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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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…
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.
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…
Sure. Maybe he’ll be kind enough to blow his brains out above an incinerator.
I’m a little surprised no one’s brought up anti-natalism.
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 fully support anti-natalists dying out.
Suffering is not a bad thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In an overpopulated world, one less child is a wonderful thing.
…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.
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 are the ones where you have the luxury of debating the ethical implications of having children. 
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.
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.
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.”