalization about their motives, but I imagine that saving the world from overpopulation or saving a hypothetical child from the parent's inability to parent are secondary.

[Der Trihs]

If I redefined it that would be a valid point. But since I didn't, my point stands. No, you redefined it. You are using the word in a way that it is not normally used; a way that almost exclusively I see used by people trying to justify amoral behavior.

[Malthus]

No, you redefined it. You are using the word in a way that it is not normally used; a way that almost exclusively I see used by people trying to justify amoral behavior.

Just curious: what amoral behaviour do you suspect is being justified here?

[mswas]

No, you redefined it. You are using the word in a way that it is not normally used; a way that almost exclusively I see used by people trying to justify amoral behavior.

No I didn't I even posted a definition. I am sorry if the dictionary and the encyclopedia bother you.

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

This fantasy mythos you are creating is cute and all, very religious. But I'm using the term correctly.

Maybe you should read up on your Dawkins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene ;)

[Voyager]

Yes, it is. Everything we do is selfish.

Using it any other way is doublespeak and that's doubleplusungood.

It allows us to selfishly diminish the actions of others, while obfuscating our own selfishness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

Though I disagree that it necessitates putting one's needs above the needs of others. Many selfish acts can be mutually beneficial.
Acting in a mutually beneficial way and putting your own needs first are not contradictory, as evolution has shown us again and again.

From a certain point of view, I agree that all actions can be considered selfish. However, doing so kind of makes calling either having children or being childless selfish kind of pointless. You've removed all the sting from the word.

[Voyager]

I'm not going to argue that Voyager's experience is right or wrong; chances are very good that it was different from mine.
I'm not sure which experience that is! :)

My parents were trying, but back in 1950 I don't think couples broadcase the details of their fertility quite as broadly as they do today. My mother told me that she would never bug me about kids, given her experience. Since my wife got pregnant about 7 months after I left school and had a job, I'll never know.

I just said that no one should be surprised by couples wishing to remain childless. That doesn't mean I don't think some people will be jerks about it. We lived in an area where most women had very good educations and jobs, so even though most people in our community had kids, there was never anything said about those without. Stay at home vs. working mothers was a different story entirely.

[Voyager]

No I didn't I even posted a definition. I am sorry if the dictionary and the encyclopedia bother you.

This fantasy mythos you are creating is cute and all, very religious. But I'm using the term correctly.

Maybe you should read up on your Dawkins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene ;)

Genes don't have morals, which Dawkins is the first to note.
There is indeed a certain view that everything we do is in our self interest. The man giving his fortune away does it because his internal calculus is such that getting praise for doing it makes him feel better than the money (or even just the satisfaction of doing it, even when it is in secret.) The problem with your use of the definition you posted is the word "primarily." A person wishing to create a life or perhaps make a spouse who wants kids happy, even knowing that his/her life will be hell for 18 years isn't being primarily selfish; neither is a person who would love to have kids but who won't because of fear of overpopulation, for instance.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I think the most ethical choice for a person who wants to remain childless is to do so, or if a couple only wants one, they should have one. Then some other couple that wants to have a larger family can have three or four kids without the population's overall fertility being increased. It seems like it could be a win-win for everyone; the children that are born will grow up with siblings and numerous cousins, parents who want a houseful of kids can have that, yet the overall fertility of the population would remain low.

[mswas]

Acting in a mutually beneficial way and putting your own needs first are not contradictory, as evolution has shown us again and again.

Thank you for reiterating what I have been saying in this thread. ;)

From a certain point of view, I agree that all actions can be considered selfish. However, doing so kind of makes calling either having children or being childless selfish kind of pointless. You've removed all the sting from the word.

Yes, it does. Calling people selfish is rhetorical self-aggrandizement, nothing more. You're right, I've removed the sting from it because using it negatively is all sting and no substance.

Basically when people are calling other people selfish they mean, "People who act like me are altruistic, and people who don't act like me are evil sinners." It goes back to old-school Christian belief where total and complete selflessness is considered the highest moral virtue, even if it is to the detriment of the self. It's been grandfathered into our society in order to make for a cheap-shot ad hominem of anyone who behaves differently from how we do.

[mswas]

Genes don't have morals, which Dawkins is the first to note.
There is indeed a certain view that everything we do is in our self interest. The man giving his fortune away does it because his internal calculus is such that getting praise for doing it makes him feel better than the money (or even just the satisfaction of doing it, even when it is in secret.) The problem with your use of the definition you posted is the word "primarily." A person wishing to create a life or perhaps make a spouse who wants kids happy, even knowing that his/her life will be hell for 18 years isn't being primarily selfish; neither is a person who would love to have kids but who won't because of fear of overpopulation, for instance.

I didn't say altruism never exists. But I also doubt that a miserable man can make a wife and kids happy for 18+ years. The man who is made miserable by having a family but sticks it out anyway is acting contrary to his self-interest, just as is the person who wants to have kids but doesn't because of overpopulation, but I am unconvinced that either of these types are common even amongst their relative cohorts.

Most people that don't want to have kids want to not have to be on the schedule of a toddler and would like discretionary income to drive their Acura to Vegas on occasion, or take a jaunt to Hawaii. I seriously doubt that the average childfree type is doing it because of overpopulation.

[Der Trihs]

Just curious: what amoral behaviour do you suspect is being justified here?None yet, here. But the definition mswas is using is one that I usually hear used by someone trying to excuse such behavior.

No I didn't I even posted a definition. I am sorry if the dictionary and the encyclopedia bother you.



This fantasy mythos you are creating is cute and all, very religious. But I'm using the term correctly. The way people usually use a word is not a "fantasy mythos". That's what you are doing, not I. You redefine the word until it's useless, then act like you've made some sort of point by calling it useless.

[mswas]

None yet, here. But the definition mswas is using is one that I usually hear used by someone trying to excuse such behavior.

What behavior?

The way people usually use a word is not a "fantasy mythos". That's what you are doing, not I. You redefine the word until it's useless, then act like you've made some sort of point by calling it useless.

No, the fantasy mythos is this idea that people are not having kids for reasons other than self-interest. People don't have kids mainly because they don't want them. Which is self-interested, by definition.

[Der Trihs]

What behavior? Just about anything ruthless. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, whatever.

No, the fantasy mythos is this idea that people are not having kids for reasons other than self-interest. Only by your twisted use of the phrase. You redefine "self interest" until it is impossible to be anything else, of course they are motivated by "self interest". But then, using your definition so is someone who sets themselves on fire. I see no good reason to warp such a useful distinction as selfish/unselfish into meaninglessness the way you are.

[mswas]

Just about anything ruthless. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, whatever.

But we're not talking about that. We are talking about having kids and not having kids.

Only by your twisted use of the phrase. You redefine "self interest" until it is impossible to be anything else, of course they are motivated by "self interest". But then, using your definition so is someone who sets themselves on fire. I see no good reason to warp such a useful distinction as selfish/unselfish into meaninglessness the way you are.

I didn't redefine anything, I am using it the way it's defined in the dictionary stripped of emotionally manipulative connotations.

[Der Trihs]

But we're not talking about that. We are talking about having kids and not having kids. And your use of the word "selfish".

I didn't redefine anything, I am using it the way it's defined in the dictionary stripped of emotionally manipulative connotations.No, you are using it in a way designed solely to make it worthless. You are using it in a way such that it applies both to knifing someone for cash and feeding the homeless, which is just silly.

[mswas]

And your use of the word "selfish".

No, you are using it in a way designed solely to make it worthless. You are using it in a way such that it applies both to knifing someone for cash and feeding the homeless, which is just silly.

I am using it the way it is defined in the dictionary.

I am sorry if that doesn't support whatever appeal to emotion you want to make with it.

[mswas]

I'm not DEFINING selfishness in any way that makes most actions selfish.

Most actions ARE selfish.

[Der Trihs]

I am using it the way it is defined in the dictionary.

I am sorry if that doesn't support whatever appeal to emotion you want to make with it.If that's how it is defined in the dictionary, then the dictionary is wrong; the way people use the word takes precedence. And as a practical matter, the definition you are using is useless.

I'm not DEFINING selfishness in any way that makes most actions selfish.

Most actions ARE selfish.Only using your deliberately useless definition of the word.

[Cat Whisperer]

I don't agree with you, Der Trihs - most actions are indeed selfish. We do things because we want to do them - we want the results they produce or the feelings they produce; we avoid things because we don't want the results or the feelings; what part of that is not selfish?

[jsgoddess]

Jesus Christ. If every action is "selfish" then "selfish" means "action" and is a pretty useless word when the spiffy "action" already exists.

[mswas]

If that's how it is defined in the dictionary, then the dictionary is wrong; the way people use the word takes precedence. And as a practical matter, the definition you are using is useless.

Oh, the dictionary is wrong. :D

Only using your deliberately useless definition of the word.

I hate it when reality doesn't conform to my appeals to emotion too. ;)

[mswas]

Jesus Christ. If every action is "selfish" then "selfish" means "action" and is a pretty useless word when the spiffy "action" already exists.

Who said, 'every'? I said, 'Most'. There is also the term, 'action', in terms of say a wind blowing in the breeze. That's action. But it's not selfish. A rockslide is action, but it's not selfish.

Most human choices? Selfish.

This does not preclude altruistic actions. My intermediate school was named after Daniel Fernandez who was famous for throwing himself on top of a hand grenade and saving his platoon.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Haven't we the technology yet to just grow the little crumb-crunchers in vats? We could just let robots house-train them and teach them a marketable trade, then let 'em out once they've proven they won't do stupid shit or bother me?

Maybe it's a bit too Brave of a plan, but those are the sort of New ideas that I think would make for a far less annoying World. Or less-annoying movie theaters, at the very least.

[mswas]

Haven't we the technology yet to just grow the little crumb-crunchers in vats? We could just let robots house-train them and teach them a marketable trade, then let 'em out once they've proven they won't do stupid shit or bother me?

Maybe it's a bit too Brave of a plan, but those are the sort of New ideas that I think would make for a far less annoying World. Or less-annoying movie theaters, at the very least.

If we're going to do that why not just euthanize all humans and simply have AIs rule the Earth?

[Der Trihs]

I don't agree with you, Der Trihs - most actions are indeed selfish. We do things because we want to do them - we want the results they produce or the feelings they produce; we avoid things because we don't want the results or the feelings; what part of that is not selfish?
Congratulations; you too have defined selfish as "any behavior not produced by an irresistible compulsion". Again; using that definition just makes the word "selfish" useless. Are you saying there's no useful distinction to be made between a thief and someone who rescues you?

[dropzone]

Ethical Implications of Remaining Childless By Choice.(skipping to the end because the choices aren't nearly as deep as young'ns might think) It's ethically okay, even boringly pretentious. Though my wife and I read "Marching Morons," we still reproduced. Just keep you and your partner away from adorable 1-2-yr-olds because they are contagious. Even worse are newborns to two months, who still emit Baby Whiff. People who claim humans are not susceptible to pheromones have avoided infants. One smell and it stops seeming like a bad idea. :eek:

[mswas]

Congratulations; you too have defined selfish as "any behavior not produced by an irresistible compulsion". Again; using that definition just makes the word "selfish" useless. Are you saying there's no useful distinction to be made between a thief and someone who rescues you?

No it doesn't it makes the word selfish mean precisely what it's root word implies that it means.

But go ahead and use crude and vulgar language to your heart's content. No one really cares.

[Malthus]

(skipping to the end because the choices aren't nearly as deep as young'ns might think) It's ethically okay, even boringly pretentious. Though my wife and I read "Marching Morons," we still reproduced. Just keep you and your partner away from adorable 1-2-yr-olds because they are contagious. Even worse are newborns to two months, who still emit Baby Whiff. People who claim humans are not susceptible to pheromones have avoided infants. One smell and it stops seeming like a bad idea. :eek:

Interesting you should mention that. I find newborns have a smell (I mean here clean newborns :D) that is positively intoxicating, and hard to describe; I've never seen anyone else reference this.

[StoutHearted]

That's true, but you have to wake up and recognize your responsibility to society as you raise a child. My only problem with childless people is more with the radicals the 'childfree' set who think that the normal English word 'childless' oppresses them. These are the people likely to vote against funding schools and parks and such. That's where the ethical obligations come in. My children are people, and you have as much an obligation to them as they have to you.

Um, no. I don't have any obligations to your child. That's quite an entitled attitude.

P.S. Childfree people enjoy parks too. And many of us have no qualms against funding for schools. We want the kids to stay educated and off our lawns! (shakes cane)

One day you will be old, and it will be my grandkids that are your nurses at the nursing home, remember that.

Can you guarantee that? Can you guarantee that your children will live to adulthood, and will be willing to help you out in your twilight years? If you think so, take a walk around the nursing home sometime and see all the elderly moms and dads forgotten by their children. I've heard stories from friends who worked in such places, and they certainly would not be Hallmark-approved.

The "nursing home" retort is one of the most ridiculous arguments used against the childfree. First of all, you're assuming that childless people don't see their retirement years coming and subsequently do not adequately prepare. But you -- are you insinuating that parents don't need to prepare at all, that they'll just sponge off their kids?

On a personal level, if you are childless and you live a long and fruitful life you could one day find yourself in a nursing home with no personal advocate.


Oh noes! I better get to birthing dem babies, pronto!

The facts: Giving birth to children does not guarantee that you'll have a "personal advocate" later in life. Remaining childless does not mean that no one will ever be on your side later in life.

[mswas]

Um, no. I don't have any obligations to your child. That's quite an entitled attitude.

It's called the Social Contract, look it up.

[StoutHearted]

It's called the Social Contract, look it up.

Yeah, I'll go look up that hypothetical "contract" right away.

[Cat Whisperer]

Congratulations; you too have defined selfish as "any behavior not produced by an irresistible compulsion".

Well, yeah. There are very few people who wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "Well, I think I'm going to spend the day doing things I don't enjoy for no benefit to me whatsoever." People who hate their jobs do it for the money. People who volunteer do it for the good feeling they get.

Again; using that definition just makes the word "selfish" useless. Are you saying there's no useful distinction to be made between a thief and someone who rescues you?
People can act altruistically in the heat of the moment (and people often do). Most people don't decide to have or not have kids like you decide to help someone in a burning building, though.

[krebbin]

Well now, would it be selfish of me to point out that all this arguing over definitions has hijacked what started out as a serious question for debate?:-)

Just for the record I never wanted kids and now being 58 years old I still don't want kids. I didn't want either the responsibility or the waste of MY time on Earth.
I've never regretted that decision and am lucky enough to have a partner who feels the same, even though she was for years a brilliant nursery school teacher and loved her little charges.

It's a choice that was quite easy to make. You can always change it later!

[rhubarbarin]

(skipping to the end because the choices aren't nearly as deep as young'ns might think) It's ethically okay, even boringly pretentious. Though my wife and I read "Marching Morons," we still reproduced. Just keep you and your partner away from adorable 1-2-yr-olds because they are contagious. Even worse are newborns to two months, who still emit Baby Whiff. People who claim humans are not susceptible to pheromones have avoided infants. One smell and it stops seeming like a bad idea. :eek:

Eeew. Babies smell funny- like dandruff. Kind of dry and powdery, yet greasy (even freshly washed). Or they smell like plastic (diapers), or worse, poo. I always hear people rhapsodizing about their scent, though.

I say this as someone who wants kids and plans to have them - but I have never enjoyed the scent of babies. Or of any other human except for my boyfriend. I try to avoid smelling anyone - I keep my distance and keep my face as far away from baby heads as I can even while holding them.

I expect my own children will smell delicious to me, as BF does...

[norinew]

Eeew. Babies smell funny- like dandruff. Kind of dry and powdery, yet greasy (even freshly washed). Or they smell like plastic (diapers), or worse, poo. I always hear people rhapsodizing about their scent, though.

I say this as someone who wants kids and plans to have them - but I have never enjoyed the scent of babies. Or of any other human except for my boyfriend. I try to avoid smelling anyone - I keep my distance and keep my face as far away from baby heads as I can even while holding them.

I expect my own children will smell delicious to me, as BF does...
Yep, your own baby will most likely smell delightful to you. Or, if he/she doesn't smell delightful, you'll use that "off" smell to detect what's wrong: has s/he messed up the diaper? Has s/he vomited while you weren't looking and now it's down the pants? Does s/he need bath/hair wash? etc.

When it's your kid, it really is a whole different thing! (Which is not said to try to persuade the non-parenting types from deciding to have children! Believe me, if you think you don't want children, everyone, especially you, will be better off if you don't have them!)

But things really are different with your own kids; in some ways it's a lot harder, but in some ways, it's a lot easier. . .hard to explain, really.





Baby smell: I had a very close friend in high school; a couple years out of high school, she was in a serious car crash. She was on knife's edge of death for a bit, but after a couple months in a coma, pulled through and recovered fully except she will never have a sense of smell again. When she had her first baby, she lamented that she would never know what Grayce smelled like. :(

[Cat Whisperer]

Maybe "baby smell" is linked to the desire to have kids - I have an excellent sense of smell, but I have never smelled anything even remotely close to "delicious" coming off of babies. They look funny to me, too - like deformed humans.

[PandaBear77]

My decision to not have children is simply because I don't want that level of responsibility, and would like to spend the time and disposable income that I would save on things I want.

Mom of 1 here that thinks your choice is quite responsible.

What's selfish is people who don't want the responsibility that have kids anyway. You know what you want, you know kids would mess that up, and you're choosing not to reproduce. I think that's cool.


So, my questions are, do we as a society have a societal obligation to raise productive citizens?

Those in society who choose to have children have an obligation to raise productive citizens.

If you say yes, what are the limits of this obligation? Are people just obliged to produce at a replacement rate?

People should have as many kids they want and can provide for. For some, that will be 1. Other couples can handle several. Whatever works for them.

Or, because of issues of overpopulation, do you think people with means in both the developing and developed worlds should limit their reproduction?

Nope.

[ElectricZ]

The idea that people are not having kids for altruistic motives is pretty much nonsense. Maybe in the case of a select few, but I bet that for most people it's a decision made primarily with one's self-interest in mind. (that's the definition of selfish)

Wanting to have children is self-interest personified. You are creating a human being to satisfy your wants and desires, to make yourself complete, to give yourself purpose. The child has no say in the matter. To say parents are selfless for putting the needs of their children above themselves is ignoring the fact they created those needs to begin with to satisfy their own needs.

If the child is lucky, he or she will be brought into a home with loving parents who recognize the responsibility of taking care of the life they created. All the happiness or suffering of the child rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents up until the kid is old enough to think and make decisions for himself/herself... and even then self image/mores/habits ingrained through childhood play a big part. Fulfilling an obligation that you created doesn't make you altruistic. It just makes you responsible.

The only truly selfless act when it comes to children is adoption.

[mswas]

Wanting to have children is self-interest personified. You are creating a human being to satisfy your wants and desires, to make yourself complete, to give yourself purpose. The child has no say in the matter. To say parents are selfless for putting the needs of their children above themselves is ignoring the fact they created those needs to begin with to satisfy their own needs.

What straw man is this? Who said having children is selfless? As for the rest of your hyperbole I don't think there is much to it.

If the child is lucky, he or she will be brought into a home with loving parents who recognize the responsibility of taking care of the life they created. All the happiness or suffering of the child rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents up until the kid is old enough to think and make decisions for himself/herself... and even then self image/mores/habits ingrained through childhood play a big part. Fulfilling an obligation that you created doesn't make you altruistic. It just makes you responsible.

Sure. Nothing to disagree with here.

The only truly selfless act when it comes to children is adoption.

No, that's not truly selfless either. Most people adopt children because they 'want' children.

[Jackmannii]

I expect my own children will smell deliciousIndeed they do my dear, especially when properly cooked.

/W.C. Fields

[toofs]

Indeed they do my dear, especially when properly cooked.

/W.C. Fields

They taste like baby seal.

[QueenAl]

It's only selfish if your partner doesn't feel the same way and you weren't clear about that with them. Clear about that as time goes on, too - they might not want children at 25 but they could change their mind at 30 or 35, and having kids is a big thing to give up. It's a big thing to be forced into against your will too. That's when having kids truly becomes selfish - when one partner wants them and the other really doesn't.

Otherwise, meh. Have kids, don't have kids. Both have their ethical implications. Stepping aside from helping future generations in general is a bigger deal.


The "nursing home" retort is one of the most ridiculous arguments used against the childfree. First of all, you're assuming that childless people don't see their retirement years coming and subsequently do not adequately prepare.

'Adequately preparing' always involves the adults who will be around when you're old. If you have a private pension fund, who will produce the income that drives that fund? It's not based on the money produced now.

Why do so many people forget that? It truly surprises me - I've seen people who are intelligent, know about money and so on, who somehow imagine that the money they're putting by for the future has some intrinsic value. It doesn't. It just says 'of what is being produced at this future point in time, I get to take *this much*. If they'll let me.'

Owning a house or land does have some intrinsic value. But then, who will operate the energy plants of the future, and the roads, and everything else we rely on? People who are the kids of the kids of kids that are growing up now.

I only have one kid and won't have any more, so I'm relying on other people's kids too.

[StoutHearted]

'Adequately preparing' always involves the adults who will be around when you're old. If you have a private pension fund, who will produce the income that drives that fund? It's not based on the money produced now.

I know what you meant by this, but it didn't address the point I made, which was that childless/free people will not descend into a bog of poverty and misery in their older years simply because they do not have children.

Putting aside money consistently throughout a person's lifetime has not only seen childless people through their retirement years, but it has done so for people who have children, as well. I can say for myself that my teachers taught me not to rely on pensions and Social Security when I get older. Watching people's 401K dreams implode around them is only reinforcing my belief to keep socking money away early and often for retirement.

And who are these future earners that are going to take care of you? Are they the same ones who move back into your home and have grandbabies for you to raise in their stead? The ones who can't get a job now because of the high unemployment rates? Are they making money for your retirement? Don't rely on the younger generation to look after you; it's not guaranteed to happen. Look after yourself.

But I'm not sure what your ultimate argument is. Is it that I should have kids to make things "fair" in terms of providing a future taxpayer? (In which case, should people whose children have died be penalized for not holding up their end of the bargain?) Or do you simply want it acknowledged that the younger generations are the future taxpayers and money makers? If that's the case, I don't think anyone is disputing that, it's simply a statement on how our current economic system works. What's being debated is the idea that everyone owes the world a kid, and the concept of selfishness in terms of "to breed or not to breed."

[mswas]

I know what you meant by this, but it didn't address the point I made, which was that childless/free people will not descend into a bog of poverty and misery in their older years simply because they do not have children.

Putting aside money consistently throughout a person's lifetime has not only seen childless people through their retirement years, but it has done so for people who have children, as well. I can say for myself that my teachers taught me not to rely on pensions and Social Security when I get older. Watching people's 401K dreams implode around them is only reinforcing my belief to keep socking money away early and often for retirement.

And who are these future earners that are going to take care of you? Are they the same ones who move back into your home and have grandbabies for you to raise in their stead? The ones who can't get a job now because of the high unemployment rates? Are they making money for your retirement? Don't rely on the younger generation to look after you; it's not guaranteed to happen. Look after yourself.

It's not just about young people paying into pensions. It's also about having enough young people that hospice nurses and nursing home attendants are well stocked. If there are not enough nurses to care for you, then it will be more expensive to retain one.

[SciFiSam]

I know what you meant by this, but it didn't address the point I made, which was that childless/free people will not descend into a bog of poverty and misery in their older years simply because they do not have children.

Putting aside money consistently throughout a person's lifetime has not only seen childless people through their retirement years, but it has done so for people who have children, as well. I can say for myself that my teachers taught me not to rely on pensions and Social Security when I get older. Watching people's 401K dreams implode around them is only reinforcing my belief to keep socking money away early and often for retirement.

And who are these future earners that are going to take care of you? Are they the same ones who move back into your home and have grandbabies for you to raise in their stead? The ones who can't get a job now because of the high unemployment rates? Are they making money for your retirement? Don't rely on the younger generation to look after you; it's not guaranteed to happen. Look after yourself.

But I'm not sure what your ultimate argument is. Is it that I should have kids to make things "fair" in terms of providing a future taxpayer? (In which case, should people whose children have died be penalized for not holding up their end of the bargain?) Or do you simply want it acknowledged that the younger generations are the future taxpayers and money makers? If that's the case, I don't think anyone is disputing that, it's simply a statement on how our current economic system works. What's being debated is the idea that everyone owes the world a kid, and the concept of selfishness in terms of "to breed or not to breed."

If you put money aside, that depends on money having a value in the future. It doesn't have any intrinsic value. And it depends on having people to buy the stuff from.

My argument is that we CAN'T look after ourselves into old age, even healthy old age. The generations are interdependant (and yes, a couple of people on here have denied that). We'd all be in dire straits if everyone chose not to have kids or chose to have only one, like me. But no, that doesn't mean every individal should have children - I'm not sure why you're asking that if you read my whole post. It just means that the only selfish act is to not support current children (via taxes and so on at least) - selfish and self-defeating.

[StoutHearted]

It's not just about young people paying into pensions. It's also about having enough young people that hospice nurses and nursing home attendants are well stocked. If there are not enough nurses to care for you, then it will be more expensive to retain one.

I can appreciate that, but what's your point? That everyone should have children? That's not necessarily possible nor recommended for every person on this planet. Some can't have them, some won't have them for personal reasons that really aren't your business. So why get worked up over it?

Besides, what you described is a worse-case scenario, just another scary bedtime story to tell to childless people, right after "You'll be so alone when you get ollllld! Booga booga booga!" But you want to go down that road? OK: we're in a Cormac McCarthy-esque world and I'm 80, in poor health, and in need of a good nursing home. But the rates are expensive because they can't find enough staff to stay on. And though I've saved up quite a nest egg, it won't cover the bill for long. (Though if medical treatment is this dire in this dystopia, how are your kids going to be able to afford to care for you, too? Guess you'll be going down with me!) What do I do? Well, if no charity will help me out (after all, since I donate time and money to charities now, then I must be "owed" charity in return, huh?), then I just get myself settled in a comfy chair and await Death. Ta da! The end.

PS: Just because I don't and will not have children does not mean I do not have family. I'll take care of them when they get old, and they are the good sort of people who will take care of me, if needed. So there's your serious answer.

[mswas]

I can appreciate that, but what's your point? That everyone should have children? That's not necessarily possible nor recommended for every person on this planet. Some can't have them, some won't have them for personal reasons that really aren't your business. So why get worked up over it?

My point is precisely what I said it was, if we edge into demographic decline then essential services will not be available. How you choose to react to that as an individual is up to you.

Besides, what you described is a worse-case scenario, just another scary bedtime story to tell to childless people, right after "You'll be so alone when you get ollllld! Booga booga booga!" But you want to go down that road? OK: we're in a Cormac McCarthy-esque world and I'm 80, in poor health, and in need of a good nursing home. But the rates are expensive because they can't find enough staff to stay on. And though I've saved up quite a nest egg, it won't cover the bill for long. (Though if medical treatment is this dire in this dystopia, how are your kids going to be able to afford to care for you, too? Guess you'll be going down with me!) What do I do? Well, if no charity will help me out (after all, since I donate time and money to charities now, then I must be "owed" charity in return, huh?), then I just get myself settled in a comfy chair and await Death. Ta da! The end.

Well it's the reality for Japan, Germany, Italy and China over the next couple of decades. And yes, I'll go down with you. Unless of course my kids decide that taking care of me personally is something they want to do.

PS: Just because I don't and will not have children does not mean I do not have family. I'll take care of them when they get old, and they are the good sort of people who will take care of me, if needed. So there's your serious answer.

What if you outlive them? Are your Brother's/Sister's kids going to take care of you? Your Mom won't be here to return your kindness and generousity when you're 92.

[StoutHearted]

If you put money aside, that depends on money having a value in the future. It doesn't have any intrinsic value. And it depends on having people to buy the stuff from.

My argument is that we CAN'T look after ourselves into old age, even healthy old age. The generations are interdependant (and yes, a couple of people on here have denied that). We'd all be in dire straits if everyone chose not to have kids or chose to have only one, like me. But no, that doesn't mean every individal should have children - I'm not sure why you're asking that if you read my whole post. It just means that the only selfish act is to not support current children (via taxes and so on at least) - selfish and self-defeating.

Not trying to be sarcastic, but did anyone put forth the argument that everyone should stop having kids? I don't think so, but I could have missed something earlier. There are Population Zero enthusiasts out there who are completely serious. I certainly didn't intend to argue for everyone to stop having kids and send human life into a downward spiral, nor did I want to argue that future generations are not important for human survival. What I was arguing for is that people should cut childfree people some slack and not try to guilt them about their failure to increase the population, and just worry about their own lives. Because if you're going to say "But... the future depends on children!" then, yes, you're sending out a guilt trip over something unecessarily worried about. People aren't ceasing to give birth. There have been news reports of more people choosing not to have children, but remember, we just had a baby boom a few generations ago. Mother Nature is naturally bringing things to a less crowded level. I just don't get what all the fuss is about, and how people will bring the weight of human survival on someone who doesn't want children. "What if everyone thought like you?" Well, they don't. Children are still being born. It's OK, really.

[StoutHearted]

What if you outlive them? Are your Brother's/Sister's kids going to take care of you? Your Mom won't be here to return your kindness and generousity when you're 92.

Which was my point earlier about your own children. Truth is, we can't count on anything, not even that we'll be here tomorrow. I'm not going to panic about it. Having a kid certainly won't help matters. Especially if the fate of Italy, Germany, and China is at stake.

[mswas]

Which was my point earlier about your own children. Truth is, we can't count on anything, not even that we'll be here tomorrow. I'm not going to panic about it. Having a kid certainly won't help matters. Especially if the fate of Italy, Germany, and China is at stake.

Their fate is at stake because they haven't had enough kids and now the social fabric will begin to break down as they have more geriatrics than youths. The natural order of things is that the youth are supposed to outnumber the old.

[otternell]

Yes but that was the natural order before we had life expectancies around 75+ yrs. The "natural order" doesn't account for chemotherapy, bypass surgeries, etc. So the problem isn't so much that there aren't enough children being born, but more that we are all living too long.

Who is ready to start the charge of not being a burden by offing themselves?

[mswas]

Yes but that was the natural order before we had life expectancies around 75+ yrs. The "natural order" doesn't account for chemotherapy, bypass surgeries, etc. So the problem isn't so much that there aren't enough children being born, but more that we are all living too long.

You're right, it's even worse now that we have people living long past retirement age and a welfare state that tries to support the retirees. It's exacerbated greatly by life extension.

Who is ready to start the charge of not being a burden by offing themselves?

Or just don't retire.

[Cat Whisperer]

Their fate is at stake because they haven't had enough kids and now the social fabric will begin to break down as they have more geriatrics than youths. The natural order of things is that the youth are supposed to outnumber the old.
If I'm doing the math right, that means a continually growing population, and if you believe that the population of the world is already too high (and I do), that's the last thing we need.

Maybe the truly selfish people are the old folks who retire at 65 and live off social security for the next 30 years, and keep having medical procedures to prolong their unproductive lives.

[mswas]

If I'm doing the math right, that means a continually growing population, and if you believe that the population of the world is already too high (and I do), that's the last thing we need.

Except that it's not people who are educated enough to understand global population statistics who are breeding too much.

Maybe the truly selfish people are the old folks who retire at 65 and live off social security for the next 30 years, and keep having medical procedures to prolong their unproductive lives.

Maybe so. The best argument against UHC is radical life-extension technology.

[Nava]

Interesting you should mention that. I find newborns have a smell (I mean here clean newborns :D) that is positively intoxicating, and hard to describe; I've never seen anyone else reference this.

My SiL says that New Baby Smell beats the crap out of New Car Smell. A friend claims that it's a good thing she got her tubes tied during the cesarean for the third child, because every time she holds a really young baby she wants another one; she jokes she'd be on kid number 6 by now if it hadn't been for the tubes.

I like New Baby Smell, but not badly enough to want one of my own for more than half a minute. I'm happy just holding a borrowed one.

[Malthus]

My SiL says that New Baby Smell beats the crap out of New Car Smell. A friend claims that it's a good thing she got her tubes tied during the cesarean for the third child, because every time she holds a really young baby she wants another one; she jokes she'd be on kid number 6 by now if it hadn't been for the tubes.

I like New Baby Smell, but not badly enough to want one of my own for more than half a minute. I'm happy just holding a borrowed one.

I'd be interested to know if there is any scientific basis for this - I mean, I've observed it myself, but has anyone done a study?

[Malthus]

Their fate is at stake because they haven't had enough kids and now the social fabric will begin to break down as they have more geriatrics than youths. The natural order of things is that the youth are supposed to outnumber the old.

To my mind its a "tragedy of the commons" type situation.

It isn't that one's own children will necessarily support one personally in one's old age. It is simply that children must be produced if old folks in general are to be supported - there have to be young people who work if there are going to be old people who retire.

If it were the case that all of the costs of raising a child were borne by the parents, yet all of the downstream benefits reaped by society as a whole, there is an obvious free rider issue (leaving aside any of the emotional and other benefits of parenthood).

This isn't the case, as those who are not parents contribute to the costs of raising children as well - at least, in part - through taxes and through doing stuff directly for kids who are not their own -- which is as it should be. In my opinion, such things as generous paternal leave and daycare/early childhood education obviously benefit society as a whole and go some way towards solving the free rider issue.

The notion that the teeming masses of the third world will save us all merely externalizes the free rider problem to the third world; moreover it is unrealistic to expect our society to be supported by children who have grown up lacking in education, nutrition, etc.

[Jackmannii]

The concept of a "free rider issue" directed against people without children (applied to any degree whatsoever) would only exist if children were produced by those heavily or entirely motivated to support society, and whose actions subsequently were directed toward that goal.

Since that motivation and followup behavior is rare to nonexistent, the concept as it applies to those without children is ludicrous.

Given the material and non-material benefits ladled out to childbearing couples, and the costs laid on non-child raising individuals, one could much more logically tag childbearing couples with the pejorative term "free rider", not that using such labels has much utility.

[Malthus]

The concept of a "free rider issue" directed against people without children (applied to any degree whatsoever) would only exist if children were produced by those heavily or entirely motivated to support society, and whose actions subsequently were directed toward that goal.

Since that motivation and followup behavior is rare to nonexistent, the concept as it applies to those without children is ludicrous.

Given the material and non-material benefits ladled out to childbearing couples, and the costs laid on non-child raising individuals, one could much more logically tag childbearing couples with the pejorative term "free rider", not that using such labels has much utility.

I agree that children are not produced to further society. Yet they are necessary for that all the same.

Similarly, folks do not go to work to "further society". Yet those who do no work are nonetheless considered "free riders" on those that do*. If you were correct and what counted was motivations, surely you would have to be consistent?

Given that pretty well no-one does anything for the express goal of "furthering society", then there can be no such thing as a "free rider".

As for material benefits - what material benefits are you referring to?

*Edit; with all the necessary caveats of having the ability and opportunity etc.

[Jackmannii]

Similarly, folks do not go to work to "further society". Yet those who do no work are nonetheless considered "free riders" on those that do*. If you were correct and what counted was motivations, surely you would have to be consistent?First off, while it's relatively uncommon, there are people that choose careers aimed primarily at societal benefit rather than putting food on the table (religious and charitable endeavors being non-exclusive examples). Contrast that to the virtually nonexistent "We're having children to pay our debt to Society" motivation. Our working generates taxes to perform essential government functions. Having kids drains tax income (excepting of course sales taxes - but you don't have to have kids to be a rampant consumer.:D).As for material benefits - what material benefits are you referring to?Tax breaks*, discounts, preferential treatment at work (i.e. with regard to vacations and other forms of time off)...the list goes on.

*I await with interest proposals to eliminate child deductions for income tax purposes, to be replaced with a $1000/head carbon tax to discourage child-bearing for its role in accelerating undesirable climate change. :)

[Malthus]

First off, while it's relatively uncommon, there are people that choose careers aimed primarily at societal benefit rather than putting food on the table (religious and charitable endeavors being non-exclusive examples). Contrast that to the virtually nonexistent "We're having children to pay our debt to Society" motivation. Our working generates taxes to perform essential government functions. Having kids drains tax income (excepting of course sales taxes - but you don't have to have kids to be a rampant consumer.:D).Tax breaks*, discounts, preferential treatment at work (i.e. with regard to vacations and other forms of time off)...the list goes on.

So, aside from monks, social workers and the like, no-one is in a position to claim that those who leech of the system are 'free riders'? :dubious:

Without kids, there is in future no society and no government to be benefitted by one's taxes - money is after all ultimately of value only because there are people around willing to do stuff for money. If no-one your age had kids, where exactly would you be when you, and everyone as old as you, retires? What good is everything you have earned if there is no-one able to work to put food on your table or fuel in your furnace?

I rather suspect that the financial downside to having kids - a career-wrecker for many women for example, payment for room and board and post-secondary education - is rather more significant than the "copious" perks you have mentioned.

To be clear I've already staked my position on the OP - that the decision to have kids or not is not an ethical one in the abstract. But there is no doubt that society, and all of us in society, depend on parents. Seems to me pretty obvious, since no kids = no future.

I await with interest proposals to eliminate child deductions for income tax purposes, to be replaced with a $1000/head carbon tax to discourage child-bearing for its role in accelerating undesirable climate change.

You can wait. No society really wishes to encourage its own extinction, however "desireable" this may be from the point of view of the climate.

[mswas]

The concept of a "free rider issue" directed against people without children (applied to any degree whatsoever) would only exist if children were produced by those heavily or entirely motivated to support society, and whose actions subsequently were directed toward that goal.

Since that motivation and followup behavior is rare to nonexistent, the concept as it applies to those without children is ludicrous.

Given the material and non-material benefits ladled out to childbearing couples, and the costs laid on non-child raising individuals, one could much more logically tag childbearing couples with the pejorative term "free rider", not that using such labels has much utility.

Oh please what silly nonsense.

This is more of the logic where children are consumer goods and not people, so therefore they are labelled in terms of carbon footprint or societal cost, and their value is considered part of the parental consumption rather than treating them as full human beings.

[mswas]

I agree that children are not produced to further society. Yet they are necessary for that all the same.

You would be wrong then. Children are produced to further society, by definition. That is precisely why children are produced. There is no other reason. If people stopped having children society would cease to exist. In fact it is the ONLY activity that furthers society. Everything else is maintenance.

[Malthus]

You would be wrong then. Children are produced to further society, by definition. That is precisely why children are produced. There is no other reason. If people stopped having children society would cease to exist. In fact it is the ONLY activity that furthers society. Everything else is maintenance.

I agree that this is the effect - read the rest of my posts. I also agree that this is not the motivation. People have kids because they want 'em, not (in general) out of a sense of social duty.

Just as people work, not so that society will be well stocked with weath, but for their own motives; so people have children, not so society will be propagated, but for their own reasons.

Society would be neither wealthy nor exist if people did not work and have children. Everyone depends, ultimately, on folks who do these two things.

A person who does no work (though able) is in no position to sneer at those who work, because ultimately everything the non-worker consumes is produced by those who work. A person who has no children is similarly positioned vs. parents; ultimately the future existence of society is only possible through their efforts.

The fact that neither worker nor parent sets out to conciously further the aims and existence of society is simply irrelevant; they do so no matter what their reasons.

[mswas]

I agree that this is the effect - read the rest of my posts. I also agree that this is not the motivation. People have kids because they want 'em, not (in general) out of a sense of social duty.

This is a false dichotomy. People certainly DO have kids for the purpose of furthering society. That is the primary motivation for having children. Only accidental pregnancies fit your criteria. People have children so that they can create the next generation. This is a knowing and willing choice for many parents. Creating the next generation and furthering society are the same thing.

Your entire point of view on this is skewed. People DO work to further society. People want a job that both brings fulfillment and puts food on their table. Feeding one's family, 'furthers', society by keeping their families alive to keep society going on. Survival and the preservation of life IS the furthering of society.

You guys are diminishing the value of human life with this argument. All of you are someone's children. And all of you were brought into adulthood by people who were committed enough to furthering society to ensure that you didn't die.

[Malthus]

This is a false dichotomy. People certainly DO have kids for the purpose of furthering society. That is the primary motivation for having children. Only accidental pregnancies fit your criteria. People have children so that they can create the next generation. This is a knowing and willing choice for many parents. Creating the next generation and furthering society are the same thing.


Well, my point is that this debate (which will I'm sure be really a matter of semantics) is quite irrelevant. Who cares what motivates people to have kids? No kids = no society in the not-so-long run, no matter what reasons they have.

[mswas]

Well, my point is that this debate (which will I'm sure be really a matter of semantics) is quite irrelevant. Who cares what motivates people to have kids? No kids = no society in the not-so-long run, no matter what reasons they have.

Fair enough. But any broad statement about the motivations of parents or non-parents will inevitably be wrong, as there are a complexity of reasons why people do the things they do. Some people have kids because they didn't want to wear a condom when they were drunk. Others have kids because they think it is a duty to society. While certainly some people don't have kids because they want to be free to run to Barbados on a whim, while others don't have kids because they don't think they'd make good parents.

[Jackmannii]

...money is after all ultimately of value only because there are people around willing to do stuff for money. If no-one your age had kids, where exactly would you be when you, and everyone as old as you, retires?Equally to the point - given the economic outlook, there are going to be a lot of younger workers grateful for jobs taking care of the needs of retirees.

Those old farts' cash will put food on the table and pay for the latest must-have hellphone apps. :DThis is more of the logic where children are consumer goods and not people, so therefore they are labelled in terms of carbon footprint or societal costThis thread mostly has been devoted to discussion of the societal cost/benefit of children, so your objection comes across as incoherent. People certainly DO have kids for the purpose of furthering society. That is the primary motivation for having children.This is a manifest delusion. Whatever nagging sense of duty plays a part in the equation relates to satisfying expectations of relatives, friends and acquaintances - not altruism.

[mswas]

This thread mostly has been devoted to discussion of the societal cost/benefit of children, so your objection comes across as incoherent.

That's your own failing. It was perfectly coherent. If we are judging the 'value' of my family of four for instance, you must divide by four, not by two. There's nothing incoherent about that.

This is a manifest delusion. Whatever nagging sense of duty plays a part in the equation relates to satisfying expectations of relatives, friends and acquaintances - not altruism.

No it's not. No one said anything about altruism. That's some bullshit you just made up to make yourself feel superior to others, as is the case the vast majority of the time someone utters the world altruism. Duty to relatives, friends and acquaintances is the furthering of society. Wanting to expand one's family, or spread one's seed is indeed a desire further society. Altruism is irrelevant nonsense for polemicists. One does not need to be altruistic to further society.

Again the ONLY activity that furthers society is breeding. Society can go on without Doctors, without Lawyers, without Politicians, without Missionaries, without High School Teachers, without Construction Workers. Society can lose ANY AND ALL professions, and continue to be society. With the exception of one profession, parents. Parents are the only necessary occupation required to further society. This is about as controversial as 'Water is wet'. There is not a valid counterpoint.

[Malthus]

Equally to the point - given the economic outlook, there are going to be a lot of younger workers grateful for jobs taking care of the needs of retirees.


Where, exactly, are these 'younger workers grateful for jobs' to come from - if no-one has kids?

[Jackmannii]

Where, exactly, are these 'younger workers grateful for jobs' to come from - if no-one has kids?Right! The phenomenon of no one having kids is right around the corner - better start breeding while you still can!

I really haven't given enough credit to the people in our society who have kids because they possess the sort of dedication manifested by Katharine, Winston Smith's hot spouse in 1984, who consents to intercourse with him only because it is their "duty to the Party" to have children.

[SciFiSam]

Equally to the point - given the economic outlook, there are going to be a lot of younger workers grateful for jobs taking care of the needs of retirees.

Those old farts' cash will put food on the table and pay for the latest must-have hellphone apps. :DThis thread mostly has been devoted to discussion of the societal cost/benefit of children, so your objection comes across as incoherent.This is a manifest delusion. Whatever nagging sense of duty plays a part in the equation relates to satisfying expectations of relatives, friends and acquaintances - not altruism.

And where will those old farts get the cash? From pensions or investements? Fine. Where does the money that drives those pensions and investments come from? It comes from money being generated in the economy by workers. Not workers at the time that the pensioner was working, but workers at the time that the pensioner is asking for returns on the money they invested.

You're making the mistake that too many others make, of assuming that money put by for the future is like burying acorns of a type that will never rot, and then digging them up when the time comes. It's more like burying post-dated cheques and hoping that future generations will be able to honour them.

Right! The phenomenon of no one having kids is right around the corner - better start breeding while you still can!

I really haven't given enough credit to the people in our society who have kids because they possess the sort of dedication manifested by Katharine, Winston Smith's hot spouse in 1984, who consents to intercourse with him only because it is their "duty to the Party" to have children.

The phenomenom of not enough people having kids is right here, right now.

I disagree with mswas that there are are people having kids just for duty to society. Duty to a particular community, certainly, but not to society as a whole.

Regardless of that, kids do fulfill needs for future societies. Kids who were brought up well fulfill even more of those needs. Nobody has an obligation to have kids, and certainly those who really don't want kids should try their very best not to have them - but we will all need somebody's kids someday.

[Malthus]

Right! The phenomenon of no one having kids is right around the corner - better start breeding while you still can!



Whether or not there is an actual demographic crisis in first-world nations (evidence points to there being one in at least some nations, caused by people having children at less than the replacement rate and living longer - see, for example, Japan), isn't your response simply that you can comfortably afford to allow others to take care of the issue *for* you?

That may well be true, at least if you live somewhere that people are on average reproducing at the replacement rate, but it is also the very definition of free-riding.

[mswas]

I disagree with mswas that there are are people having kids just for duty to society. Duty to a particular community, certainly, but not to society as a whole.

Duty to community and duty to society are the same thing. Society is just community in the macro and community is society in the micro. They are synonyms that refer to differences in scale, not differences in kind.

In fact people have kids for no other reason than to move society forward. There simply is not another reason to have them. Other than accidental pregnancy of course, but I am talking about people who make the decision to have kids intentionally.

[StoutHearted]

Where, exactly, are these 'younger workers grateful for jobs' to come from - if no-one has kids?

This is an unjustified fear. People will still have kids, even if a minority of the population can't or won't. It's really better for the planet that not every single person replicates their DNA.

Populations have fluctuated throughout human history; we are not in a crisis for the survival of the human species right now. Right now, there's a lot of fearmongering that the right kind of people are not breeding, which is extremely racist. (CNN, I'm looking at you.) But humans, on the whole, are still getting it on and still having kids.

The idea that childless people aren't doing their part for the world, and making parents do all the work, is terrible. First of all, the childfree are scientists, teachers, doctors, and other vital occupations for the survival and development of our species. Second, you can turn that idea around to say "You're not helping the homeless and letting charitable people do all the work" or "You're not looking for a cure for cancer and letting the scientists do all the work." Some people are meant to do certain things, while others are not.

[mswas]

This is an unjustified fear. People will still have kids, even if a minority of the population can't or won't. It's really better for the planet that not every single person replicates their DNA.

Except that it is a major problem for many polities.

Populations have fluctuated throughout human history; we are not in a crisis for the survival of the human species right now. Right now, there's a lot of fearmongering that the right kind of people are not breeding, which is extremely racist. (CNN, I'm looking at you.) But humans, on the whole, are still getting it on and still having kids.

Pointing out that the educated and affluent are breeding less than the uneducated and poor is not racist. Education level and affluence are not racial characteristics. Classist maybe, but not racist.

The idea that childless people aren't doing their part for the world, and making parents do all the work, is terrible. First of all, the childfree are scientists, teachers, doctors, and other vital occupations for the survival and development of our species. Second, you can turn that idea around to say "You're not helping the homeless and letting charitable people do all the work" or "You're not looking for a cure for cancer and letting the scientists do all the work." Some people are meant to do certain things, while others are not.

No one said anything like this. This is your own insecurity being projected outward. Pointing out that the only way society moves forward is through the creation of new generations does not diminish the contribution of people who do not have children. If you are helping cure cancer or helping the homeless then I thank you for helping make the world a better place for my children.

[Jackmannii]

The phenomenom of not enough people having kids is right here, right now.Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase.

There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That's not because those societies don't sufficiently worship parenthood, it's because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows....we will all need somebody's kids someday.And we'll want considerably fewer of them, to prevent resource depletion and potentially catastrophic environmental degradation.Whether or not there is an actual demographic crisis in first-world nations (evidence points to there being one in at least some nations, caused by people having children at less than the replacement rate and living longer - see, for example, Japan), isn't your response simply that you can comfortably afford to allow others to take care of the issue *for* you?

That may well be true, at least if you live somewhere that people are on average reproducing at the replacement rate, but it is also the very definition of free-riding. So after rejecting it earlier, you're reviving the "free-riding" label. How consistent.

In the end, most of what this silly debate involves is the need of some parents to feel morally superior, get lots of bonuses and pats on the back for having procreated for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes and look down (with considerable, unwonted jealousy) at people who did not breed for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes.

Sorry, but ethics just doesn't come into it (with exceptions like if you're bearing kids who are highly likely to have horrific, fatal genetically-determined illnesses). Parents who do a really good job of raising their kids deserve metaphorical pats on the back. The usual run of parents - meh.

Maybe that's what we should be basing tax relief and discounts for parenting on - the quality of child-rearing. If we can define teacher pay on student performance, a parental equivalent shouldn't be impossible.

I'll volunteer for grading based on child behavior in restaurants. :D

[Malthus]

This is an unjustified fear. People will still have kids, even if a minority of the population can't or won't.

Again, this is reliance on others to take care of the issue for you. Which reliance may or may not be justified.

Populations have fluctuated throughout human history; we are not in a crisis for the survival of the human species right now.

Agreed, humanity as a species will survive. But our particular cultures of humanity here in the first world are the ones under stress.

Right now, there's a lot of fearmongering that the right kind of people are not breeding, which is extremely racist. (CNN, I'm looking at you.) But humans, on the whole, are still getting it on and still having kids.

Personally, if one looks on having (and more importantly, raising) children as a task of labour, then relying on folks in the third world to do it for you because you would rather not is simply another type of exploitation.

There is nothing "racist" in noting that third world parents have less resources and the kids they produce are less likely than the kids we in the first world produce to have access to education, medical care, and job opportunities.

It would be wonderful if instead of having kids everyone in the West devoted their surplus to supporting third-world parents to first-world standards, but it is very unlikely to happen.

The idea that childless people aren't doing their part for the world, and making parents do all the work, is terrible.

Terrible, but true. In this respect at least.

First of all, the childfree are scientists, teachers, doctors, and other vital occupations for the survival and development of our species. Second, you can turn that idea around to say "You're not helping the homeless and letting charitable people do all the work" or "You're not looking for a cure for cancer and letting the scientists do all the work." Some people are meant to do certain things, while others are not.

A false dichotomy. No-one is complaining that those without children make no contribution. Indeed, their contribution could be every bit as vital or more.

Similarly, noting that those who willingly choose to remain on social assistance are "free riders" is not to denigrate their accomplishments in other areas. They may be great parents, for all we know.

I think though that most people who (more or less willingly) work for a living would not be heartened by the argument that they were simply meant to work, while others (presumably those doing the arguing) were meant to live on social assistance.

[StoutHearted]

Pointing out that the educated and affluent are breeding less than the uneducated and poor is not racist. Education level and affluence are not racial characteristics. Classist maybe, but not racist.

That, too, but I was calling out CNN specifically for their recent report that white people aren't breeding enough to remain in the majority. I'm sorry I ddin't make that clear.

No one said anything like this. This is your own insecurity being projected outward.

Did you miss this? Because this is what I was referring to:

Whether or not there is an actual demographic crisis in first-world nations (evidence points to there being one in at least some nations, caused by people having children at less than the replacement rate and living longer - see, for example, Japan), isn't your response simply that you can comfortably afford to allow others to take care of the issue *for* you?

That may well be true, at least if you live somewhere that people are on average reproducing at the replacement rate, but it is also the very definition of free-riding.

I was addressing the concept of "free-riding."

[mswas]

Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase.

There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That's not because those societies don't sufficiently worship parenthood, it's because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows.

:rolleyes:

Healthy economies like Niger and the Gaza Strip (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html?countryCode=al&rankAnchorRow=#al).

In the end, most of what this silly debate involves is the need of some parents to feel morally superior, get lots of bonuses and pats on the back for having procreated for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes and look down (with considerable, unwonted jealousy) at people who did not breed for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes.

No actually, this is a straw man. The only people who are really turning it into a superiority issue are the people who feel insecure about not having kids. I don't see anyone in this thread looking jealously at people who didn't have kids. I see a bunch of people projecting their own insecurities onto parents and claiming that they are saying things that they aren't saying though.

Sorry, but ethics just doesn't come into it (with exceptions like if you're bearing kids who are highly likely to have horrific, fatal genetically-determined illnesses). Parents who do a really good job of raising their kids deserve metaphorical pats on the back. The usual run of parents - meh.

The usual run of parents produce fine people. The norm is to produce healthy well-adjusted adults. It's not the exception. This just shows your own bias and feelings of superiority.

Maybe that's what we should be basing tax relief and discounts for parenting on - the quality of child-rearing. If we can define teacher pay on student performance, a parental equivalent shouldn't be impossible.

LOL. Sure. The government can start paying me a paycheck for raising my kids. And after they START paying me, then we can define how much they pay me based on the quality of my child-rearing. ;)

I'll volunteer for grading based on child behavior in restaurants. :D

Most people without kids have no clue about child behavior in restaurants. Sometimes the same kid will be an angel and other times they'll be monstrous. Depends on their mood.

In my experience based on these discussions on the SDMB at least. That it is far more likely that people who do not have kids will look down on parents than the other way around. Skewed cohort to be certain, but that's my experience here.

[Malthus]

Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase.

There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That's not because those societies don't sufficiently worship parenthood, it's because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows.And we'll want considerably fewer of them, to prevent resource depletion and potentially catastrophic environmental degradation.

Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. Worldwide, the birth-rate tends to fall with improvements in the economy. The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect.

So after rejecting it earlier, you're reviving the "free-riding" label. How consistent.

Please point out where I rejected the notion of "free rider".

What I rejected is the notion that an individual's choice of whether or not to have children is an ethical one in the abstract.

In the end, most of what this silly debate involves is the need of some parents to feel morally superior, get lots of bonuses and pats on the back for having procreated for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes and look down (with considerable, unwonted jealousy) at people who did not breed for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes.

Sorry, but ethics just doesn't come into it (with exceptions like if you're bearing kids who are highly likely to have horrific, fatal genetically-determined illnesses). Parents who do a really good job of raising their kids deserve metaphorical pats on the back. The usual run of parents - meh.

Maybe that's what we should be basing tax relief and discounts for parenting on - the quality of child-rearing. If we can define teacher pay on student performance, a parental equivalent shouldn't be impossible.

I'll volunteer for grading based on child behavior in restaurants. :D

I'm sure I could frame an equally dismissive reply, but I won't bother.

[mswas]

That, too, but I was calling out CNN specifically for their recent report that white people aren't breeding enough to remain in the majority. I'm sorry I ddin't make that clear.

Got a cite? I'd be interested in reading it. I mean it's true. It's simply a fact. White people are not breeding enough to remain a majority in the United States.

I was addressing the concept of "free-riding."

Right, but I think you are looking only for the emotional judgment and not the underlying issue. It is a free-rider issue. Whether or not that offends someone or not. We are all free-riders in some respects. That is the nature of the specialization of labor.

I don't have any problems with people who remain to be childless. I just don't like the inherent contempt that the 'childfree' hold parents in. That the term, "Breeder", is used perjoratively in our society disturbs me not because it's inherently offensive, which it is, but because it shows a disrespect for the very function that brings human life into existence. It holds the birth of children as something that is worthy of contempt. I find it far more disturbing than I find it offensive.

I don't think that you or Cat Whisperer for instance have said anything disturbing or offensive. I think you should live your life freely. And that's one of the strengths of our society. People who want children can raise the children. I personally think that you should have respect for parents and the job they do, because one day their children will support the economy that will help support your savings/pension/social security. They will be the workers that change your bedpan when you are a 90 year old invalid. They might even be your only friend once all of your friends have died. As such, I think you should have a respect for them, simply because I think you should have a reverence for human life and a general gratitude for the help that others provide you. But I don't think you NEED to procreate if you do not want to. I also return the respect for your humanity and your life, and how you choose to live it and accept that you try to live it as honorably and as justly as you can, and I don't think that your choice to not have children diminishes your value as a human being.

[StoutHearted]

Similarly, noting that those who willingly choose to remain on social assistance are "free riders" is not to denigrate their accomplishments in other areas. They may be great parents, for all we know.

Yikes, man. Just... yikes.

I think though that most people who (more or less willingly) work for a living would not be heartened by the argument that they were simply meant to work, while others (presumably those doing the arguing) were meant to live on social assistance.

No, they wouldn't, which is why I didn't say that -- I never even brought up social assistance, and it wasn't relevent to my argument. Some people are meant to be parents, and some people are not. So the one who do or cannot have kids can contribute to the human race in other ways. As you yourself said, this "could be every bit as vital or more." Abstaining from giving birth does not make a person unethical in itself, and the decision not to have kids is not unethical.

[StoutHearted]

I'm sorry, mwas, I couldn't find the CNN article, even though I recall reading it recently. I did find a recent article in the LA Times, if that'll do: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-white-minority17-2009dec17,0,5978884.story

I don't have any problems with people who remain to be childless. I just don't like the inherent contempt that the 'childfree' hold parents in. That the term, "Breeder", is used perjoratively in our society disturbs me not because it's inherently offensive, which it is, but because it shows a disrespect for the very function that brings human life into existence. It holds the birth of children as something that is worthy of contempt. I find it far more disturbing than I find it offensive.

True, there is contempt out there, and it's on both sides. Childfree people get put on the defensive about their choice to willingly remain childess, and parents sometimes have to defend why they chose to have children. People on both sides will claim the other is jealous of their lifestyle. But not everyone. You're right, emotions are coming into play. Not all childfree people hold parents in contempt, just as not all parents let their kids run wild in restaurants and movie theaters. The loudest, angriest ones always get the most attention, though.

Personally, I respect parents who work hard to raise good kids. It's not the act of giving birth that impresses me, but the long, hard road that comes after. I can't blame parents for being upset at the word "breeder;" it is derogatory, and intentionally so. But I worry that some people assume that "childfree" means "child hater," which isn't true. Some childfree people do openly hate children, as so some parents, unfortunately. But you'll find that most childfree people are OK with kids, they just don't want them in their lives.

I also return the respect for your humanity and your life, and how you choose to live it and accept that you try to live it as honorably and as justly as you can, and I don't think that your choice to not have children diminishes your value as a human being.

Well said. Thank you for this.

[Malthus]

Yikes, man. Just... yikes.

It's an analogy. :D

No, they wouldn't, which is why I didn't say that -- I never even brought up social assistance, and it wasn't relevent to my argument.

You didn't bring up social assistance - I did. It's a very roughly analogous situation.

Some people are meant to be parents, and some people are not. So the one who do or cannot have kids can contribute to the human race in other ways. As you yourself said, this "could be every bit as vital or more." Abstaining from giving birth does not make a person unethical in itself, and the decision not to have kids is not unethical.

Where did you get the impression I thought it was? I've been saying that the individual's choice one way or the other isn't an ethical one in the abstract this whole thread.

The two arguments are unrelated:

1. In general and on average, non-parents rely on parents to produce children so that humanity in general and our society in particular has a future (either here in the first world or in the third world). Relying on others to do something necessary = free riding.

2. In specific and on an individual level, the choice of whether or not to have kids is not an ethical one in the abstract; individual circumstances govern.

It is the same with work (that analogy again). Some people cannot work, for whatever reason, and so must rely on others to be productive in that way on their behalf. They are "free riders" in that respect. However, they may well be equally (or more) valuable and valued for other reasons. The term "free rider" is intended descriptively only. Their choice of whether to work or not isn't an ethical one, it is one for each individual given their individual circumstances to make. The analogy is not perfect obviously. One aspect of the choice to parent is that those who do not wish to do it may, for that very reason, not be suited to do it (this does not I think hold for work).

[Jackmannii]

Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. Worldwide, the birth-rate tends to fall with improvements in the economy. The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect. Except that low birth rates (i.e. falling or threatening to fall below the death rate) in places like the Soviet Union and a few other countries have been tied to the poor economy. It does not follow that high birth rate = good economy, and I did not claim such.Please point out where I rejected the notion of "free rider".Post #202.Given that pretty well no-one does anything for the express goal of "furthering society", then there can be no such thing as a "free rider".:)

Two posts before that you were claiming that certain financial benefits for parents went "some way" towards mitigating the idea that those without children are "free riders" - so you've really been back and forth on this subject.

Better stick with "there can be no such thing as a free rider"; it's foolish to use such labels, except for situations such as people deliberately having a large family that they know they will be unable to care for without major public support.I'm sure I could frame an equally dismissive reply, but I won't bother.You've been dismissive enough by ignoring the environmental impact of excess childbearing, preferring instead to focus on the dread threat of the "extinction" of society. :rolleyes:

[Malthus]

Except that low birth rates (i.e. falling or threatening to fall below the death rate) in places like the Soviet Union and a few other countries have been tied to the poor economy. It does not follow that high birth rate = good economy, and I did not claim such.

No, you claim poor economy = low birth rates. Worldwide, that just is not true.


Post #202.:)

Two posts before that you were claiming that certain financial benefits for parents went "some way" towards mitigating the idea that those without children are "free riders" - so you've really been back and forth on this subject.

You are seriously misunderstanding my posts. :D

When I say "Given that pretty well no-one does anything for the express goal of "furthering society", then there can be no such thing as a "free rider".", I'm criticising the assumption you made - that motivation is the key.

What I'm saying is that 'if we take your assumption seriously, the term 'free rider' is effectively useless'. Given that I do not think the term is useless, it is your assumption that should be discarded, rather than the term.

Better stick with "there can be no such thing as a free rider"; it's foolish to use such labels, except for situations such as people deliberately having a large family that they know they will be unable to care for without major public support.

Why should I discard a perfectly good term?

You've been dismissive enough by ignoring the environmental impact of excess childbearing, preferring instead to focus on the dread threat of the "extinction" of society. :rolleyes:

Society will not become extinct because people have kids. Again, what you are saying is 'the alleged threat is silly -- because others will do what I will not, and we all know it'. Yes, that's true. Society will not collapse either if I decide to not work and go on social assistance - we all know most people will work, no matter what I choose to do. Why not make fun of *them* for creating environmental degridation, as they surely do? Surely if no-one worked the environment would be better off, no? How inconsiderate of folks to work, creating the current enviroinmental disaster! How superior am I, who righteously refuses to work! :D

As for the "environmental impact of excess childbearing", please define "excess".

[The Flying Dutchman]

The solution is that people who want to have children should have children, and people who don't want to have children should not have children. It ain't complicated.

Would that it was that simple. What about the wife who wants a baby and the husband who would rather not. He knows he'll get less attention, less freedom and his gorgeous wife 's body will never feel the same again. He goes along for her sake. . But then he holds onto that little helpless kid his wife just popped out and wilfully dedicates his life to that child. I'm sure that happens a lot.

[Jackmannii]

No, you claim poor economy = low birth rates.Repeating this incorrect characterization does not make it true. You are seriously misunderstanding my posts.If you'd stick to one opinion, it'd be easier to "understand" them.Why should I discard a perfectly good term?Because it's stupid and divisive? Hey, keep using it if you need it to reinforce the decisions you've made. Society will not become extinct because people have kids.Given that we've gotten uncomfortably close to the planet's carrying capacity due to overpopulation (in the view of many knowledgeable observers), serious consequences ("extinction" is unlikely) are far more probable with uncontrolled breeding than "extinction" due to a sizable minority choosing not to have kids. Even with the worst Malthusian consequences avoided, we're still going to add a hell of a lot of people worldwide over the next century or so, and a major array of problems including insufficient food and fresh water supplies will have to be dealt with (even while some choose to obsess over the downfall of society due to non-childbearing couples).

A lot of people (myself included) would consider Octomom and her enablers to be irresponsible, and (using your term of choice) "free riders" on society. (She could be the poster child for "excess breeding"). I do not think it's rational to view her in the same light as a couple that decides that children are not for them.

I generally view the decision of a couple that can afford a family to have children as an ethically neutral decision, the same way I'd view a decision to not have children. If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad.
Can I genuflect a little in your direction for this sentence, or would that be over the top?

[SciFiSam]

Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase.

There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That's not because those societies don't sufficiently worship parenthood, it's because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows.And we'll want considerably fewer of them, to prevent resource depletion and potentially catastrophic environmental degradation.So after rejecting it earlier, you're reviving the "free-riding" label. How consistent.


I'm in the UK. The birthrate is not high (I think immigrations recently took it above replacement level for the first time in a couple of decades). The economy's not wonderful right now, but was doing pretty well until very recently - and it's certainly not worse than the US. The same goes for the rest of Western Europe.

Maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows - hmm. I need a cite for that. I was under the impression that the richest countries in the world also had the lowest birthrates.

Nobody needs to 'worship parenthood.' Where did you get that idea from? We don't need fewer and fewer children in the future either, unless we're all prepared to work till we drop and never draw any pensions or rely on any medical plans.

[mswas]

Can I genuflect a little in your direction for this sentence, or would that be over the top?

And this is my problem with childfree-ness. The cultish behavior. The 'cult of the child' 'breeder' derogation that is always brought up and thrown in the face of people, and even the less extreme like yourself give kudos to those who use such childish argumentation. There is no cult of the child, there is the species that can only survive through propagation. So it's not a matter of whether or not parenthood is an 'unalloyed good'. That's childish nonsense. What parenthood is, is an 'unalloyed necessity'. It's more important than any other profession. No matter what it is you do for the human race, it's a less important, less essential job than parenthood. Sure, the supply of parents is great, and as such that makes the value of an individual parent of less value than professions where demand exceeds supply like Doctors and Nurses. But, the fact of the matter is, if you do not have a recognition and deference to the position of parenthood in general, then your position isn't merely that you do not want to have children. It is at its core, anti-natalist. This can be shown by the soft bigotry shown in derogatory terms like, "Cult of the child.", or "Breeders".

jackmanii's position is merely bigotted. He's taken it further than simply a freedom of choice argument. I guess it's useful as this discussion wouldn't have legs considering everyone who has posted here is in favor of freedom of choice. So there needs to be SOMEONE to argue the unreasonable position. But I think it's important to point out that it's a form of bigotry, and it shouldn't be any more culturally acceptable to say, "Cult of the Child", or "Breeder" than it is to call someone a nigger or a spic.

Anti-Natalist positions deserve no respect whatsoever. However, the choice to remain childless isn't anti-natalist. But scratch someone who refers to themselves as 'childfree' and 9 times out of 10 you find you're talking to an anti-natalist bigot.

[Malthus]

Repeating this incorrect characterization does not make it true.

"Maintain a heathy economy and your population grows".

No, it doesn't.

That's a direct quote of yours; it is incorrect.

If you'd stick to one opinion, it'd be easier to "understand" them.

I have stuck to one opinion. That you see nuance as contradiction isn't my problem.

Because it's stupid and divisive? Hey, keep using it if you need it to reinforce the decisions you've made.

Some truths are uncomfortable, but your lack of comfort does not make it "stupid" to point out an obvious fact: that you (and everyone else) relies on someone to produce children, since no children = no future.

Given that we've gotten uncomfortably close to the planet's carrying capacity due to overpopulation (in the view of many knowledgeable observers), serious consequences ("extinction" is unlikely) are far more probable with uncontrolled breeding than "extinction" due to a sizable minority choosing not to have kids. Even with the worst Malthusian consequences avoided, we're still going to add a hell of a lot of people worldwide over the next century or so, and a major array of problems including insufficient food and fresh water supplies will have to be dealt with (even while some choose to obsess over the downfall of society due to non-childbearing couples).

The issue of overpopulation is very real, but the question is one of location. Overpopulation is above all else a problem affecting poor countries, not wealthy ones.


I generally view the decision of a couple that can afford a family to have children as an ethically neutral decision, the same way I'd view a decision to not have children.

Yet you have somehow missed my multiple posts in this very thread where I say that an individual choice in this area is ethically neutral?

If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad.

It strikes me as "horribly unfair" that you should so badly misconstrue my argument; and yes, it is "too bad".

The fact you are unable to bring yourself to acknowledge the obvious truth - that the future of our species requires parents - strikes me as little short of bizzare.

[Captain Amazing]

Maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows - hmm. I need a cite for that. I was under the impression that the richest countries in the world also had the lowest birthrates.

Actually, just as a note, the person you're responding to didn't say "maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows"...they said, "maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.", which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there's going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country.

[mswas]

Actually, just as a note, the person you're responding to didn't say "maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows"...they said, "maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.", which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there's going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country.

Which is irrelevant to the idea of global overpopulation and has nothing to do with breeding.

[SciFiSam]

Actually, just as a note, the person you're responding to didn't say "maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows"...they said, "maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.", which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there's going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country.

If he was talking about immigration rather than birthrates, then he must have forgotten what thread he's on, but, in any case, he's wrong even including immigration.

[Malthus]

Actually, just as a note, the person you're responding to didn't say "maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows"...they said, "maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.", which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there's going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country.

Context, context. Clearly we are not talking about immigration here.

Even so, the notion is not necessarily correct - look at Germany and Japan:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1836769,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7084749.stm

While it is true that countries could in theory solve demographic problems by deliberately encouraging immigration if they have enough money, this raises other problems - namely, the notorious "brain drain" of the third world, further impoverishing the most impoverished, and in effect outsourcing the difficult task of raising future generations to those least able to afford it.

[Crawlspace]

Who said, 'every'? I said, 'Most'. (. . .) Most human choices? Selfish.You did.
Yes, it is. Everything we do is selfish.

Using it any other way is doublespeak and that's doubleplusungood.

[mswas]

You did.

K fair enough. Revise it to 'most' or 'almost every'. Or even, 'Altruistic acts are extremely rare.'