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.
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.
If I redefined it that would be a valid point. But since I didn’t, my point stands.
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.
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?
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. The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia 
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.
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.
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 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.
Thank you for reiterating what I have been saying in this thread. 
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.
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.
None yet, here. But the definition mswas is using is one that I usually hear used by someone trying to excuse such 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.
What behavior?
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.
Just about anything ruthless. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, whatever.
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.
But we’re not talking about that. We are talking about having kids and not having kids.
I didn’t redefine anything, I am using it the way it’s defined in the dictionary stripped of emotionally manipulative connotations.
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.
I’m not DEFINING selfishness in any way that makes most actions selfish.
Most actions ARE selfish.