First, there is no such thing as “the next evolutionary step”. Selection is continuous, and the “direction” of change is dependent on prevailing conditions and circumstances; if those change, so too does the direction of the process.
Second, I would be very leery of simply attributing a complex behavior to any gene or combination of genes. We are more than our genes. Developmental and environmental influences can have dramatic effects on our behaviors (not to mention personal choice), and it is, to my mind, misguided to attempt to explain all such behaviors through the lens of genetics.
The desire for sex is, overall, instinctual. The desire to care for a child is, overall, instinctual. Some may not possess such instincts, but this is not necessarily the result of genetics. It’s also something that’s very difficult to pin down to an explicit cause, since you can’t restart the clock under different circumstances to separate out the genetic factors from the environmental ones. It may well be that, had a different environment been provided, a given “child free” person may have opted for children, or vice versa.
I don’t see a strong disposition to having children. I see a strong disposition to having sex and children being the result.
That most people end up loving their children doesn’t mean that they had an instinct to have children. They don’t need an instinct to have children. The instinct to have sex already covers that.
Just another childfree and happily spayed female kicking in her two cents here.
A number of people here have made the points that they never wanted to have kids, they don’t like being around other people’s kids, that when they themselves were kids they preferred the company of adults, etc. And naturally hate it when others say “You’ll change your mind and want them,” or “You’d love children if they were YOURS” etc. Yes, I’m one of those too so I need not dwell on it. However, here’s something I didn’t quite see mentioned –
While I respect other people’s decisions to have and raise children, I can’t stand it when someone whips out a picture of her/his baby or small child and gushes about how adorable it is, then expects me to do the same (I don’t). I don’t even think kids are cute, and if you ask me, babies look like repulsive larvae to me! Opinions on that one?
As to the OP’s question, my original decision not to have kids came from my belief that if you DO have kids, you have a responsibility to THEM FIRST. I was not willing to make that kind of sacrifice. Later on (around my late 20s) the demographics of the apartment building I live in changed. Instead of young singles, young couples and elderly (no kids), families with kids started moving in, and/or some of the young couples started having babies. Prior to this, while I didn’t want to have or raise kids of my own, I didn’t hate kids like I do now. But the constant exposure to the noise and them being in the way HAS made me hate them – to the point where I can’t stand the sight of anyone under the age of 25 or so.
Note: I’m divorced, and if things don’t work out with my bf (who thankfully has no kids and doesn’t want any!), I won’t date men who have kids from prior marriages. Even though that might mean I’ll be alone for the rest of my life (at 42, most people in my age bracket DO have kids!) That’s how strongly anti-kid I am.
I don’t know if this is a glitch in my “programming” or rebellion against society’s expectations that as a woman I “should” want to be a mother (it’s true that I’m a rebel in many other areas). But either way, I’m glad I didn’t have kids. Especially after I hear some of the things my coworkers who are parents or stepparents have to say.
I agree with the notion that we’re programmed to like sex, not to want to have children. Nature is nothing if not efficient. If one instinct (the instinct to have sex- and is it even an instinct? There are a lot of nerve endings and it’s a lot of fun to twiddle with them; this seems more like a pleasure-seeking drive than anything as high-falutin’ as an instinct; I guess we could ask the nuns and such, but that’s a whole 'nother topic) gets the job done, then there’s no need to have another as well. I expect with the major dose of… what is it, oxycotin? that happens to new moms, plus the instinct to like cute things, the children were cared for well enough. So if there is a genetic component to childfreehood (or whatever) then it probably continues to get passed down for generations until women finally gained the ability to control their fertility.
My thinking personally is that it’s more like a taste for something; say, the smell of chamomile for instance. Some people like it, some people are indifferent, some people can’t stand it (like me). It’s only very recently that women have had any reliable birth control methods and have been able to actually seriously consider the possibility of a lifetime without children. In most cultures, people see children and understand about babies and such from the get go- the only way to actually tease out of there actually is a genetic component to child-rearing versus childfree would be to raise a bunch of people in such a way that no one ever mentioned childbirth or raising children and seeing what happens. I think that’s unlikely, to say the least.
And wouldn’t matter in any event. The race is not in any danger of dying out, so there’s no harm in letting a few people squeak by without reproducing, I sez.
It is natural to have a lessened desire to have children as population pressures increase.
Studies where they take mice or rats, give them unlimited food & water but not room show that less animals try to have kids, there are more miscarriages, more homosexuality, etc. Basicly, the population reactc by reducing the number of children.
Natural instinctual reaction to living cheek-by-jowl. Of course, it does not occur in all of the animals in that popualtion, of course.
If you look at it one way, it is selfish to HAVE children, and noble to NOT have children. Less cost to Society.
I don’t think the instinct stops at sex. If this were the case I would expect history to show a far larger rate of baby abandonment/infanticide. After all, if you aren’t interested in the end result of the sex, why not dump it off in the nearest woods and get right back into the act of sex ASAP instead of actually caring for the product of the sex? Being a caregiver certainly limits the opportunities for sexual contact, so if sexual contact is the only drive then why keep the kid around after it is born?
Maternal and Paternal instincts play a role here as well. Are these genetic? Are they learned? A combination? No idea, but they certianly seem present in the majority of humans, across history and cultures.
That most people end up loving their children doesn’t mean that they had an instinct to have children. Most adults react positively to any infant, thereby preventing them from killing their own or anyone else’s children.
I think of it this way: When a dog humps my leg, is that dog thinking about fathering puppies? If animals can survive and propagate without any specific “have babies” instinct apart from “have sex,” why can’t people?
My opinion is that the desire for sex is instinctual. Hormones trigger a chemical response to copulate. Having a child in this age is based partly in cultural upbringing and personal upbringing.
I think a third option is more logical. Based on a combination of nurture and nature you choose not to have a child. There is nothing wrong in that and so long as you are happy, then adding a lil munchin is optional at best, superfluous at worst. In this era of overpopulation, environmental degradation and political upheaval, you need to be committed and steadfast to raise a child. Without a commitment, then you only make things bad for both yourself and your children and that is not fair all around.
Perhaps it wasnt because you didnt learn the desire to have children. Perhaps you did learn it but just decided it wasnt for you. Theres certainly nothing wrong with that.
The animal/human analogy breaks down a bit because we simply can’t tell what an animal’s intentions are when they bump uglies. A male dog humping a leg isn’t really the same as engaging in sex with a female dog. Most animal behavioralists believe it is a dominance behavior IIRC.
Since male and female dogs(and in fact most animals) often only bump uglies when the female is in heat, clearly indicating fertility and a window of opportunity for procreation, this could be seen as a procreation instinct as opposed to a sex-for-sex’s-sake instinct. In fact, Humans are one of the few animals on the planet who have recreational, as opposed to procreational, sex.
If I had a penny for all the times I’ve read a thread started by moaning childfree (so called) people whining and gnashing their teeth, then emm… yes then hmm… well for one I sure as hell wouldn’t be sitting in this shitty cubicle. Gosh! You people are really the modern day Jews; persecution and ridicule being the daily bread - or dare I say: soup-du-jour. Oh my. Oh my. So you have no children, so it was a conscious choice, so fucking what? The way you drone about. *“Resistant to cultural brainwashing” *, “glitch in my “programming””, “rebellion against society’s expectations” Like you‘re the brave new model human, boldly going where no man has gone before, bearing the torch of the future. Bah!
I would opt for the third option. “Why the fuck should I care?” But that’s just me personally.
FTR until last year I’ve never owned a car, so I was carfree by choice and there was no end to the shit I was to forced to hear and go through on that account. Sometimes I even had to take the bus, can you believe that! Now I’m not anymore - so. However I’m still televisionfree by choice. And I’m also surfboardfree by choice, the fact that the water around these parts are below zero for much of the year is besides the point. And I think the fact that this gives all the other surfer dudes around so much more space to strut their stuff makes it a moral superior choice. One of my sisters are computerfree by choice, an oppressed minority for sure, so I tried to help her in her misery by locating a computerfree online community – but apparently there were none. I mean WTF! Can you believe that?! :mad:
Methinks the childfree lady (m/w) doth protest too much. It looks to me, you childfree (so called) people so often just seem to be twitching to be called selfish or egoistic, where after you can be all worked up in an outrage and self-righteous indignation. And when you find your self all dressed up and nowhere to go, you even take it upon yourself to act with proactive indignation and virtuously put the words into the virtual persecutors mouths *“go ahead and call me selfish” * Ehh. You have no children and you think this should be a thing of vast interest for the rest of the world? What about if I just call boring. And perhaps we can go back to discussing me, I’m so much more important. Yes how about that - yesterday at work they were talking about a program on the telly I was unable to watch. Talk about lack of respect!
Well I’m not gonna bite. Let’s just all hold hands and be friends. You’re OK. I’m OK (of course children suck). On the other, hand, for the sake of argument, while I’m not calling you selfish, I think I’m going to test the ice by calling your (conscious choice of) lifestyle more selfcentered than that that of parents.
So that’s the infamous guy everybody’s been on about. Seems like a reasonable guy to me. But so did December - so there.
Bollocks!
Beside the point that population pressures is something conjured up in a 1968 induced LSD haze, I see that you completely missed the evolution 101 class. Evolution gives a rats ass about population pressure, as long as an animal can propagate itself, it will – in the greatest number possible. It that light, yes I’d say you could probably argue your DNA lacks something in the department of long time adaptability. After all you have consciously forsaken the idea of future participation in the common genepool.
Bollocks!
I have read about some of these studies. That they’ve all been shown to be scientifically hogwash, as well as contrary to accepted evolution theory, do not bother you the least?
Bollock of course!
Great big monster bollocks!
You guys are just so noble it brings tears to my eyes. Such a burden to carry! And all that for the rest of humankind! Oh the glory, the magnificence. Yah! Mother Therese was childless by choice as well. If she can become a saint, I see no reason why you not all can be saints as well.
While we’re on the subject of these little bundles of joy, I wonder what it is about children that make it ok to write things like: Chefguy:“[Small children] usually just annoy the crap out of me” catsix:"[…]natural aversion to children” Bugnorton:"[…] avoid having to conduct any sort of sustained interaction with anyone under 25…” Catsix: *"[…]natural, instinctual aversion to babies and children. That’s fine." * Of course it’s fine to have an aversion to babies and children. It’s not like they’re really human or anything, right? Yersinia:“[…]look like repulsive larvae to me! Opinions on that one?” Yeah. I’ve got one. Think I’m going to keep that one for myself though, this being GD and all.
**Yersinia: ** "I didn’t hate kids like I do now […]”
I mean it’s not like they can help being children or something, or it’s a conscious choice for them, or they are children by choice. How about I wrote thus about for instance Jews or gays or negroes or Swedes or any other group of people (come to think of it – I think it’s perfectly reasonable to hate Swedes )
Yes, let’s see: “[…]HAS made me hate [Jews]” “[Small negroes] usually just annoy the crap out of me” “[…]natural aversion to gays”
Who would not call me a bigot? Well I think I’m going to call someone who hates children just that.
Now is there anybody I have not insulted? Besides those banned of course, which I for some reason see nothing wrong with. Was it inflammatory enough for you? Now you childfree people go ahead, and flame me in righteous outrage. As for the “My personal belief is that the desire for sex is instinctual but the desire for children is learned” I think mostly you are correct.
I think you missed me when you were handing out the insults
I’m not going to flame you. I’m just curious about this sentence:
Could you perhaps clarify that a little ? I am truly interested in why the choice to reproduce is less self-centered than the choice to not reproduce, in your opinion. I would really appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning as I’ve heard this often and it always stumps me.
I can understand (even if I don’t necessarily agree with it) the viewpoint that once you are a parent you have to be less self-centered (though we can all point out examples of this not actually occurring). What I cannot understand is your saying the actual choice is more self-centered. Don’t they both essentially come down to being as selfish as each other ? i.e, I want a child vs. I want to not have children. I honestly haven’t heard a non-selfish reason for having or not having children, so I don’t understand how the choice itself is inherently more selfish.
I don’t think evolution is “smart” enough to have instilled an instict for children in us. It’s sex. Evolution hadn’t counted on a species being smart enough to figure out you could have one without the other. As for people who say being childless is unnatural, well it’s just as “unnatural” to have 0 children as it is to not have one every 3 years or so. Or to begin having them in your late teens. Ask the next person who bugs you about this why they are not planning to have to maximum number of children possible. It’s only natural, right?
Well actually I didn’t of a sort (miss you I mean). But hey I’ve got plenty more where they came from, so if you feel yourself insufficiently insulted or unfairly short-changed I’ll be honoured to fling another in your direction.
I specifically said, or at least specifically meant to say that it wasn’t the choice but the result. Perhaps the choice to have or not to have is equally selfish, but the life of the having and not having is not equally self-centred. E.g. other things being the same, that the lifestyle of a childfree adult is more self-centred than one with children. That’s pretty obvious I think; one has children to take care of – the other has not.
Oh and BTW. If I seem a bit grumpy today – it’s because the stupid brats, devil spawn the lot I tell ya, kept me up all night!
Okay, Winston color me confused, here. People have children from a personal desire to have them, right? To be sure, decisions made after the fact put the kids’ needs first, but the whole point of having kids is that you want them. So the act of becoming a parent is simply a way to satisfy your personal desires.
This is less self-centered than satisfying your personal desires by not having kids? Uh-huh. Interesting theory.
As for your other examples of being left out of the mainstream (the telly thing, for instance), has anyone ever told you that one of these days you’ll change your mind? That some day you’ll want to be a real man and give your wife a television? They haven’t? Nobody’s ever told your sister she’s defective for not owning a computer? Then we’re talking apples and oranges, aren’t we?
Because that’s really the crux of this OP: whether child-free people are freaks of nature like some obnoxious jackasses keep insisting we are. Are we somehow defective or unnatural?
It seems to be a concensus here that the childfree (any phrase ending in -less carries the implication that something is missing, and I’m not missing anything, thanks) are not freaks of nature, and that people advocating such positions are indeed braying jackasses.
If it seems like we whine a lot, it’s because we get told on a regular basis that we’re “freaks” or “unnatural” or that “everybody loves babies” (clearly, I’m not part of everybody), or (my personal favorite) that someday we’ll want to be Real Women and give our man lots and lots of babies. It’s frustrating and painful to be repeatedly told that you’re deeply and fundamentally defective, and people tend to vent about things that are painful and frustrating.
Personally, I can’t imagine why it matters to anyone but my husband whether or not I want to have children. I would like nothing better than for the entire world to take your “Why should I care” option and leave me the hell alone. Unfortunately, though, a lot of people don’t. They feel the unfathomable need to invite themselves into my life and tell me that I’m obviously broken.
Maybe you could take your “Who gives a fuck if they have kids or not” message to the “everyone must have babies” militants who so dreadfully annoy everyone. They need to hear the message, whereas with us you’re just preaching to the choir.
Not only am I happily childless, I’m happily husbandless…
Actually, the fact that I haven’t been out on a date in almost two years doesn’t bother me a bit.
I generally prefer the company of men to other women, but when a guy starts with the moon-eyes, I start looking for the nearest exit. I will never, ever, give a guy who I think might have the slightest romatic interest in me my phone number. It’s almost a biological revulsion. I actually stayed in a relationship in which I was being severely emotionally abused, mostly because the leech sucked me dry financally and I couldn’t scape together the money to get my own place, but a big part of the reason I stayed was because it made it easier to fend off the advances of other men. “No, I have a boyfriend”.
And, no, I’m not gay.
I don’t dislike kids, but I do have very little patience with them. I like to look at them, talk to them, even take care of them for brief periods of time, but I really don’t think I’m cut out for motherhood. My niece stayed over on weekends with me an my Mom when my sister was living in town, and she about drove us both nuts. Sweet kid, but she’s four…
A couple of points, if I might. One, it’s wonderful that you recognize that you’re not cut out for motherhood. My mother wasn’t cut out for motherhood, and the five of us (my four sisters and I) all suffered because of it. OTOH, you probably shouldn’t let the fact that someone else’s kid drives you crazy convince you of too much. I’m not saying that you should or will change your mind about remaining child-free, only that you shouldn’t give too much credence to this one thing. I adore my kids, but other peoples’ kids frequently drive me crazy. I think it’s because, with my kids, I’ve raised them; I know their little quirks; they weren’t born the age they are, they developed into who they are, and since I’ve been involved in every part of that developmental process, it helps me understand what they’re about. I hope this is making sense. I guess, all I mean is, sometimes it’s harder to put up with the kids when their yours, and sometimes it’s easier. But it’s always different. And I repeat, I do not mean this in the sense of “oh, you’d feel differently if they were yours, so go ahead and have some”, only that you do feel differently when they’re yours. But whether or not to have kids is a highly personal decision, and not only can no one make that decision for you, no one should even try to!
Since WinstonSmith’s vile, hate filled post is so long, I’ll let others defend themselves, and focus on his totally uncalled for attack on me.
Uhm, no, I don’t think that this should be a thing of vast interest for anybody, and I only expect people who are interested in this thread to read it, not “the rest of the world.”
See, I don’t know if you can comprehend, but this is a thread about being child free by choice. See, I’ll try to explain the concept to you. Someone starts a thread. Others, like myself, read the OP and then, if we’re interested, post a reply. If we’re not interested in, we move on to another thread.
OK, you keeping up so far? Good, now then, I posted my comments here, because what I had to say is relative to this topic. I wouldn’t go into a thread about, let’s say, whether or not Arnold will the recall race, and post about how I choose not to have children.
Hey, we didn’t come to you and force you to read this thread, you read it voluntarily. If you don’t like it, move on. Oh, and if you feel the need to let your anger spew forth, there’s something called the BBQ Pit. This is where you bash other users. Please learn the rules.
I never said children suck. Some others may have, but not me. All I said is that I don’t want to take the time and effort to raise them. There’s a difference.
And it’s funny that you should mention my parents, who you know absolutely nothing about.
My parents never married. And my father didn’t get involved into my life until I was six, and only then because the rest of his family kept bugging him about the fact that he had a kid.
If I had a kid, I would never neglect it or only have a relationship where we only visit each other every now and then. That would be selfish.
I think that the wanting to or not wanting to have offspring is a symptom of a larger equation, which ties in to what featherlou stated above about rabbits and bears aborting their own fetuses. Wait, maybe I shouldn’t have said “symptom.” That makes it sound negative, when it is not at all. My wife and I are childfree by choice, and take a LOT of precautions in order to remain so.
I truly believe that I have found the “secret” to life, and that it is the Sine Wave. Everything goes in cycles.
Two generations ago was a major war, then the Baby Boom, followed by the most prosperous generation in American history. But today, I know a whole plethora of peers my age who are still living with their parents, paying off a worthless college loan, with no plans of getting married - or the ones who are married are petrified of having children. These conditions do not make ideal conditions to raise a child in.
Now, most of these conditions are internal ones which are products of decisions that the individuals made. But I feel that society as a whole is sensitive to changes in the world, and by the time it filters down to the individual, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy not to have children.
)