Having kids or not should not be a "should you?" topic. Kids change your whole bloody life path if you intend to focus on raising them. Those who have kids may agree that it was (or was not) the best (riskiest, short-sighted, idiotic, brilliant, selfish, rewarding, and so forth) decision they ever made. However, this in no way suggests that one's experience maps accurately to another. On a personal note, I never saw myself having kids. After age 50 my life arrived at kids and I would not change a thing about it, love it! Still, if I were attempting to convince my earlier self to have them, it would have been a totally fruitless endeavor.Kid are great for those who embark on that path. You will change radically and you will not be able to "go back." If you do not see yourself with kids, I would not urge you to consider having them.
Hi, I am child free by choice, and do it for environmental reasons. There are too many people using too many resources now, and I decided at a very young age to not contribute to the problem (as I see it). I am 45 now and love the freedom I have, and would not change a thing. Plus, I have a few unanswered emails in my inbox. ;)
I would prefer someone with unanswered e-mails in their inbox to have kids over someone who doesn't have unanswered e-mails in their inbox. I assume people with unanswered e-mails are very busy and thus are likely trying harder to change the world. I would like them to pass on their passion to their children. People who have time to have kids are not the type of people we need if we are to solve hunger, pollution, disease, water scarcity, etc.
I am in the same group as "child free by choice ... for environmental reasons." (Thanks for posting - I am not alone!) A 2/28/2012 National Geographic article said that with our global population approaching 7 billion, we are causing the “Sixth Great Extinction” where “it is estimated that half of all plants, animals and birds on the planet will die off before 2100." We've known this was coming for a long time, since I learned about it as a seven year old in the sixties. I decided then not to have children. As for whether other people should have children, I believe that if one wants children, but one is aware that by bringing more children into the world the human population will continue to threaten the environment, then one is ethically obligated to do their part to contribute to negative population growth. Those people could have just one child and/or adopt or foster others. I assume that since the population is not stabilizing or declining, most people must be either ignorant, don't care, have little self control when hormones are raging,are fundamentalist [insert religious identification here] and believe [insert diety here] wants them to fill the world with more [insert religious adherents here], are living in one of those third world countries where survival still requires multiple offspring or ... I do have a question for David, too. Way too often I have read articles on economic problems in one place or another, where some economist recommends programs to promote population growth to remedy the problems. That always infuriates me as someone who cares about the environment, but doesn't really get economics. Why do they do that and are they insane? Thanks - JD
@JD -- population growth is not needed for basic "economic" reasons, as supply and demand will do the job. They often talk about it because governments have (foolishly) funded their welfare/pension systems on "pay as you go" which means that younger people pay for older people. When these systems began, there were 50 workers per retiree. Now the numbers are 4:1 or 3:1, which means workers are heavily burdened. As an alternative (compromise), consider immigration. Then you have the same population getting moved between countries, with "new young workers" helping the old residents. This is unpopular with nationalists, however.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.