1 in 5 adults don’t want children –– and they don’t regret it later
eurekalert.org
eurekalert.org
The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.
Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.
"What a fool I am," he said. "Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for."
And off he walked very, very scornfully.
There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.
There's more nuance here than your fable can expound on.
Some people don't want to bring a child into a world in its current state, some cannot afford it, some do not want the externalized costs, etc.
Choosing not to have children isn't always sour grapes.
It's a choice- let them make theirs.
My wife and I are okay with our cats. I don't think we have any regrets in this area.
And then the last line is a bit of a non-sequitur, particularly given that the fox was longing after that which was beyond it's reach.
What a perfect analogy.
As I’m a parent, I know lots of parents and it’s clear several should not have had kids. I don’t mean they appear to be bad at parenting,* I mean they plainly appear to regret the decision.
* in that case I think it’s unreasonable to say such folks shouldn’t have had kids.
"One in five women are childless at midlife, with about 90% of those in that position not by choice."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/07/chasm-...
Like the logic makes sense but odd bedfellows.
> But who are the childless and how many of them wanted children? The closest we can come is a 2010 meta-analysis by the Dutch academic Prof Renske Keiser[2], which suggested that only 10% of childless women actively chose not to become mothers. That leaves 90% of women like Day. Only 9% of that 90% are childless for known medical reasons [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/02/the-des...
[2] https://www.nwo.nl/actueel/nieuws/2010/Kinderloosheid+is+zel...
NOTE!! [2] is the actual link given in the 2017 Guardian article and that link to a Dutch popsci site no longer works - link rot strikes again.
For myself I'm rarely swayed by third hand references to meta surveys that "suggest" a result.
What utter trash article. Not only is the patriarchy completely antithetical to reduced fertility, but most childless women are absolutely so by choice, because they have unreasonably high standards and frequently are poor partners themselves.
If you’re building a major company or becoming president or doing cancer research or are a schoolworker or social worker, then I can understand saying you don’t want kids because you’re doing other important things with your time. But to miss out on life’s greatest mystery and many of the extremes of human emotion, and to not experience spreading your selfhood across others in the deepest and fundamental way because you want to watch more netflix, enjoy happy hour and learn to surf… feels profoundly unimaginative and dull?
https://osf.io/8avrd/ (data and code to reproduce the analysis)
Hard time parsing this statement. Are they suggesting parents being prejudicial makes kids less likely to later become parents themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization
One of the study authors (Dr. Zachary Neal) provided an impromptu AMA about the paper on r/childfree and r/science (cited below). Provided in the event answers in thread answer additional questions on the subject.
https://old.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/w8l7zf/study_one...
https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/12dgpah/msu_study_...
So that's one metric for "later in life".
As usual, it also depends extremely by the body of the person.
You can totally have children at 40 though, it's pretty common.
“ their findings provide evidence that the predominant reason cited by Americans who do not want kids is a desire to maintain their personal independence, rather than economic pressures or environmental concerns. ”
In fact everyone having just 2 isn't enough, it has to be slightly higher, even with modern medicine.
How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it?
I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it?
If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1?
What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?
Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption).
> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).
Probably not (it's a bit judgemental), but if their parents decided to never have children and chilax on the beach instead, they would not have existed at all, and neither would any of their achievements.
There are a lot of good reasons why individuals decide, or happen through circumstance to not have kids.
And not having kids isn't some intrinsic mark of shittiness that people must wear.
Nonetheless, the most compelling arguments suggesting that it could be selfish include:
- ending the family lineage, despite your ancestors' efforts to preserve it;
- relying on society for support in old age;
- failing to contribute to the growth of a culture, society, nation, advancement or humanity;
- depriving yourself or your partner of the potential fulfilment found in raising children;
- and disobeying a religious divine command to procreate, possibly resulting in negative consequences for humanity prescribed by religious beliefs.
Since these arguments are circumstantial, hinging on factors like religion, culture, technology, and taxation, their strength varies among individuals. For instance, in cultures valuing social cohesion and unity through religion (e.g., Polish culture), these arguments may carry more weight than in cultures prioritizing free choice and individualism (e.g., Western culture and values).
In the West, some might argue that pressuring others to have children is selfish, as:
- there may be personal gain involved, such as parents wanting their children to have kids for their own enjoyment or to pass on their values;
- it disrespects personal autonomy and choice of would-be parents;
- it exacerbates future environmental and population issues for short-term personal happiness or fulfilment;
- it ignores a child's right to a good quality of life in cases where parents might struggle to provide it;
- it diverts resources from other families in need.
However, the strength of these arguments also varies among individuals. For example, someone who firmly believes that God prescribed procreation to humanity and that it will ultimately benefit everyone might not find the arguments against pressuring others to have children convincing.
There is also often a significant amount of hand-waving on both sides of these arguments. For instance, some individuals defend their stance by suggesting that society should adapt to accommodate their position (e.g., addressing societal and ecological issues related to procreation through means other than discouraging procreation).
Numerous related arguments inevitably also get invoked in these discussions, like whether and in what circumstances we should advise others on having children. For example, some argue that if prospective parents have a high likelihood of passing on a hereditary disease, they should refrain from procreating. This concept, known as eugenics, is controversial. Critics argue that it restricts bodily freedom and carries negative historical connotations, while proponents claim that it benefits society by easing resource scarcity and reducing the ecological strain on the planet.
There are so many different aspects and strong opinions involved in the question of whether it's selfish not to have kids that it's really difficult to come up with a definitive answer. I am not convinced that the position that not having children is selfish is indefensible or stupid, even if I personally do not agree with it.
I agree that it is difficult to come up with a definitive answer.
(That said, trying to persuade reluctant persons that they should have children seems like a really bad idea (not to imply that anyone here was doing this). And, while I chose to be a parent, it seems to me that those who choose to not have children are making a responsible decision for themselves.
(Edit to add: FWIW, while I try to approximate selflessness as much as I can, I consider my decision to have children to have been selfish on my part. (I'm not saying all/other parents are selfish for having kids, just that I feel selfish for having made the decision I did.))
Indeed, persuading hesitant individuals to have children could be detrimental, as it might interfere with their varied values and beliefs.
For example, convincing a financially insecure (and aware of it) person to have children would make them act against their principles. This situation may result in considerable practical difficulties, of course, but also significant moral suffering.
With that said, some cultures do not care about the beliefs and values of individuals as much as the collective. Religions have an element of this, too. In that case, is it right to persuade someone reluctant to have children? I am way out of my depth to even try and answer that.
Going beyond human behavior, life itself is a very bad example to use to answer the question 'should I have children'. In the vast majority of animal populations if you have food, water, shelter/space until they point they affect the biosphere around them and collapse the population.
The systems we created in the past needed/wanted to maximize the number of people because we died in mass for varied reasons (quite often around childbirth itself), when we 'solved' this suddenly we had massive population growth that would become unsustainable, as they say, exponential growth cannot go on forever. Old systems will have to change to deal with the new reality, or experience dangerous collapses.
How is having kids you don't want "paying it forward?"
2. Children aren't that expensive unless the parents are playing status games (e.g. acting rich), and statistically it's poorer people that end up having more kids.
On the topic of sacrifice: One of my kids is just starting to stand up, and is using my shirt to pull herself up while squealing in triumph and delight. It's hard to express the fulfillment and existential meaning provided from children.
If I was told I would have to give them all up, it would be a soul-crushing sacrifice. Irrecoverable.
It also matter with whom and how you parent. Are sleep training, daycare, diapers, Tylenol, and bottle feeding the devil? Must you potty train from birth, diaper free? Naturopath parenting or bust?
Prepare yourself for sleep deprivation, higher risk of depression, many trips to the ER, and the smell of shit and piss. If your doctor or therapist insists you'll need medication and/or change your parenting style, then how many second opinions will you seek out before trying something else?
There is a balance of course, no one should neglect kids. Yet finding that, especially with an opinionated partner and the parent industrial complex, may be a long journey.
That's such a weird thing to say. If I said "you can model what its like to be in a happy marriage. Hang out with some randos wife for a bit" you'd think that is crazy.
Plenty of kids are little shits. I really really like my kid (and some others). Just like I wouldn't marry most people I meet...
Of course you may babysit a bad kid and have your own great kids. Babysitting first will still at least provide a frame of reference.
It is true that parenting isn't for everyone. But you can find babysitting unpleasant and yet still find much joy and fulfillment in parenting. So I wouldn't suggest allowing your babysitting experiences to play a significant role in your decision about whether to have children.
(The inverse might be the case, though -- if you really enjoy babysitting then that could bode well for you liking parenting. I can't speak as well to that, but it seems plausible.)
And, as others have said, your coparent is a huge factor as well.
I thought (and was told) my negative babysitting experiences were too narrow, unlike real parenting, and my hormones would change. IME none of that was true and I regret not giving the childcare experience more weight in whether to have (and how many) kids. And trust me, not everyone's hormones will change enough to overcome the costs, or otherwise find "special little moments".
I agree, of course, that not every parent will feel it was worth the costs. And I didn't even give my personal opinion on that. My statement, which I still stand by, is that negative experiences babysitting should not be given heavy weight in the decision. Babysitting and parenting are not comparable experiences. I accept and concede that for some people maybe they feel similar enough in that they dislike both; I do not think this invalidates my point. (I'm unfamiliar with the "hormones" argument and cannot speak to that.)
Agreed. I knew I didn't want kids because I knew many (MANY) parents with them and knew for sure I did not want that life, even the good parts.
1. Babysitting is categorically different from taking care of your own kids. Ask any mother that babysat previously.
2. It doesn't take 250k to raise your child. That is referring to college costs, and between Junior College, summer internships, and some loans I paid off with my first job, it didn't cost my parents anything to put me through college. Your children should have agency.
3. Your parenting decisions don't matter as much as who you chose to make the children with. Don't waste time optimizing things that have little impact.
4. Sleep deprivation has not been an issue for us. People who have this issue probably are trying too hard to sleep train the baby.
5. I was depressed before having kids. Now I'm not. Take that with a grain of salt, but my hypothesis is that children provide existential meaning that keeps me from my previous depression.
6. I've gotten my kids' poop in my mouth. That would have horrified me before. Now it doesn't even register. None of the their smells illicit negative feelings.
7. Both parents should have strong opinions loosely held, since personalities of children differ even in the same family, you will have to collaboratively figure it out.
8. The parenting industrial complex is probably part of the reason birth rates are so low, and should be avoided in favor of more traditional parenting styles.
Take care to ask your partner what "traditional parenting" means to them. It may involve indoctrination in religion that teaches self hatred (born sinful), whipping the children with a switch, or intentionally infecting them with diseases that have vaccines.
When I say parenting industry, I'm talking about books, mommy blogs, and commenting areas like this where you'll often get all kinds of self reinforcement, feel good BS, and no/bad science. I've seen it lead to parents convinced that some ways are evil, usually well studied and common things that would make life easier (such as bottle feeding).
Our friends that try to act rich have much higher costs. I assume that is where your cited number got so inflated.
Re. Parenting Industry: there's an excellent book called Hunt, Gather, Parent - which examines how traditional cultures raised children. Parenting isn't complicated, but modern marketing has completely muddied the waters.
there's a bit of a gender disparity in that group. three obvious solutions:
1. not care that most of this 1/5 of women are missing out on something they want
2. legalize and normalize polygamy
3. redirect culture to 'man up' and help provide families for the women who want them
other (esoteric?) solutions?
I’ve become a bit convinced that we’re essentially going to see Incestuous Kings II except this time with feudal tech lords.
Quite a depressing future if that ends up being it. Working class probably needs to get around to killing some bad actors sooner or later.
Where I’m from, when the big city law-man came to foreclose/auction on poor widows homes, the entire town showed up with guns & stared until nobody bid over $1 on the home.
Do you view these people with disdain for doing so?
How do you feel about Peter Thiels “let’s put suicide collars on the security guards” schpiel? Is murder okay when the rich or right people say it is?
It's called a revolution, and they have to happen from time to time for society to stay healthy. Sort if like forest fires in some biomes.
It seems to me that all of the conscientious people who look out for the greater good and environment, are leaving the gene pool. This feels like a problem for the future.
Is there even a universally accepted definition for ‘the greater good’?
As anecdata, wait until you meet a girl from a broken family of alcoholic rednecks who live in the woods and find out that she can code circles around you despite growing up without anything you can call broadband. ;p