I believe S and DIL plan to have at least one child, but time will tell. So far, we just wait to whatever they want and decide. (DIL says she wants a large family but I’m pretty sure S only wants one or at most two kids.). They’re both mid 30s, so we shall see. Their friends and cousins are starting families.
Or other issues…
1 Like
My sister and her husband don’t have children and they have more people at their Thanksgiving than we do with my husband’s side of the family. Same with Christimas. Just because you don’t have kids doesn’t mean you can’t have a large Christmas or Thanksgiving gathering. Why do people think people without kids live boring lonely lives? My sister and her husband don’t have kids: they travel, volunteer, spend time with friends and family, and are involved with their church. My BIL has worked with big brothers big sisters for years.
All those things you mentioned are great. But the childless people I know aren’t heartbroken because they’re missing these things. Also, they certainly aren’t lacking for large Thanksgiving gatherings….
11 Likes
Not only that, but not having children of one’s own does not mean a life devoid of children. More than a few childless (some by choice, some by fate) folks I know live lives surrounded by kids, through their jobs, through their doted-on neices and nephews, through volunteer activities…there are many ways to have children in your life, and while not identical to having one’s own, still meaningful and deeply satisfying nonetheless.
6 Likes
This is something I find hard to make sense of. Couldn’t you also say it’s selfish if the people who “would be great parents” don’t have kids? On a global scale someone has to keep the human race going, and isn’t it better for the potentially “great parents” with lots of resources (after all the US is a rich country) to do that, rather than (just) the potentially “bad parents” with few resources?
Are they assuming it would be best long term if the human race became extinct? Or are they just assuming that after a few (tens of?) generations of population decline, with children only being born to others (predominantly “selfish” or “bad” parents?), everything will magically turn around and the potentially “great parents” will start having kids again?
I guess maybe some might say it is “selfish” if you think your kids’ lives would be worse than your own. But the question you should really be asking is would my (potential) kids say “I’d prefer it if I hadn’t been born”? That seems implausible.
2 Likes
On a global scale, the human race is far from dwindling. There are way too many of us.
There is no “rather than.” Nothing about choosing to have kids causes bad parents not to have them.
If human extinction is coming, it will be because of our environmental impact (if not for even worse reasons that I’d rather not contemplate), not because of our failure to reproduce. I am endlessly baffled by the rhetoric that promotes extinction anxiety based on failure to reproduce enough. On what basis is that a worry? In many cases (not saying you are one), this seems to be a euphemism for anxiety about not enough white babies, which does, not-coincidentally, correlate with having more resources.
It’s pretty difficult for people who already exist to weigh the relative merits of that existence objectively. When they do conclude that they’d rather not have been born, we classify that as mental health pathology rather than as a defensible conclusion. If we assume that the failure of any potential human to be born is a loss, are we to conclude that maximizing reproduction is the goal - that there’s no point of diminishing returns?
IMHO, people with resources do have a moral obligation to invest in the next generation. (Although the people with the most resources, by and large, are doing anything but.) But whether they do that by having their own biological children is 100% their decision.
6 Likes
Painting everyone with the same brush, eh?
Everyone? No, just billionaire wealth-hoarders. I’m not talking about random upper-middle-class people.
1 Like
That sounds great in theory. What societal arrangements would ensure that? Hugely increased adoption? Dramatically higher migration from poor countries to wealthier countries? Increased taxes to fund much higher foreign aid? How plausible is it for those policies to be implemented?
I think there’s nothing much the government can do to affect any of these choices (though despite that I note both parties are now saying they are in favor of higher child tax credits) so none of this really matters.
My objection is mainly to non-parents suggesting that it would be selfish to have children, rather than admitting to a personal preference to be child-free. Own your decision, don’t blame the rest of the world for it (or imply that it makes you morally superior to others).
2 Likes
Thank you for clarifying. Although some local to me billionaires would be offended about being lumped into planet trashing goons category.
1 Like
This being a “Cafe” thread and not a “Politics” thread, I don’t feel as if there’s very far we can go in discussing the government’s role in all of this before we would need to decamp to the other forum.
I don’t think it’s about anyone telling other people that they are selfish to reproduce. But I also don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the role of the individual’s (or couple’s) conscience, and imply that they’re just morally rationalizing their selfish preferences. I know young people who want kids, but who would rather adopt because they feel more morally settled about investing their lives in a child who has already been brought into the world, than they do about bringing a child into the world themselves. The fact that they feel that way doesn’t mean other people have to, but it also doesn’t mean it’s wrong for them to feel that way, or that they couldn’t be sincere about it. And I also don’t think that not wanting to be a parent is necessarily selfish… nor do I think that the capacity to be a good parent necessarily correlates with resources. People are complex, and everyone’s situation is different.
4 Likes
But that’s not what the original article is discussing. It never mentions adoption, but is purely about being child free. And most of those essentially admit it’s a selfish decision:
“many younger people without children were cautiously weighing the pros and cons, worried about how a child would affect their identity and their choices. Many were “averse to embracing the kinds of risks that having children implies,” said Dr. Berg, who is a millennial and a mother of two.”
“In the Pew study, most of those surveyed said that not having kids had made it easier for them to afford the things they wanted, make time for their interests and save for the future.”
The Pew study itself allowed people to choose multiple reasons for their decision. So blaming the “state of the world” or “the environment” would typically be something you add on to the other reasons (the numbers add up to way more than 100%). After all it presumably makes respondents who “just don’t want to” have kids feel better if they can also say I’m helping to save the world.
I’d be interested to know how many of the Pew respondents just picked the state of the world or environment without any other reasons, because you are suggesting that situation is not uncommon.
1 Like
I don’t believe anyone who chooses to not have children should have to have a “reason” other than they just choose not to. I know several young people who have decided not to and it is not my business “why?”.
8 Likes
And equally well, environmental catastrophisers shouldn’t tell people not to have children. It’s unfortunate when people come to believe that, even worse if they try to persuade others of that. This was memorable:
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. If you’d like to reply, please flag the thread for moderator attention.