The case against having kids

[Blue_Tires]

Elaine Lui was 29 years old and had been married for a year when she and her husband, Jacek Szenowicz, decided that they didn’t want children. “Before that, we didn’t give it a lot of thought,” says the Vancouver-based eTalk reporter who writes the popular celebrity gossip blog LaineyGossip.com. “It was just an assumption, ‘You get married, you have kids.’ ” Front-line exposure to a close relative’s three young children and the work they required provided a wake-up call, Lui says. “That killed it for us. We just looked at each other and said, ‘We don’t want them.’ ”

In the ensuing six years, the couple has been barraged with reasons why they should change their minds, from “Your life will have no value if you don’t” to “You’ll be so lonely when you get old” to Lui’s favourite: “Don’t you want to know what your children would look like?” “Any baby we’d have would be of mixed race,” she says. “So everyone says, ‘Oh, it would be so gorgeous!’ ” She laughs. “And I’m like, ‘Wow, that’s really going to make me want to change my whole life.’ ” It’s a life the couple enjoys: they work together on her website (he handles the business side), golf together, engage in community volunteer work, and dote on their dog, Marcus.

As baby refuseniks, Lui and Szenowicz belong to a tiny but growing minority challenging the final frontier of reproductive freedom: the right to say no to children without being labelled social misfits or selfish for something they don’t want.

“Are you planning to have children?” is a question Statistics Canada has asked since 1990. In 2006, 17.1 per cent of women aged 30 to 34 said “no,” as did 18.3 per cent of men in the same category. The U.S. National Center of Health Statistics reports that the number of American women of childbearing age who define themselves as “child-free” rose sharply in the past generation: 6.2 per cent of women in 2002 between the ages of 15 and 44 reported that they don’t expect to have children in their lifetime, up from 4.9 per cent in 1982.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/

i myself got snipped a couple years back...i figure if later on i just HAVE to have one; i can adopt...

[cui bono]

1. I have known all my life that I didn't want kids.

I just never felt that urge and knew I didn't want that lifestyle. Then when I became an adult I also grew to feel that it is also not good for the future of our planet due to overpopulation. Where I live I don't get any grief for my decision.

I really do get irked when I see people having more than 2 children, especially so when they are up to 5 or more. I feel that that is pretty selfish. I'm sure I'll get slammed by many for saying that but whatever... I really think it's irresponsible considering the state of the world.

I do enjoy my nephews and niece though.

[John1956PA]

3. I share your instincts against procreating, as well as your logic for not doing so.

I have wondered if there is a brain difference between a person who desires to have children one who does not. Some time back, I read that there is a brain difference between a religious person and a non-religious person. Any thoughts?

[Stargazer09]

26. I think it's based on a lot of factors

I thrive on chaos, and I love children, so I have more children than average. I also have a high tolerance for pain, as well as relatively easy pregnancies. I can afford all of them, and I'm happy with my family size.

I do have a lot of respect for people who choose not to have children, because I know society puts a lot of pressure on couples to procreate. It's disastrous to see people who didn't want children have them anyway, and I wish our society would accept that everyone needs to make their own choices in this matter.

I'm not sure what you meant by the brain differences and religion. Are you saying that people who are biologically more apt to be religious are also more likely to have children?

[John1956PA]

30. My random thought was that maybe brain "wiring" gives some people a greater instinct to procreate.

That thought came to me when I reflected on some scientific studies which suggest that brain differences lead to certain inclinations ranging from political preferences to religious practice. However, I am not suggesting that people who are religious have a greater urge to procreate than non-religious people.

An article about brain differences and their effect on an individual's preferences appears at the following link.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/859/what-brain-science-tells-us-about-religious-belief

Here are two excerpts from the article:

Liberal and conservative brains

There have been some studies that have looked at political perspectives, trying to understand what happens in the brain of people who are Republicans and the brains of people who are Democrats. An MRI study . . . showed that people who scored higher on liberalism tended to be associated with stronger . . . anterior cingulate activity . . .

Some of you may have read a book called The God Gene. It was an interesting study that showed there was a significant, although relatively mild, correlation between a gene that coded for what's called the VMAT-2 receptor, which has to do with serotonin and dopamine, two very important neurotransmitters in the brain, and feelings of self-transcendence.

[Mythsaje]

2. One word: Idiocracy. n/t

[GliderGuider]

33. One of the more thought-provoking movies around, masquerading as a piece of fluff. nt

[shellgame26]

34. I just saw that

a few days ago. FUCKING COMEDIC BRILLIANCE!

[Lorien]

54. Yep. Me too. Feels like we're almost there.

but that fact will never make me think that having kids is a good idea. How could a bring a child into this world when the near future is so bleak? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[Mythsaje]

40. I didn't expect to like the movie...

I was pleasantly surprised. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. And it's funny how the breeders are the ones who accuse the childless of being "selfish"

:eyes:

[Chemisse]

9. I guess you would call me a 'breeder'

Because I have 5 kids (now grown).

I could care less if other people have kids or not as a personal choice. I am however, concerned about the huge numbers of children being born to the less well-educated, and to the right wing Christians, while professional people face hardships just having one or two.

That doesn't bode well for the coming demographic.

By the way, all five of my kids are now voting Democrats.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. No, I only call people breeders if they force their choice on others.

The cool people with children are the people who don't give a shit if others have children.


on an aside, I do feel the same you do about the rightwingers and shitstains breeding out of control - one problem with the child-free movement is that it does tend to be the educated, liberal, decent and wonderful people who would likely raise decent and wonderful children who choose not to do so. And so I do wonder sometimes if I've made a bad ethical choice by not creating more thinking, educated, liberal, decent human beings to offset the uneducated, fear-based, xenophobic army (and they overbreed precisely because they DO think they're building an army) of people who are so unevolved they shouldn't even be on this planet to begin with.

[Stargazer09]

27. I guess I'm a 'breeder,' too

I have nine children from two different marriages. The three oldest (ages 22, 20, and 17) are all in college right now, and they are definitely voting (or will vote) as Democrats. They are all highly skilled critical thinkers, too, and they are always complaining about their friends who come from less educated families. "Mom, why do people even bother watching Fox news? It's stupid! How can my friends stand that garbage?"

Some of my more conservative friends (well, acquaintances, since we don't have much in common) are part of the "quiver-full" movement, in which they try to have as many children as they can in order to add numbers to their evangelical churches. When they see my family, they act like I am one of "them," despite the fact that religion had absolutely nothing to do with my family size.

I agree that the coming demographic is only going to get worse.

[LARED]

11. "breeders" is an offensive term - nt

[Bryan Sacks]

28. So is "truther", but you don't mind branding people with it n/t

[LARED]

31. Truther is an offensive term?

Gee I always thought it is a far better moniker than nut job.

As a truther, what different term would you prefer?

[Bryan Sacks]

49. Not funny, just typical of you. Nothing to add but derision.

[LARED]

55. And how typical of you, getting your skirt in a knot over nothing nt

[Bryan Sacks]

57. Stereotyping AND Sexist. You're on a roll. At least you spelled everything right n/t

[LARED]

59. And just to prove I''m right you do it again. - nt

[Larkspur]

38. "breeder" is a state of mind

"Breeders" to a childfree person/couple are those irresponsible parents who expect their kids to be treated like crown princes and princesses by everyone else regardless if you have kids or not. These are the parents who leave dirty diapers in movie theater seats and in clothes changing stalls in stores. They expect others to clean up after them.

"Breeders" are self-centered people who project their fantasies onto their children. Their children to them are live dolls or objects to gain attention to themselves. These people are so insecure about being parents that they find childfree people a mortal threat to the decision or poor decision to have children.

Not everyone is meant to be a parent and considering that the human population is over 6 billion and growing, maybe Nature is holding up childfree people as a model of a humane way to lower human overpopulation.

Yes, I'm childfree and have known since I was 10 years old that I would never marry nor have kids.

[eShirl]

13. anyone that uses the insult "breeders" is talking about my Mom

:mad:

[bluestateguy]

5. We have had some nasty fights at DU over this issue

Most people here are respectful of others' lifestyle choices regarding having kids, but there is a noisy minority here who seem to enjoy deriding parenthood and calling people "breeders". That's disgraceful and just as bad as the religious conservatives that mock people who choose to remain childless.

[ClayZ]

6. When my grandson got his drivers license,

he loaded his MP3 Player up with songs he knew I would like. He drove over here and took me for a nice long ride in his new car. Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and Leonard Cohen. What a nice afternoon we had. Sometimes he shows up here with long boards and friends for refreshments. One time we followed them to the beach and took video of their antics.

He is going to be a Firefighter like his uncle Tyson. His senior year will be his third year in the Fire Sciences classes. His 15 year old sister wants to be a doctor, she has a 4.0 grade average. She just finished reading a book I gave her. A Thousand Splendid Suns. She texted me along the way telling me how sad it was. She called when she got to the happy part. We have 3 more wonderful grandchildren, Ethan rocks on the guitar, TJ says he wants to be a scientist. Kyla starts Kindergarten this year, and Uncle Tyson and his love, have another on the way. We are blessed.

I am a happy camper. I just love it when Liberal Progressives breed! Justin and Kendra worked with me, thier mother ( my Daughter) and their aunt, (my stepdaughter) on the Obama Camaign. Door to door we went.

Like Russian Nesting Dolls, part of me is in them.

Having 2 children and 2 step children, was the best thing I ever did, and I have lived a very interesting life.


Just saying.

[murielm99]

7. Thanks for posting this.

It sounds like you have a great family.

I am very proud of my twenty-something children. They are liberal, talented, wonderful people.

They seem to be like the people in the article. They don't want kids. They are not selfish. I am not selfish. We made different choices.

[eShirl]

12. oh my, when I read "my twenty-something children," my pre-caffeinated brain thought

"twenty or so children"

bad brain! no! :spank:

[murielm99]

24. Good grief!

There are three of them. They are 25, 27, and 29. They are great.

[Skittles]

8. the social pressure to reproduce causes a lot of heartache

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Married 20 years, no kids or plans to have them

My husband had two by a former marriage, my brother has three--I don't want to contribute to planetary overpopulation, so I chose not to have any. I've got stepkids (and now grandkids) and nieces and nephews to deal with if I want kids.

But they are talking as if childless married couples are something new. I can think back three generations and more in my family where there was at least one childless couple.

[Paladin]

15. I Have The Greatest Respect For Those Opting For No Children.

That respect comes from knowing couples who became parents when they were really unfit to take on that kind of responsibility.....

[burning rain]

16. The case against having kids....

They might grow up to be misanthropes!

[windoe]

17. There are 2 ways people manifest creativity

One way is to create children, and a household according to tradition. These type people are completely fulfilled and feel this is a life purpose for them. these type people find security and seek structure and routine.

Another way is to break through tradition and creativity is used to inspire, express, explore, research, and these people deeply feel this is their life purpose. These type people feel constrained by structure and seek to change it. Most of these people do not have such a deep need to have children.

Both type people exist in this world, and I am wondering if it has to do with being predominantly right or left brained, but one interesting point is that in paternalistic hierarchic societies, only the first type of lifestyle is encouraged and honored. The more the oppressive the society is, the more the second type person (exclusively women) is demonized and suppressed. The oppression of this type of creativity over the other traditional type causes a sickness in the creative types that cannot express their true natures.

To suppress inspiration, exploration and research. while canonizing human reproduction as the only acceptable way of expressing creativity is to deny many people their life purpose, as they too need to be true to themselves. I am of the second type, and have always felt this was my true nature. To thine own self be true.

A balanced person, as well as a society, needs both structure and flexibility in order to be strong. It seems in these polarized times, the people who adhere to structure and tradition want the world as it once was, they need more flexibility. They are afraid that the world will not have enough familiarity; the institutions are changing too fast. And no doubt the paternalistic conservatives are encouraging these people to be afraid by evoking all of their deepest fears, They fear anarchy.

The non traditional types have also had their deepest fears triggered by this polarization, their fear is a police state, I believe for good reason because of the authoritative culture we now live in.

Naturally we can be a combination of both types, manifesting creativity in both ways, but we are predominantly one type or another, if we look deep into ourselves.

I think it is important to understand the right, their motivations, and deepest desires, as well as to understand the shadows or their deepest fears and unconscious acting out. Also by understanding the deepest fears of the left collectively as well as understanding ourselves can help at times like these.

[acsmith]

43. what a load of...

..tosh.

[johan helge]

18. One should be careful telling others what to do, but

my strong advice is: Get children!

- It's in our nature. So I think anyone who doesn't have children has some sort of "sorrow" because of this. Few if any regret getting children, but my impression is that many regret they didn't get children (earlier).

- In Israel, I think, very religious people get more children than others. This is good for religious ideas in Israel, but not for "liberal" ideas. US liberals should NOT leave it to conservatives to have children!

[Franzia]

I'd rather regret that which I didn't do instead of that which I did.

I have never regretted not having children and do not foresee a time when I will develop such a regret.

No kids for me, thanks!

[surrealAmerican]

19. I have kids, but I think anyone who is not SURE they want to ...

... should definitely NOT have children. Not only is raising a child a huge commitment, but if you do it "wrong", you've ruined someone else's life.

[johan helge]

21. Get children, is my advice

- even if you're not sure. You, and certainly the child, will not be sorry for that.

My instinct, right or wrong, is that if you don't want children, you don't know what's good for you regarding this.

[Franzia]

23. We childfree do know what's good for us.

It is the absolute height of arrogance for you to ASSume that you, an anonymous poster on an internet message board, know what is best for another anonymous person on the other end of the intertubes. I know many people who regret having children, but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The end result is an unwanted unloved child and angry resentful parents who together create a dysfunctional broken society.

Cut the bingo crap. You're wrong.

[johan helge]

25. I said it was my "instinct, right or wrong", so I underscored

the uncertainty, and that it should not be taken for more than it is. Most of us, definitely including me, sometimes don't know what's good for us, so it's not such a strong statement. But I agree, it was too categorical, there are of course people who are better off not having children.

[abq e streeter]

20. Not having ever settled down and having a family is my single greatest regret

but that's how my life worked out. It breaks my heart if I allow myself to think about it too much. That said, I have absolute and complete respect for those who consciously make the choice to not have children. Ya gotta follow your own heart. Those who choose not to have children shouldn't have to put up with being put down for that choice, just as those who make the opposite choice should be respected as well.

[johan helge]

22. I can easily understand your regret and

I think you are right in trying not to make into a big thing. To consider the positive things as important, and the negative things as not important, that's important!

[proteus_lives]

29. Kids or no kids. Neither is right or wrong.

Do what you and your partner feel is right.

I want kids someday, I'll be happy if it happens and I'll accept it if it doesn't. I don't if a person has no kids. And I don't care if a person has 1 or 9. Just take care of them.

[GliderGuider]

32. I'm "VeHEMenT" on the subject.

I decided 40 years ago that I didn't want kids. One of my two sisters decided the same, and we both had ourselves sterilized. My other sister had two, so out of a family of 9 (counting various life partners) there are only two children.

What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.

We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.

Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology.

As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.

It's going to take all of us going.

[shellgame26]

36. WTF!!

:freak:

[GliderGuider]

37. Nothing is so serious you can't have a little fun with it!

Right?

[Apollo11]

42. The problem is that it makes you look anti-human

And for various reasons (like religion, human instinct, etc.) you will never persuade even 1% of people that we should be aiming for a human population of zero.

Much better to take a more rational approach, like that put forward in the UK buy the Optimum Population Trust.

www.optimumpopulation.org

[GliderGuider]

46. I'm not making policy or trying to persuade people to change their behaviour.

As a result, it's just a personal opinion.

I don't believe that anything can be done by attacking the issue of overpopulation directly. Only indirect effects have helped in the past (except for China's One Child Policy), and the same will hold true in the future. The challenge is to figure out what makes people decide not to have so many babies, promote whatever "effective, reasonable, humane and possible" policies that might support those decisions, and then hope like hell.

Some candidates are:

- Educating women and increasing access to family planning are reasonable and humane. They may not be possible in all countries, and on their own they may not be effective enough in the required timeline (i.e. before 2050).
- One child policies are effective and humane, but are seen as unreasonable by many as a result may not be possible.
- Wars are possible, but are neither effective, humane nor reasonable as population-control measures.
- Pandemics are effective and possible, but are not humane and are certainly not a reasonable policy.
- Industrializing the world to quasi-western levels is a non-starter, there just aren't enough resources.

What do I think will do it?

On the voluntary side I believe that there will be a dramatic growth in individual awareness around the world as the converging crisis of energy, ecology and economics starts to really bite over the next decade. That shift in awareness, working hand in hand with education programs, will lead to deep changes in values, and one of the new values will be voluntary, individual decisions for childlessness.

On the involuntary side I take the ecological perspective that populations are ultimately capped by their food supply. I see some evidence that our food supply is near its limits, as the global per capita production of grain has been dropping for the last 25 years. I think that if this trend continues it will produce an involuntary drop in fertility rates and possibly a drop in life expectancies. That would produce a drop in population without mass starvation (or at least without more of it than we already have). I certainly don't think it makes good policy, but I think it would be effective and is a definite possibility. It would certainly be more humane than a pandemic, as long as it happened over a long enough period that frank starvation didn't become its primary mechanism.

[Apollo11]

51. That's an interesting chart!

Do you have any sources or links to go with that chart?

I would love to use it in discussions about population.

I saw recently that potatoes are a more effective way to feed millions of people.

If Africans would start growing potatoes, they would be able to feed themselves.

But eventually we will run out of food (or land to grow it on).

[GliderGuider]

52. Here is the data source, and another interesting chart

The data is from from Lester Brown's Earth Policy Institute. The data table is here: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006_data.htm#table1

Brown didn't chart the per-capita grain production, though he charted a lot of other indicators. I think that chart tells us a lot about what's going on with population right now, including why population growth transitioned around 1970 from an exponential growth regime to constant linear growth:

[acsmith]

44. darwinism at its truely greatest.

can you imagine trying to explain that to a creationist!!!

stupid.

[The2ndWheel]

35. But doesn't the risk need to be spread?

We want a single payer health system. It requires more people paying to spread the risk so that each individual has less of a burden. Anyone not having children is privatizing the profits, and socializing the costs. Greedy and individualistic. We need more people, all the time. Everything we have is based on more people doing more things.

Saying that, I'm single, childless, and have never bought a car. So I'm not helping the economy, or the social infrastructure. Anyone who is unemployed, you're welcome. All the little children running around these days without a care in the world, enjoy it, because I'm not helping to make your future years any easier.

[Larkspur]

39. The planet has over 6 billion people and growing

We have no shortage of human beings. We have too many and if we don't humanely find a way to reduce the number of people, Nature has horrible ways to bring us down. When resources that support our species run out or become too polluted to use, self-destruction through war will be inevitable. The tragic story of the Rapa Nui on Easter Island is a warning we should all adhere. You can find more information about Easter Island at http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/rapanui.html .

[The2ndWheel]

47. And how do we humanely find a way to do that?

By increasing the ability for more people to consume the resources that support life on this planet.

[GliderGuider]

48. See post #46 for my thoughts on that. /nt

[Imperfect World]

60. That was because they behaved irresponsibly, not because they had too many people.

This the the map of the Environmental Performance Index. The countries in green have the best environments:

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



Here is a list of countries in order of population density:

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

As you can see, many of the countries of western Europe have very high population densities, but they also have the highest rating when it comes to taking care of the environment.

The disaster at Easter Island happened because of bad policies and behaviors, not because there were too many people.

[Larkspur]

62. the disaster on Easter Island was directly link to the rise in population

which led to the need for more resources which led to deforestation and ecological disaster. The population decreased rapidly due to civil wars over scare and dwindling resources. English sailers in the 18th or 19th century, who took some Rapa Nui to another island that had trees, remarked that the Rapa Nui, if left to themselves, would have cut down the trees to make canoes and other things. The self-made disaster on Easter Island did not change the destructive habits of the Rapa Nui. That is the warning for all of us.

And in Western Europe, population rates are at 0 or less for most of the countries, especially the developed ones.

[Apollo11]

41. Parents and non-parents should stop judging each other

It worries me that the human population has shot from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion in just 200 years. This growth is even more astonishing if you believe (as I do) the scientific evidence that humans have been around for 200 thousand years.

I choose not to have children. I am 40 and my wife is 34. We agreed before getting married that we want to remain without. It does not mean that we hate kids and in fact we are crazy about our 4 little nieces (my wife's sisters have 2 each).

What is unsustainable is folks having 3 or more kids. They are the ones adding to population growth. But in a democracy I don't see any way of forcing people to have fewer kids, or even discouraging them from having more than 2 kids, without somehow harming the children born into larger families through no fault of their own.

In the United Kingdom, the Optimum Population Trust encourages people to pledge that they will not have more than 2 children.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/stopattwo.html

[acsmith]

45. I thought pledges didn't work...

...or is that only when we make fun of christian chastity pledges.

I am confused.

[Apollo11]

50. It's a way of raising the issue

and hopefully getting the issue into the public domain.

Right now most people are not even aware that having more than 2 children might have negative consequences for the planet. Human population growth it not recognised as an issue. Or only as a fringe "tin-foil hat" type of issue.

I know in Europe much more attention is paid to the warnings that "we are not having enough children". People are worried that an ageing population is a demographic time-bomb leading to social security and medicare going bankrupt.

The Optimum Population Trust is trying to bring the issue into the mainstream. One of its patrons is Sir David Attenborough, who has been making nature documentaries for the BBC for 30 years (starting with the "Life On Earth" series back in 1979). An opinion poll conducted by Reader's Digest in 2006 showed Attenborough to be the most trusted celebrity in Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release13Apr09.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/livingicons/

[shellgame26]

61. I smell a pizza in your future

[ihavenobias]

56. I appreciate your comments on this thread. n/t

[road2000]

53. This thread title is truly moronic.

There is no "case" against having children, or "case" for having them.

There is a case to be made against having them indiscriminately, and having them irresponsibly.

"Child-free" is certainly a semantic improvement over "childless," and I'm glad someone came up with that designation. "Childless" should only be applied to those who wish to have children and for whatever reason, are unable to do so. Even then, they should be the only ones with the option to refer to themselves as such.

"Breeders," however, is highly insulting. In my immediate family, there were four children (all now in our fifties). My sister had two and I had one. Of my seven best friends (same generation), three of us have one each, and four have chosen not to procreate. In each case, the decision was made with responsibility, and with a self-analysis that often was difficult, but honest. I know of only one couple in my entire acquaintance who has more than two.

Hardly what's you'd call "breeders."

[handmade34]

58. Instead of needing lots of children, we need high-quality children.

Margaret Mead