6 ms·

The first few times I casually mentioned I had never been interested in having kids, the reactions were unreasonably vitriolic: "Well, you aren't a good person

The first few times I casually mentioned I had never been interested in having kids, the reactions were unreasonably vitriolic: "Well, you aren't a good person and should stay away from them then!!" and "You look like the sort of person who doesn't want kids", etc. I eventually learned not to bring it up. Thankfully I was never forced into it by marriage or otherwise. People who want children can have them and people who don't want them should not be shamed into it. Kids would be better off being genuinely wanted. I personally was an accident kid, born before abortion was legalized and there was always a subtextual theme of being unwanted in my childhood. I decided early that I would not have a kid unless I really wanted one. And I never did have the desire. I'm glad I stuck to it and didn't give in to the immense peer pressure.

goatlover 9y ago
More people should feel free not to have kids. There's enough humans as it is. We don't need everyone reproducing. Only the people who really want to and can support their offspring properly should do it. It's dumb to have a social pressure to reproduce when there are 7.5 billion of us.
- diyseguy 9y ago
  I would draw the line at "really want to". An argument could be made that only rich people should have children and that would be fascist in the other direction.
  - syrak 9y ago
    What's fascist is to forbid people from having children based on arbitrary criteria, which is just one obvious but wrong way to address an otherwise reasonable idea, that not everyone is fit for parenting. It doesn't mean the idea itself should be discarded. Here's another solution that doesn't trample on anyone's freedom: better informing people about the costs and benefits of parenthood. That would go a long way to prevent people from having children without the means to raise them.
  - scotty79 9y ago
    You don't have to forbid anyone from having kids. Providing women with education and the pill is enough to drop in fertility below replacement level.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  We basically do. If half the population chooses not to bear kids (pretty normal) and the other half has like on average 2.5 kids, then social safety nets are going to collapse without massive immigration. If the WHOLE WORLD does this (which will become possible some time this century due to everyone thankfully getting richer and more urbanized), then there's nowhere for the immigrants to come from, and our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse. Japan has managed this fairly well, considering, but it's just going to get harder and harder for them, Western Europe, and soon the rest of the developed world, China, and even the US and on to what is currently the developing world. People don't know it yet (although they should, since it's pretty clear where the demographics of urbanization and development are headed), but population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century, much as the population explosion was a problem in the 20th.
  - Androider 9y ago
    Robots. Lots and lots of robots is the answer, like 10:1 robots to humans to work 24/7 fixing infrastructure and cleaning every home and street.
    - diyseguy 9y ago
      Yes, bring the robots. Especially the maid one. And then the gardener one.
  - coderjames 9y ago
    > our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse. Not everyone agrees social safety nets are a good thing. Some of us think properly preparing ourselves for retirement is more important. > population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century We have too many people already. Population decline due to reduced birthrate sounds like a solution, not a problem.
    - Robotbeat 9y ago
      > Not everyone agrees social safety nets are a good thing. Some of us think properly preparing ourselves for retirement is more important. I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the State or the Individual is paying for it. Ultimately, services and care provided during retirement is provided by the young and healthy. If there aren't any young people, then no one will be available to provide care no matter who is trying to pay for it.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >Only the people who really want to and can support their offspring properly should do it. It shouldn't be possible to get a full time job and not be able to support kids. If it was possible in the 60s it should be possible now. GDP has gone up 400% since then and the dependency ratio only went up 15%.
- andrewaylett 9y ago
  Following on from a sibling comment: it's in society's interests to help parents to pay for their children. Not just because those children will be working to look after and provide for the older generation in retirement, but because the better educated they are, the more able they'll be at doing that. Everyone should be happy to pay for schools because everyone benefits from being able to be paid a pension. And being able to spend the money they get from their pension on useful things, like food.

goatlover 9y ago

More people should feel free not to have kids. There's enough humans as it is. We don't need everyone reproducing. Only the people who really want to and can support their offspring properly should do it. It's dumb to have a social pressure to reproduce when there are 7.5 billion of us.

diyseguy 9y ago
I would draw the line at "really want to". An argument could be made that only rich people should have children and that would be fascist in the other direction.
- syrak 9y ago
  What's fascist is to forbid people from having children based on arbitrary criteria, which is just one obvious but wrong way to address an otherwise reasonable idea, that not everyone is fit for parenting. It doesn't mean the idea itself should be discarded. Here's another solution that doesn't trample on anyone's freedom: better informing people about the costs and benefits of parenthood. That would go a long way to prevent people from having children without the means to raise them.
- scotty79 9y ago
  You don't have to forbid anyone from having kids. Providing women with education and the pill is enough to drop in fertility below replacement level.
Robotbeat 9y ago
We basically do. If half the population chooses not to bear kids (pretty normal) and the other half has like on average 2.5 kids, then social safety nets are going to collapse without massive immigration. If the WHOLE WORLD does this (which will become possible some time this century due to everyone thankfully getting richer and more urbanized), then there's nowhere for the immigrants to come from, and our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse. Japan has managed this fairly well, considering, but it's just going to get harder and harder for them, Western Europe, and soon the rest of the developed world, China, and even the US and on to what is currently the developing world. People don't know it yet (although they should, since it's pretty clear where the demographics of urbanization and development are headed), but population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century, much as the population explosion was a problem in the 20th.
- Androider 9y ago
  Robots. Lots and lots of robots is the answer, like 10:1 robots to humans to work 24/7 fixing infrastructure and cleaning every home and street.
  - diyseguy 9y ago
    Yes, bring the robots. Especially the maid one. And then the gardener one.
- coderjames 9y ago
  > our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse. Not everyone agrees social safety nets are a good thing. Some of us think properly preparing ourselves for retirement is more important. > population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century We have too many people already. Population decline due to reduced birthrate sounds like a solution, not a problem.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    > Not everyone agrees social safety nets are a good thing. Some of us think properly preparing ourselves for retirement is more important. I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the State or the Individual is paying for it. Ultimately, services and care provided during retirement is provided by the young and healthy. If there aren't any young people, then no one will be available to provide care no matter who is trying to pay for it.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Only the people who really want to and can support their offspring properly should do it. It shouldn't be possible to get a full time job and not be able to support kids. If it was possible in the 60s it should be possible now. GDP has gone up 400% since then and the dependency ratio only went up 15%.
andrewaylett 9y ago
Following on from a sibling comment: it's in society's interests to help parents to pay for their children. Not just because those children will be working to look after and provide for the older generation in retirement, but because the better educated they are, the more able they'll be at doing that. Everyone should be happy to pay for schools because everyone benefits from being able to be paid a pension. And being able to spend the money they get from their pension on useful things, like food.