the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

The problem is not so much the quantity of children but the quality of them. Children born to parents who can't afford to give them an advantageous upbringing are already on the back foot and are less likely to be able to do a skilled or useful job like nursing when older. This is the reason why people who can't afford children shouldn't be allowed to have them, because it's automatically means the future workforce is being skewed to lower quality workers. Obviously there are exceptions both ways, but generally a child raised in poverty (or close to it) will be less successful than one who had a comfortable upbringing.

As the theme tune to Peep Show used to go:
...only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding

I think it would be a good idea to scrap all child benefits and instead impose a child tax. It'd need to be investigate further but a good starting point might be a 10% tax on current wealth and all future income for each parent for each child. This way people could still have four kids if they want to, but would be forced to live with the consquences for the rest of their lives - even if the child was taken into care or died, the tax would still be payable. Parents would have to provide annualised accounts with payslips and explain how they have maintained themselves over the year so they wouldn't be able to hide income - if they are living off their savings, 10% of that is deducted per child per year, if they are being supported by someone else (eg a SAHM) then that person gets hit with the tax bill. (This could also be used to solve the issue of absent parents hiding income to avoid maintenance.)

The world can't support an ever-increasing population but there is some good news - humanity is on the verge of making itself obsolete. The rate of mechanisation has continued to increase since the industrial revolution began and, if there's only a 50/50 chance we will destroy outselves entirely by the end of this centure, there is a 100% chance that we will no longer be the most efficient entity at doing things that currently have to be done by humans. By 2050 robots that are physically indistinguishable from humans will be commonplace, they will be able to do our jobs better than we can ourselves, they will be more intelligent than us and eventually they will replace us altogether.

there should be no childrens allowance etc. should be tax benefits for not having more humans

"Everyone back in the pile".

(Sorry, South Park reference)

I’d love this but the howls of parental outrage would never allow it. I’d settle for having a statutory right to paid time off to pursue a passion project, but that’s equally pie in the sky!

I think if people realised their children are worthless to everyone but their family and loved ones, we could move on. This idea that society cares about your child as an individual and owes it anything is weird. We must be living in pretty privileged times.

So long as they can support that child then good luck to them.

The people on this thread are implying that having a child is bad and they’re somehow morally superior for not having one, when the only reason they aren’t having one is purely because they don’t want one. It has ZERO to do with the planet. If overnight they suddenly became desperate for a child they’d have one.

@ilyx No, I said responsible family planning. I didn't say no family, but if you are going to have children, the minimum requirement is that you can support them.
The world is not in dire need of more people, and it would be beneficial to reduce our population over time to a sustainable level.

I have to say I find the breeding machines claiming they're helping us by giving us future workers far more irritating than those who choose not to have children for environmental reasons or from worrying about the future. Ironically, we're unintentionally selecting for irresponsibility.

Lol, I’m not trying to guilt anyone. People will make their own decisions. Nevertheless other people will have opinions on said decisions, mine included 🤷🏻‍♀️

I don’t think humans are a burden, I think too many humans are a burden, which we demonstrably are. As I said, i’m not claiming my motivation for being childfree is the environment. It isn’t. It is, however, still of benefit to the environment.

Did anyone in this thread say they’re childfree because while they desperately want kids, they’re deciding not to because of the environment? Maybe I missed it 🤷🏻‍♀️

I don’t have kids because I don’t want kids. I’m not doing it for the environment, but it is certainly beneficial to the environment despite this. However, I’m sure some are choosing to be childfree primarily for the environment. Individual reasons do tend to vary.

@teanbiscuitio

You aren’t advocating “responsible family planning” you’re advocating no family in general! Just sterilise yourself for the good of the planet! My question is just why isn’t that logic applied to yourselves? If human life is so terrible?

And I hope all the people shaming women for wanting a child are vegan. (I doubt it as being vegan actually takes hard work and sacrifice, the complete opposite to being childless)

Choosing not to add theoretical people to the population is quite distinct from agitating for mass suicides

I’m not talking about everyone, I’m talking about the people trying to guilt women for wanting a child. I’m saying if humans are such a disgusting burden on the planet why don’t you apply that to yourselves? Also are you vegan by any chance? Because I am and if you aren’t it’s pretty hypocritical as it’s one of the worst things for the environment.

Ah, so responsible family planning and suicide are 2 sides of the same coin to you are they?

This is such a dumb argument. You know it is possible to reduce the population by having less children overall and we don't have to ask people to kill themselves right?

So again, what are the disadvantages to a lower future population?

What's the end point to this "logic"? Fall on our swords for the greater good?
Just listen to yourself 😂

I notice all the people complaining about overpopulation are still alive themselves. Aren’t you using up resources? Why don’t you apply this logic to yourselves.
Great point.
Let the young be born to live while they're fit and strong.
Anyone over 50 faces execution.
In 25 years I'll be 66.
I'd rather a fleet of 25 year olds in the world than a bunch of 65 year olds moaning about new life.

I’m so over childless by choice individuals who absolutely do NOT WANT A CHILD and all the responsibility that comes with pretend they are “doing it for the planet”. No woman alive who is desperate for a child is not going to have one because of climate change. You are embarrassing and so see through. And I’m saying this as a childless woman who is on the fence about having children.

Its 2022. No one cares if you don’t want kids. You don’t have to martyr yourself and pretend that you do but you’re trying to save the planet. I have a friend who does this, she isn’t vegan, flies all the time, pretends she doesn’t want children because of climate change, it’s so obvious.

Choosing not to add theoretical people to the population is quite distinct from agitating for mass suicides.

Presumably you look at what you do have, rather than what you should have, and act accordingly.

I notice all the people complaining about overpopulation are still alive themselves. Aren’t you using up resources? Why don’t you apply this logic to yourselves.

The majority of people accept that you must support the young. No one complains about funding state schools, for example.

What really pisses them off is people having kids for the benefits. And don't tell me that's a right-wing fantasy. Everyone on this forum knows some ignorant, violent chav with three kids who has never worked and has claimed tens of thousands in benefits. People like that know the system. They know that the more kids they have, the more fuss will be made of them, and the more goodies they will get off the state - including a house!! That would be bad enough if they raised the children to be polite, civlized and educated. But they don't even do that. They churn out exact replicas of themselves - vicious, ignorant, usless people who do nothing but harm.

Let me make it clear that I am not equating ignorant chavs with people on low incomes. Some of the finest human beings I know, people I would walk 100 miles to help, grew up dirt poor.

It's the age old problem, one we've never been able to solve - how do you help the good people without the horrible people taking advantage. Generous child benefits encourage the worst people to have lots of kids, who then grow up to be just like them. And that's not an opinion - it's a fact.

Being financially stable and not constantly stressing as to whether you can afford to pay rent and/or feed yourself/ your family most certainly puts you in a better position mentally and emotionally (not to mention financially) to provide said love, nurture and support.

Indeed, look at the link between poverty and abuse:

“The international evidence about the relationship between poverty and child abuse and neglect is much stronger now than it was five years ago. From this research, we can be certain that increased pressures on family life will lead to the risk that more children will be subject to harm, abuse and neglect, unless government and service providers can respond more effectively.”

research.hud.ac.uk/media/assets/document/hhs/RelationshipBetweenPovertyChildAbuseandNeglect_Report.pdf

I hear this 'below replacement rate' like it's a bad thing. Why is it bad? I haven't heard anyone explain why a lower population in future would be a bad thing.

The correlation is not between amount of money and amount of love/support. The correlation will be that those who responsibly plan their families within their means are more likely to be responsible parents than those who have children without any thought to how they will support them.

exactly