Continuum

You are more than welcome to be childless, I would not deny your happiness a whit. But when you are old, and (possibly) alone and my then-adult children are striving mightily to not only support the health care system that will sustain us both, but also offer succor to their parents and live out relationships formed of sacrifice and love, do not ask me to weep extra tears for your loneliness. I will expect that having made your choice when young to have no children, you will not be envious of my choice to have mine.

Don't worry, I don't find your superlative sofa and BMW to be that enticing now, and I hope your peers and contemporaries outlive you.

Trophy Kids?

One has to wonder what the motive of many modern-day breeders might be. Somehow, altruism isn't the feeling I'm getting from the comments above.

Childfree Choice: Long Overdue

LIke so many prejudices, disapproval for those who don't want kids is unwarranted and unjust. Its cause lies within those who punish non-conformity. It you're different, you must be bad.

A moment of intellectual thought is all it takes to repudiate the logical grounds of such a judgment. Of course people should be permitted to not have kids. Its a choice, which be definition grants approval to either option.

In fact, based on evidence and logic, if anything, we should be encouraging humans NOT to have children. Our world is overpopulated, resources are scarce, and increasing our population is dangerous. To all of my friends and family members who chose not to have kids, I have always said, right on!

Great article.

Continuum said: "You are

Continuum said:
"You are more than welcome to be childless, I would not deny your happiness a whit. But when you are old, and (possibly) alone and my then-adult children are striving mightily to not only support the health care system that will sustain us both..."

Really? It's this holier than thou attitude that makes all parents look like selfish idiots. You want us CF people to bow down to you for helping sustain the health care system and for breeding all the future doctors and lawyers and police officers.

Is this why you had children? So you could do your civic duty and provide the rest of the world with future consumers and care givers? I think not. You had them because you WANTED THEM. It was not out of some perceived loyalty to your fellow human being to make sure the rest of us are taken care of. You might well end up alone as well - don't forget that. Children are no guarantee for a happy, fulfilled life.

We'll do just fine on our own thank you very much.

Sure, intellectually and

Sure, intellectually and environmentally, not having kids is a great idea. I never understood my humanity fully until I became a parent. Now everyday I deeply experience WHY I care about the state of the world and our environment.

I feel bad for people who cannot let themselves experience (for whatever reason) the joy and challenge of kids. Now being on the other side of it a DINK lifestyle seems shallow and sad to me.

Another way to look at it is that if you have kids, you have a HUGE responsibility to raise them to have a positive impact. Human breeding is never going to stop and honestly, if educated and environmentally conscious people don't have kids, how will those values get passed down? At the end of the day these types of conversations don't really matter at all, since what will be: will be. Basic human nature can be guided at times but never controlled en mass.

To each their own Davis. "I

To each their own Davis.
"I feel bad for people who cannot let themselves experience (for whatever reason) the joy and challenge of kids. Now being on the other side of it a DINK lifestyle seems shallow and sad to me."

See, from my POV, being a parent is shallow and sad. When there are so many orphaned and abondonded children in the world, creating more doesn't make sense to me.

Sadness for me would be having a baby to look after 24/7 and the loss of my own identity and individuality.

Don't feel bad for me, Davis. I'm living my life exactly the way I want to, just like you are.

I suppose....

...if I was Maiers kids, I think I would want to move in with Dad.

I wouldn't want Mom to publish that having me was a pain in the ass.

So I must agree, some people shouldn't have kids.....

I am available for breeding

if you don;t mind the lack of height...

Magic Numbers: 2.1 & 2050

It’s always interesting when liberal ‘progressives’ adopt a line of argumentation that effectively guarantees the eventual extinction of the socio-cultural models and norms they advocate. It is difficult to see how a cultural configuration that sterilizes every society that adopts it can be the wave of the future. Sure, it’s about “choice”. But all choices have consequences.

The advanced economies will simply replace the legions of un-conceived DINK babies with immigrants in order to meet labour market shortages (as they’ve been doing to a greater and greater extend over the past three generations). But in the long run, as all sources of immigrant labour contract (according to demographers the magic year is 2050), what we’ll have isn’t a labour shortage anymore, but system-wide *demand* shortage. The bourgeois affluence upon which DINK assumptions and choices are based will become increasingly inaccessibly to more & more people. The liberal consensus will erode and break down as large swathes of society see a re-assertion of tried-and-true traditionalist models and behaviours, with far-reaching impacts not just on “mainstream” society but on liminal elements as well.

The chattering classes can debate what God thinks about separating marriage and community from reproduction and new life, but Darwin says No.

Besides, the designer-lifestyle DINK jet-setters are hardly an environmental boon.

NKBurlington, I agree. To

NKBurlington, I agree. To each there own. Where we get in trouble is when we project our values onto others. Perhaps my comment was drifting in that direction.

Both sides now

Women who choose to be childless are commonly harassed by other women for their choice. So it's understandable that Vanessa Richmond and others are fed up and want a more positive image of being childless. (Let's be straightforward with our terms. "Childless" simply means "without children". "Childfree" sounds like sour grapes.)

Vanessa: You don't have to defend your choice to be childless by appealing to global overpopulation, carbon footprints, or whatever. There's always a comeback (e.g., your educated, progressive children would probably do more good than harm) and you are playing on your opponents' territory by accepting that you need to justify your choice to them. The only justification you need is: I don't believe that having children would be best for me, personally.

On the other hand, don't make silly claims about how having children makes people less happy. True happiness, in the sense of human flourishing, is not to be measured in terms of career success, bottles of wine consumed, leisure time, etc. When parents say that having children is the best thing that ever happened to them, believe them. In most cases, it's true. (It is in mine.) And they should accept that it's not the best thing for everyone, and that many people can live a flourishing life without children.

umm! The author says:

A possible solution to this dilemma is to find some different friends.

Semantics

(Let's be straightforward with our terms. "Childless" simply means "without children". "Childfree" sounds like sour grapes.)

To you. To others, childless may sound like "missing a child", and childfree a much more positive descriptor.
For example, I'm sure you'd rather be called a mother than a breeder, even though both are technically true.

Western Civilization

I would just like to state further, that attitudes like Vanessa's will doom the West to colonization and destruction. The new colonists of the West will be from homophobic and mysogynist cultures. How will a lower birthrate make Canada and the West a better place to live if we let in more and more immigrants to replace the babies that are not born? How will this be more "sustainable" for the future? I think the real cost of immigration, hidden by the government, is far far more than encouraging natural growth. The future will be a very scary, violent and unfriendly place to live without children from Western parents.

BTW, there are some errors in my previous post and I apologize for that.

Ummm! Not exactly cutting edge thinking here

The argument that prolific breeders from (fill in blank with country of your choice...say Ireland, Italy, Japan, China, Galicia, East Asia...etc.) will smother culture and turn Western countries into a pale and morally challenged shadow of their former selves is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be brought up as a straw man in the present context.

If it wasn't true in the past, pardon me for not getting into a cold sweat about it now. Such thinking is on a par with the allegation that we’re under threat from hordes of Muslim terrorists plotting mayhem in our universities a la David Horowitz.

It’s all bunkum.

Western 'Christian' culture and its record has much to recommend it - but it would gain from practicing a little less blatant hypocrisy.

As for having children, it’s a personal choice – hopefully exercised responsibly. As long as popular culture seems enamored with folks like Sarah Palin and the ‘Jon and Kate train wreck’ I think there are more important things to worry about.

Insidious infiltration of foreign Muslim culture isn’t going to do us in…any more than a few childless individuals will.

Personally, I think the uncontrolled economic juggernaut, combined with the way we're poisoning the atmosphere and soiling our nests is a much more likely candidate for Armageddon.

And Kevin, nice to see someone else has nightbloom's number.

From the Breeding Herd... :-)

Me 'n the Mrs had our rather large clutch of bairns, for the time, and though it was a struggle, are damned glad we did. Now with grandchildren and great grandchildren continuing the circle unbroken, thus far, it is a source of considerable pleasure for us.

I consider it the major achievement of my life, over all the crap about "career fulfillment" and "success" ad nauseum. ('Cause we do pay a price for it, no doubt.)

That said, the greater likelihood is that there are going to be too many folks making too many demands for the planet to sustain in the future. Already, we need to reduce the human impact footprint. By all means you non-breeders, be my guest. Ain't no point to folks who don't want kids being made to feel forced to do so. You'd only create problem kids if you do anyway, likely, which is the more important consideration, frankly.
Of which we have enough already, thank you very much.

For any of you folks so inclined to not join the breeders circle, I encourage you, for the sake of the planet and the sustainability of the plentiful future fruit of my own loins, by all means cull yourselves out. I'll consider it a favour, and won't hold it against you so much as a smidgen. :-)

Have a good life. Be happy. And, of course, enjoy your "career success".

Childfree does not mean career minded

Coyoteman, not every childfree person has made that decision so that they can focus on their careers. That's a myth. Some people don't have kids because they don't want them - like myself. I have no desire for kids. Never have, never will. I have no ulterior motive other than to enjoy my life.

There are many successes in life and each person is different. Your definition of success is very different than mine but each is valid and meaningful to us, for our life.

For me, career does not equal success.

While a lot of my friends

While a lot of my friends have kids, quite a few are choosing a childfree lifestyle; I'm in the latter category, but can appreciate both sides. I'm not sure I understand why childfree is being linked to higher consumption, though, but then, not all childfree people fall into the DINK category; some of us are SINKs (single is also an underappreciated choice), and whether or not we're in relationships doesn't affect how we handle our carbon footprints. (I won't mention that about one per cent of landfill garbage is disosable diapers, which take 500 years to decompose. Oops, too late.)

So I won't be contributing to the next generation of companions and caregivers. This doesn't mean I don't fully appreciate "the state of the world and our environment" or the legacy we leave for future generations. I still pay taxes that go towards the education and health care of other people's children, and don't begrudge that at all.

"There are many successes in

"There are many successes in life and each person is different. Your definition of success is very different than mine but each is valid and meaningful to us, for our life." wrote NKBurlington

I don't have a problem accepting this statement of yours at all. Likewise, though it is often the contrary case in my encounter with childless folks, I fully accept your view that "career success" is not always the issue. You are likely entirely right.

And I forgive all those SINKS AND DINKS of my life (single and double income & no kids), who often, I know, could not restrain themselves from looking down their noses at me and my gal's breeding choice. :-)

Have a good life, darlin'. I mean it. :-)

Let's try again

Kevin, sarcasm always says more about the people who use it than the people targeted by it. This might surprise you, but there is no "ideologically correct" way for gay people to think, to form their opinions, or to live their lives. What's condescending is your assumption that you know my interests better than I do. And if you follow my comments on The Tyee (which have been fairly scant and occasional for a long time now) as closely as you claim, then you are already familiar with my critique of Andrew Sullivan. But that's all beside the point here (a point you still miss).

I was describing socio-economic trends that will result from continued generational depopulation as a result of the long-term artificial suppression of birthrates, not advocating for a specific outcome...let alone arguing in favour of authoritarianism "against my own interests". I believe that we are living a transient historical "moment" that will prove to be extremely susceptible to changing contexts as the trends I've described unfold. This should also be familiar to you from other threads. Moreover, this isn't a western thing (Gwest) since India, China, and the Muslim world are now seeing the exact same trends (Mark Steyn notwithstanding). Social liberalism and all the liberation movements (feminism; gay rights; racial, religious and ethnic emancipation, etc.) are ultimately dependent on affluence, and upon the bourgeois consensus that widespread affluence generates. This is the whole modus operandi of the rights-based liberal democratic nation-state. There's no positivist teleology, no manifest destiny, that guarantees the survival of the current model if the context changes radically over the next 50-100 years. Radical demographic shifts will come with a price. That's my point. Get it now?

In any case, if you have an actual counter-argument to present, I'm all ears.

The blessing of natural impulses and choice

Look around in the world and you'll see a lot of men in (political) power who wilfully try to keep women away from education, choice, and political power and leave women with those particular men's assumptions on a woman's "purpose": to breed, and to feed their men and their brood. Simply put, they are chattel in such world views.

..and I don’t think for one minute this is strictly centered on outwardly fundamentalist religious cultures. "Nice and polite" acting western men can be just as smitten with those assumptions. Birth is also creative power - and many insecure males fear power in others, especially in the hands of women. That, and only that power - is the power and place allowed women in their minds' eye.

Posters who simplistically respond "Ms. Richmond doesn’t understand this", or "she glosses over that"..may be themselves unable to reconcile the right of choice. Actually, when one's truly happy with your own choices one does not need to criticise anothers.

Simply put, we cannot keep growing our numbers and survive. That said, I do happen to feel that consciousness is fundamentally wise, and the natural impulses of each person - to be or not be partner to the conceiving of children, to partner or not with a particular same or opposite sex - those personal impulses are a blessing to be trusted.

Multi-sarcasmic

nightbloom, I'm aware that sarcasm is one of the lowest forms of humour, which is why I acknowledged that it might have been inappropriate.

There's a lot in both of your comments that I agree with, some that I don't, but again: your opinions are not facts - neither are Mark Steyn's, or Francis Fukuyama's. The end of history may not be here just yet.

I don't claim to know a whole lot about your interests; what I do know about is your habit of putting certain words in scare quotes - which is as cheap a rhetorical trick as sarcasm - and the inevitability that the viewpoint expressed in your comment is going to be just as predictable as that of any of the 'progressives' you like to go on about, and that's unfortunate.

There's substance in your comments that would be interesting to talk about, from viewpoints that probably differ less than you'd think, but there's just too much weeding to be done to make it feel worthwhile.

I've 'enjoyed' our conversation. Have a good night.

more sex

Some years ago I spent a delightful evening with a marvellous man in a spectacular Vancouver restaurant, which culminated in his presentation of a diamond ring (and I’m pretty sure it was a classic three-carat, six-pronged Tiffany) and a proposal of marriage. My love and regard for this man notwithstanding, I said no, because it was his expressed desire to have five children. He went his way to marry and have children and I went mine to have none and we are firm and steadfast friends – no doubt the universe has unfolded as it should.
But it must be said that the universe has unfolded as it should precisely because of the element of choice. My choice required a fair bit of confidence and courage, while his received the approbation of the culture. Men who elect not to have children face unpleasant and derisive treatment also, of course, although framed in different terms. Surely the enlightened question is why this is so? From my perspective as a not-mother by conscious and deliberate choice, I can only hope that those who choose to become parents do so with the same consciousness and deliberation. I can find no more important reason to have children than that they are wanted …which means that we refrain from demonizing those who do not want them.
You know, it’s a funny coincidence – I have a fabulous sofa, although the Beemer was sold because I couldn’t navigate the back roads to go hiking. What is significant, though, is that I like myself and my life and the journey thus far and wouldn’t trade it for yours – anyone’s. To reduce the question of life’s most important decision to ‘breeding or not breeding’ is contemptuous in any event, and does nothing to further thoughtful analysis of how our society might be unfolding. Pity.

This topic is getting old already...

NKBurlington and Katatak's most recent comments above beat me to my points- yeah, us childfree folk are running around buying sports cars and such and consuming more than those of you who need to buy waaaaay more stuff when you have kids. Riiiight.

Actually, I teach kids, tutor teens (who love me and get along with me smashingly), babysit my friends babies and toddlers for free on extremely short notice, and intend to one day adopt children because it breaks my heart that any child in this world is orphaned (actually that goes for all the dogs out there too). I have zero interest in giving birth. The idea makes me physically ill to be honest. Always has.

When I think about it it's pretty amazing that I am one of a very small minority of women who have ever lived on this planet (and do now at that) who have a choice re: reproduction. Pretty sweet when you think about it.

interesting

Interesting that Maier (and her apparently extensive scientific proof) separate creativity from parenting, while many parents would describe the experience of childbirth and parenting as very creative.

Nobody should be pushed nagged or cajoled to have kids, and certainly no one who doesn't want children should have them. I think this pushiness is part of the culture of kids-as-commodity as discussed in previous articles. For some people, acquiring a kid is similar to getting the newest blender--they can't wait to tell you all about it and give you advice on where to get the best one (or best preschool, trike, mom/tot yoga, educational toy etc). I assure you many parents also find this wearing. May I never be bored to tears discussing the best deal on designer baby clothes again!

Conversely, I once had a childless acquaintance rage to me about a friend who emailed her news about their kids-- kids she doesn't care about since she has none herself (her words). This same person used to tell me endless tales about her cat. I don't have a cat and am not really a cat person but I listened because I was interested in her, and therefore I was interested in hearing about what was important to her. And also they were generally funny stories. I guess I learned not to assume the same respect for my interests or feelings.

Most child free folks I know aren't like this person, but I sense a bit of the same attitude in this article which insist on describing parenting itself as a problem. It seems to me the real problem is rude people who are insensitive and don't care about how you feel.

Finally, I note someone argued that being a mother or a breeder is the same, though one would prefer to be called a mother. As pointed out by others, parents can also adopt, which makes one a mother, but not necessarily a breeder. Semantics?

just to clarify...

I was not responding to any single person, simply attempting to say that difficult personal choices that are reduced to a facile level of discourse negate the very importance of the debate.
I'd certainly welcome an elevation in the tone of the discussion...perhaps we can all tell each other about our sofas.

Justification

If the "no kids" argument was just kept as a simply a "choice" and that everyone should be able to choose if they wanted children and not be judged for it, then it would be a fine topic for discussion. However, when the argument gets down to "I'm not having children because I am being responsible" it gets a little demeaning to those of us who are raising the next generation. You know ... that demographic that will make up, in part, the doctors, nurses, and caregivers that will make your life more livable as you get into old age.

If you really believe that you are somehow morally superior to us that do make sacrifices to raise children (of which the benefits are too numerous to consider it a sacrifice) then make sure that you do not use other's children. No hugging your friend's kids, no watching your nephews and nieces open their Christmas stockings, and definitely do not go into a profession that has anything to do with children.

Generally, topics like this come down to the two arugments of: 1. I am morally superior because I didn't have children; and 2. I will have a better lifetsyle and be able to spend all my time and wealth on myself if I don't have children. If you fit into the first group, don't be a hypocrite ... don't have anything to do with anyone's children. And, if you fit into the second group ... no complaining later in life when no one comes to visit in the old age home (perhaps you can use your accumulated wealth to buy some companionship ... lots do).

Really, I don't know why this is such a big topic. I had my first child at 25 and both my wife and noticed that it was our childless friends that started to abandon us as our lifestyles diverted and we had different priorities than going to clubs and partying every weekend. I have never asked anyone when they were going to have kids. I have always considered that a personal choice that I would never judge. I am surprised that those that feel so "judged" because they choose not to reproduce feel the need to attack those of us that choose differently. Why is that Vanessa Richmond? Why the need to justify your choice?

Once again, it comes down to this...

Chris H, you have touched on two of the three never ending and not so original rebuttals to not having kids;
1)You are raising the future "You know ... that demographic that will make up, in part, the doctors, nurses, and caregivers that will make your life more livable as you get into old age." YAWN...

Do you know who is helping to fund the education and health care of your future doctor? Everyone who pays taxes - the childfree included. You're welcome.

2)Who will look after / visit you when you get old:
" ...no complaining later in life when no one comes to visit in the old age home"

Trust me, having kids is no guarantee that your room at the home will be filled with happy offspring visiting you on a regular basis. Is this why you had kids? So your future doctor son or daughter could feed you when you are unable to do so? Sweet.

You have to want them desperately

I think that the main requirement for having children (biologically or by adoption) is wanting them desperately. That burning desire to have them makes everything you have to reduce or change or give up worthwhile. If you can't think of anything else, day and night, then by all means have kids and enjoy them and your life with them. I have never, ever had that burning desire. I'm in my fifties now, and I have never regretted my choice to not have children. Luckily, my husband of 26 years has always felt the same way I do. We have friends with children and friends without. We respect their choices and they respect ours. Not so hard, really.

On the other hand...

Everyone could just acknowlege that there are good and bad reasons to follow either path and respect peoples' choices either way.

This is an awfully silly thing to have a big fight about.

NKBurlington

Really, no one cares why people choose not to have kids. This article attacks those that do make that choice to have children by suggesting childless folk are somehow morally superior and have chosen a more logical path. There are lots of really good reasons to become a hermit too, I'm sure ... but I don't see any articles being written that suggest those of us that choose to live with other humans are morally inferior.

Here is another question: If the author is so comfortable with her choice of being childless why is she so bothered by people asking her the question of when she plans on having children? Why so sensitive? No one is ostrasizing her. There are no really big negative consequences (as you so aptly point out) to not have children, so why this article? Why the topic?

Really, it is only those childless adults who are actually NOT comfortable with their decision or circumstance and feel the need to somehow justify their chosen lifestyle. I know I don't have to justify my own because I am very happy. My points weren't rebuttals, because it is a very stupid argument to have in the first place. The arrogance to suggest that either having or not having children is somehow superior to one another is simply ludicrous. They are different, have differing results and lifestyles, but that is it. It is no different than those that try and justify their stance against homosexual marriage. Why do people need to feel that their lifestyle choice is somehow superior to another's?

suffering and smiling

It would never occur to me to judge the child-free-by-choice set (I was once among you). But it occurs to me that the world would be a much better place if more of us were "always on call, smiling, attentive, teacherly and responsible" (as Maier argues parents must be).

oxytocin...

...the drug in your brain that fools you into spawning your replacement, ensuring your ( average mediocre ) DNA lives on. It's really that simple. All your reasons to breed come from this chemical. Like someone else mentioned, just a moment of thought is all it takes to transcend our stupid monkey urges to replicate. Pretty much all of our environmental and poverty issues would be solved if there were fewer of us. If we don't take control, nature will Malthus-stylee. So your lineage is doomed anyway. Besides, don't you wish you could go see the Butthole Surfurs later this year and get wrecked and screw like porn afterwards without having to get a sitter?

More on breeding in the Animal Kingdom...

Ooooo, so much hatred for the concept of humans as animals. Thinking animals, but animals just the same. And I know a lot of critters, having worked with them a good part of my life, and I'm sure as hell not prepared to say they don't think just as well as a lot of you folks who see yourselves and "the species" in some more antiseptically stellar context than the rest of the kingdom. I sure as hell don't.

And though it may offend your "human chauvanistic" sensibilities, get over it and accept it, we breed just the same and, essentially, for all the same "drive" reasons as the rest of the animal kingdom... to which we belong.

Nothing wrong with it. I love and try to stay in touch with that animal part of myself and the human instinct and drive. Nothing base about it whatsoever. For all you refined, out of touch with the "nature: of it all Ladies and Lords Chatterly. :-)

Which brings me to a story, from life.

Continued...

More on Breeding in the Animal Kingdom 2...

On the transit bus, as you come in the front door, to your left, is what we bus drivers used to call, and they likely still do, the "talk seat". It's the favourite seat of folks who like to talk to the driver. (Generally decent, good and honest, if not infrequently lonely folks. Not all, of course, but a good number.)

And my memory goes to, typically but not exclusively, ladies who would go on and on about their pets, usually a dog or cat, but again, not exclusively. And what they would go on about were the critters growing issues, illnesses and all the cute things it had just done, etc.

Now, some folks just like critters, I know, 'cause I do as well, but there is a point where itis clearly something else, you become aware of over time. And to these folks, sometimes, you just want to say, ma'am or fella, for God's sake, if you can, go out and get yourself shagged silly, without the intervention of a contraceptive, you really need and are likely on some level wanting a human baby to fuss over.

You don't say anything, of course. (I'm sure, if there's any bus drivers out there reading Tyee, besdies myself, they know exactly what I'm talking about.) And who knows, really, as many of you folks help make clear, it's of the greater likelihood these folks stay out of the breeders circle, and content themselves with little Fido or Ms Mizi. And likely it's better they do.

And that's what it really is, you folks of "higher" sensibilities... it's breeding. All the animals do it, unless we humans "fix" them, and ourselves, of course. It feels good, and it keeps the world going round, and humans up to dominant species level in numbers. "Cause we do it better, more prolifically and with greater rearing success than any other species in the animal kingdom.

And it may piss ya off, but my circle remains unbroken. We are all prolific and successful breeders. :-) It's a great source of family pride.

And you gotta love that animal kingdom, and the lust and love that goes along with being a part of it.

End

Thanks

for that lovely bus ride, and you're right about it, but many are so fearful of human babies who will be endlessly precious and delicate and will someday grow up and judge them. If only they knew! precious, yes, delicate, no. And as for judging, well what did you deal YOUR parents while young and stupid? Turnabout is fair play.

Revealing you're childfree to a mother

Here's how the typical conversation goes:

Mother: Do you have any children?

Me: No. I don't want children.

Mother: Oh, you'll change you're mind.

Me: No. My partner's had a vasectomy. We're quite sure about our decision.

Mother: Oh, well those can be reversed.

Me: We've made up our minds.

Mother: Well, I used to be like you, but then one day I just felt like I had to have a baby. So I did, and it was the most life-changing experience. I now feel so fulfilled in so many ways I never thought I could. Having children makes you a better person. I know you'll change your mind.

and so on and so on...

Now imagine this conversation were reversed, with me telling the mother by implication, without her requesting IN ANY WAY this information, how her life was so lacking in depth and meaning because she had children. This would never happen.

I don't understand why parents (not unlike Christians) have this uncontrollable urge to proselytize on such a personal and private life choice. Have children, believe in God, vote Conservative...whatever. But keep it to yourself unless I ask you about it. I don't go around giving Christians and parents UNSOLICITED life advice. I just ask the same in return, which judging from the responses here, is too much to ask for.

Proselytization

"I don't understand why parents (not unlike Christians) have this uncontrollable urge to proselytize on such a personal and private life choice."

Overcompensation.

"But when you are old, and (possibly) alone and my then-adult children are striving mightily to not only support the health care system that will sustain us both, but also offer succor to their parents and live out relationships formed of sacrifice and love, do not ask me to weep extra tears for your loneliness."

Adult children always offer succor to the elderly parents who are never abandoned by their grateful offspring.

Childless heterosexuals are the new homosexuals.

Neither rampant individualism nor uncritical social conformity but rather an individual adjustment to cultural norms and pressures (from which no choice is ever truly insulated).

One other 'tiny' elephant in the room

A recent study released by Oregon State University.

If you really want to increase your 'carbon footprint' there's no better way to do it - according to this study - than having another child.
Quoting the study's media release:

When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

And even though some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the U.S., their overall impact on the global equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption. The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one fifth the impact of a child born in the U.S., the study found.

http://tinyurl.com/lb79fe

Not to pass any judgement in the matter, it may well be that, one way or the other (producing too many or not enough mouths to feed) we're still in a lot of trouble, survival-wise.

Carbon baby footprints...

"And even though some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the U.S., their overall impact on the global equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption." wrote GWest.

Interesting study, no doubt. Which actually fits in with my view that we might just be witnessing the emergence of a new, entirely "natural" human survival strategy, in these increased numbers of folks effectively culling themselves out of the hereto "normal" breeding pattern/cycle of humans.
(Maybe, though it is an entirely accurate word/concept to refer to this as a kind of "culling" behaviour, it might be more discreet and palatable to refer to it as a "taking oneself out of...")

There is no doubt though, that human numbers are going to have to be brought down, going forward, by one means or another. (I think here even of China's one child policy.) I would even note that, while by "modern trends", my "Coyote familial line" is prolific, the numbers per family are down generationally. (Improved quality and availability of reliable contraception, no doubt. Always hated the condom, which was all there was in my "family raising" time-, of which I constantly complained was like washing your feet with your socks on.)

Anyway, sehr interessant, GWest.

Selfish breeders

The spike in population over the past 100 years is directly related to climate change and the peak oil emergency, which will almost surely result in our imminent destruction as a species unless dramatic population controls (and eco-paradigm shifts) are undertaken. So if you must blame anyone, blame those who insist on the Judeo-Christian edict of "go forth and multiply."

The real enlightened ones among us may be those who choose not to have children for broader, species-survival reasons, or at least are conscientious enough to limit their offspring to one or two. Ironically, the selfish ones seem to be those breeders who insist on having children, come hell or high water.

We are currently seeing population tragedies unfold in parts of the world that are acutely impacted by changing climate. Once lush agricultural lands are turning to dust and sand, lakes and rivers are drying up, mass migrations are developng into mass deaths by starvation, and wars and genocides are being fought for the few remaining scraps. And our response here in the luxurious First World - to continue having large families, which we believe we can offset by purchasing hyprid SUVs and teaching the kids how to recycle?

Evolution has no ethic or morality. It simply will settle the score despit us. Our morality comes into play in recognizing the red flags of this evolution and acting accordingly. Right now, having lots of children is not in accordance with the red flags that the ghost of Darwin is waving right on front of our collective face.

I'm not suggesting cease having children. However, I do have a nagging issue with breeding people who assume moral high ground, accusing non-breeders of selfishness, or worse, selling out the species.

China’s One Child policy

China’s One Child policy has been a disaster in so many ways. What a horror show. I wouldn’t want to see such a blunt, short-sighted, destabilizing and dehumanizing policy replicated elsewhere. Besides, the one thing everyone here seems to agree on is *choice*. That’s not what the Chinese have.

I’ve never bought the numbers argument. Malthus was wrong – he didn’t account for human ingenuity, which has allowed us to produce food in quantities far greater than our numbers. The problem isn’t raw human numbers, it’s technology and human systems. Inherently misanthropic arguments against babies are being peddled as a substitute for genuine change. Something weird is occurring in the hard-core fringe of the environmentalist movement – they’re misanthropes, not sustainable developers.

Wayfarer...

Whose argument above begins to get at the real issue without the selfish hedonism of some of the "non-breeders" here, and maybe, just maybe even one or two of we "breeders". :-) (I am of a different generation, that took and still takes delight in a large family tree.)

But though I delight in a large family, I do at the same time recognize that the endless growth drives and pressures of previous times, up to and including current capitalism, has brought us to a time and place where this dynamic is going to have to change. (And nightbloom's contradictory homosexual Catholic instincts, though he has previously said he is not now "churched", which emphsizes a further reliance on technology thesis, which really means more intense and concentrated growth as an outcome of his attempt to reconcile Catholicism to reality,(even higher density mega cities) over limiting, even reducing growth and increasing space, and more room for the rest of nature, is as obviously false as any Papal directive on contraception. Which doesn't even get taken seriously by, likely, the great mass of Catholics anymore.)

It's not even the internal combustion engine that is per se the real problem of air quality for example, folks cooked on fossil fuels for centures, but the sheer massive numbers of people driving them. Which even over the relatively short course of my lifetime, has clearly been driven by the endless growth dynamics of capitalism (and what has passed for "communism", which has really itself just been reduced to a kind of "state capitalism" content), with its endless growth needs for consumers and consumption, cheap labour, production, productivity, and of course, wealth creation for the ruling "heirarchy" class.

So, to conclude, I would only connect the obvious dots that complete the connection twixt excessive population levels and consumption, with the current capitalist economic system out of which the phenomenon arise, are driven and exaccerbated by. You seriously attempt to reduce this country's population levels, for example, you will send our capitalist economy into a tail spin from reduced growth, that will but merely drive it, as it does currently, for we would already otherwise have a declining population, to massively increase immigration levels.

The contradictory tensions within the socio-economic status quo are immense, and only about to grow worse, fail we to deal with the root pressures and causes. A new economic and political democracy culture is the overwhelming need.

Which is already ugly, and gonna get woise. :-)

nightbloom

That you've never bought the numbers argument doesn't change the current population realities. Malthus is old hat, of a different, pre-climate change, pre-peak oil era. There is new data, you just have to take time to explore it. Kunstler's The Long Emergency is a good primer, even if his focus isn't specifically population.

Re: your strawman argument: "Inherently misanthropic arguments against babies are being peddled as a substitute for genuine change."

Let me rephrase it: genuine change must include a discussion about the population problem inflicting our globe. Invariably, even if you avoid population or are foolish enough to believe it is not an issue, other issues like climate change, starvation, war and peak oil will lead you back to it [population], like it or not. It must be addressed at the top levels by every government and the UN. All the sustainable development and electric cars in the world is for not if you allow a limited earth to be increasingly encroached by unlimited, skyrtocketing population growth. Don't forget, China and India are booming industrially right now, and that means more demand for oil, a "wealthier" people, and resulting larger population growth. I'm sure you are smart enough to make the deductions.

Questioning traditional ideas on procreation is not anti-baby, nor is it misanthropic, nor is it somehow supportive of a China-style one-child policy. Ideally, public education about population reduction can work as effectively as campaigns against tobacco, if governments have the will to broach that ground. Right now, not even close. We still think throwing our cans in a blue box and driving hybrid SUVs and eating local blueberries can save the world.

In the meantime, we should respect those who choose to lighten the population bomb, rather than deride them. I think we should offer tax incentives to adults who choose not to procreate. Moreover, we should view this growing movement not to procreate as a great opportunity to discuss the deeper issues associated with a planet that is increasingly being maxed out on the population front.

The most talked about realty show these days is Jon & Kate Plus 8, and Octomom just signed a juicey deal to start her own show. Signs that, indeed, we have a long way to go on this question.

http://www.straight.com/artic

http://www.straight.com/article-177063/time-pick-earth-over-birth

if the world is going to be full of the offspring of the people arguing on this site, i'm even more confident in my decision to not procreate.

delusion

Dorothy,

The only delusion here is the belief that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with unchecked population growth in the face of a climate change and peak oil emergency. Further, your childish (pun intended) suggestion that the child-free life is one lacking in responsibility, one marked by fear and laziness - this really reflects only on your own apparent insecurities rather than those people your comments are aimed at. The personal-reasons-why side of the debate is rather futile to lay claim to. We are a diverse species, each of us unique, and we have all sorts of complex life factors and reasons for making the decisions we do. I am generally at ease with your decision to procreate. What I'm not at ease with is people like you telling people like me or the author that we are "lazy, irresponsible, scared" and have failed to "grow up" because of a decision not to have children. This is exactly the sort of arrogant condescension that likely inspired the author to write the above article.

The more relevant questions in all of this, for me, are those pertaining to the global population crisis (as connected to climate change, peak oil, and underdevelopment) and the changing face of the family, which is not some holy monolith etched in our genetic codes. The family is cultural construct. Procreation, in fact, has very little to do with ‘family’ in the true sense of the concept. Procreation is an evolutionary mechanism to ensure survival of species. However, what happens when human convention has overplayed or manipulated that mechanism, making procreation an actual threat to species survival? Well, there are good arguments to be made that this is exactly what’s happening in our world right now.

I thank Vanessa Richmond for raising this issue in her own, personal terms. I think it’s a question that has all sorts of bigger implications. Lots of interesting comments.

Don't come crying to me if they're 50 and still love at home...

Don't worry Bugbear, you're doing the right thing. And apparently, if the stats are true, people all over the developed world are not having kids either. You aren't alone, not by a longshot.

I am also curious why those with childen are upset with those who are childfree. I think it comes down to money and labour. Unless you're rich, those with children haven't got a pot to piss in. I'd be angry too if I had a young brood and all around me were childfree people saving their money, going to school, taking art classes, yoga, traveling, etc etc.

It isn't the rich who are upset with childfree people -it's the lower middle class. (Coyote and Dorothy). Once these connections are made things become much clearer. For these people it is troublesome to see the extinction of their line. It pains them to see their offspring turn into pack mules, shouldering an ever increasing burden of labour, an increase of competition, and a decrease in resources. In short, they'd like to see more children birthed to 'share the pain' so to speak. It follows then that childfree people would provoke anger, even envy.

No matter how it's spun, no matter how the logic is twisted, people with children should not deride those without. If I had my choice of persons to sit down and chit chat with over a cup of coffee, I'd take the childfree person anyday. Chances are they're working to improve themselves, to further their education, to exercise, to volunteer, to read. Those with kids, well, I sincerely doubt they have time for any of the above.

You raise an interesting point

I read a story recently of a woman who was career driven, so much so that she was having her eggs frozen just in case 'Mr. Right' never comes along. This way she can still have children. You're right, Lynn. We have entered the Bizarro Age...when education, and the time invested in getting one, and career -also the time invested in establishing that -strips you of your ability to procreate.

Bizarre.

Wayfarer said: "Don't

Wayfarer said: "Don't forget, China and India are booming industrially right now, and that means more demand for oil, a "wealthier" people, and resulting larger population growth."

Wayfarer, demographers have demonstrated that the workforces of both China and India will peak before 2050. Ironically, "wealth" is what drives birthrates down, as we have seen over the last three generations in the northern hemisphere. We've bought ourselves time by importing labour. However, Mamon and Darwin define "success" very differently. Once population contraction is global, and even our sources of imported labour begin contracting, collapsing demand will cause global value chains to erode and disintegrate, middle classes in all developed nations will thin out as wealth becomes more scarce and ceases to re-distribute, and the pre-conditions for liberal democracy will be rolled back. The anti-natalist brand of environmentalism simply cannot survive itself. And in my opinion it's quack science. Far more effective to leave pelvic politics to the private sphere and work with government, industries and sectors to develop viable policy prescriptions and indicators to track success. What's needed is better technology and improved systems. Babies are good. You don't have to have them, but babies are good.

Canada Birth Rate...

"Statistics Canada says the country's birthrate has fallen to its lowest level in history, in large part because of the decline of something else: income.
In 1997, the rate reached 1.55 children per woman, a decrease researchers blame mainly on steadily shrinking take-home pay earned by young couples.

Agency researchers Alain Belanger and Laurent Martel conclude that financial constraints are preventing Canadians from producing enough children -- 2.1 per woman -- to replace the population as it dies off. "

Above drawn from link below. Thus, assuming these folks are correct, the life style change actually driving a plummeting Canadian birth rate is... the declining incomes of young Canadians, not the oft claimed altruism of "choice". It is "necessity" that is driving an anticipated birth rate decline to 1.3 by 2010.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1999/12/23/births991223.html

Sehr interessant. :-)

Nightbloom

You are correct about the correlation of economic development and declining population. What I meant to drive home in my comment was the role of oil and emissions in this equation. Any decline in population (which, by the way, will be badly skewed if China ever lifts its one child policy) will be offset by what that more stable population does to limited oil reserves. India has already come up with its $2,000 car (the Nano), and every rising class citizen is gonna have to have one. China, the same. It's a complicated issue, not reducible to mere population numbers, but how those numbers interact with climate, oil and the global economy. I don't think the post-development decline in population (in China it could be an incline - irony back at ya) will have any positive impact on emissions. Quite the reverse.

You also need to stop characterizing me and environmentalists as anti-baby. I never said I am anti-baby. The author above never said it. Few people I know who share my child-free opinion share that nihilist view. I merely believe unchecked population growth in conjunction with other environmental issues is an issue, a serious issue if we don't check it. Further, people who choose not to have kids are doing us a service in: (1) lessening the population problem, and (2) in raising the issue so we can get it on the table for discussion. Getting back to Vanessa's point, we need to respect the child-free choice. I think this movement to have zero or fewer children is not only positive, but essential to our survival. As the late George Carlin siad in one of his bits before passing: "Save the planet? It's not the planet that needs saving. The planet will be just fine. The planet's gonna be here for a long, long time. It's us that's goin' away...."

Vampires

If you would have been a kind, loving parent, you are not doing the world a service by not having children. Well loved children do not spend the rest of their lives nursing their various hurts, shitting all over others, all over the environment, out of revenge. They're of the type to not just live harmoniously, but to see everywhere, room for improvement. They are of the type to advance any/all efforts to improve our lot, as well as that of our "neighbors'"

After the roaring twenties, the conversation was all about learning to live with less, that less was best, about an end to all guilt-arousing growth. This unfortunately spirited "philosophy" lasted about twenty years, until some great human blood sacrifice suddenly made everyone feel it was time/appropriate for summer growth again--civilization had been "earned," and off away it went.

Vanessa still pisses me off for not bringing up the fact that just a few months ago, she very much was one of those mocking those who choose to go childless. That was shameless. You guys kind of piss me off too, for not bringing this to her attention--do you not care for her to be self-aware? This said, people do read those going childless now, as human failures. They can now be Id'd as runts, never fully human. People will not say this directly, but when some 30/40 something walks in, all neat-and-green, stroller by her side, the attention is off of "you," onto the relevant, the fully human--the person who really will be taking the human story forward. It's awful stuff.

Very interesting stuff

I'd like to try another angle, a psychological one. Perhaps there is guilt involved in producing children and in parenthood in general. Perhaps also there is guilt involved in not having children. The connection has been made that the planet cannot sustain unmitigated growth. And yet, if the planet is not for us and our enjoyment, then what is it for?

I read a story once I feel is connected to this thread. A ship was sinking and the lifeboats were lowered. The boat became full to capacity, yet there were many survivors still in the water, crying out for help. The quartermaster ordered that no one was to climb aboard, for if more climbed on, the boat would sink, and everyone would die. So any hand that reached out for help was met with a cruel thump.

They did indeed survive, but the guilt they felt, in doing what they needed to do to survive, remained.

So Coyote is correct. Some will be culled from the herd. That isn't news, however. That's life as it's always been. The mystery is...why are SO MANY being culled from the herd?

And on that note I'd like to end with a question. I have a friend of mine who told me his father worked at Safeway back in 1979 as an assistant manager. He was paid $20 per hour. I believe his first house cost him $35,000, in the city of Victoria. Well, fastforward to 2009 and the average home in Victoria is $500,000.

Now, my question is...isn't $20 per hour still about the average wage in 2009?

I may be wrong, but if I'm right, then we do live in the Bizarro Age.

the corollary...

"If you would have been a kind, loving parent, you are not doing the world a service by not having children." Not sure Patrick...does one know in advance?...but I am sure that if one does not want children one IS doing the world (and the potential children) a favour by not having them... Which surely is the important point, as far as said potential children are concerned?
Vanessa is shameless: can we make her more self aware? A few tried to bring some things to her attention...no doubt this article will be seen as successful for all the commentary it has drawn.Course, it's not very neighbourly commentary...in the sense of live and let live.
One important point I think is that in all populations lower birth rate is correlated with more education for women...not university education, simply education. Canada's birthrate has been behind replacement rate for some decades, and immigration has driven our population increase. Now I personally see this as a good thing; Canada is, after all, recognized around the world for its tolerant, multi-cultural society...one might doubt that, reading here, but still.Fewer children, in general terms for much of the world's females, means healthier children that grow to adulthood...Education, not income, is the predictor of birthrates.
The "fully human", the ones who "really will be taking the human story forward" know that children must be fully loved to be fully human...and have them only for that reason. Course, in that scenario the comparison of sofas would be totally irrelevant. If you envy the sofa (or anything else) of the childfree, you've got an ambivilance that screams, begs that you stop breeding.

they paved paradise to put up a parking lot

Those are revealing stats presented by coyoteman.

They reflect a dire point of convergence - where even the choice to have children or not (and it should be a choice) cannot be examined in isolation from other influential and controlling factors.

The thing is, the system we have created, one that has little reverence for life itself, is steamrolling onwards, and with ever-gathering momentum it is taking what little choice we once had out of our grasp....an observation, I think, a number of the commenters here are making, each in their own way, each just coming from different angles of approach.

Time is the real wealth and we are spending far too much of it on climbing imaginary hierarchies (as Rufus's last comment noted).

I think your article has provoked an interesting discussion, Vanessa.

VivianLea

The sorts of parents you describe are about the only ones I would wish to have children. The childless can do lots of things to make the world a better place, to reach/affect children. Some beautiful friends of mine are unlikely now to have kids, but through their writing/teaching are very much having a big say as to how kids are being brought up. They are sort of your kids in a way, not biological, but pseudo-adopted.

when is a choice really a choice?

I believe that we humans can do whatever we wish as long as we will it so. We're not powerless. The choice Vivian has made is no choice at all, but a capitulation. That isn't disrespectful to say, it's reality.

Perhaps the bar has been raised to high, too many hoops to jump through, too many certificates to earn, too many credentials and degrees. To be told that you can have a family -AT YOUR PERIL -is not a choice, it's a threat.

Times were simpler in the past. My grandmother taught school in Vancouver. Back then all it required was one year of Normal School to become a teacher. Now it's five and a half years of University. She raised seven kids.

We're not arguing against each other here, Vivian. I don't believe either of us is trying to score points or 'win' a debate. And I don't think this is about feminism or equality. Men are not establishing families either. There are no answers, only questions. The big question here is, why do so few of us today CHOOSE parenthood?

Choice? Respect?

My name is VivianLea, Rufus.
I find it disrespectful that what I name a 'choice', you call a "capitulation'. I made a clear, conscious, and well-informed choice: my word. Kindly don't change it.
Are we arguing? Debating? No.But you are not allowed to decide for me the words I choose to describe myself.
I shall leave you with a quote I particularly like:
"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best to make you like everybody else, means to fight the hardest human battle ever and to never stop fighting." (ee cummings)

I am a fighter in that poetic sense, my friend, and I will never stop.