I don't agree with the 'having children is selfish' debate.

[BabyLlamaZen]

Most intelligent (and even just vaguely worldly) people are aware of the importance of preserving our environment but I am sick of seeing so many self-righteous posts about how having children is the worst most selfish thing you can do for the planet. And this is from people who live their everyday lives exactly as they please but think not having children or only having 1 makes them wonderful martyrs.

1. The selfish thing doesn't even make sense. Yes the entire world is overpopulated. However at some point all these people are going to die. People DO NOT LIVE FOREVER! Every other disgusting thing we're doing to out planet sticks around. Plastic waste being one tiny part of it. The effects or air travel. Meat consumption (which is one of the issues of overpopulation. These people who don't agree with too many children are all vegan right?) There are so many things we need to be changing and yet one thing we do need is people to support it to happen. Do you expect to be looked after when you're ill? Do you want someone to farm your food? If yes, then you must understand that we need people to do that.

We cannot control what happens in other countries. I agree that some other countries are overpopulated. We can just control what happens in our own country. We are actually an ageing population. So really we need to kill off the old people right? Oh wait, no we don't like that. 🤷‍♀️

At the same time there are concerns about the large number of millennials and generations below who are just not having children. One of the main drivers of brexit was to 'take back control' and stop immigration. So reduced immigration and no more children So are we expecting to all grow old and be cared for by nobody until we're 110? These are issues that countries like Germany already have problems with.

Looking at my own case study - I am 30 and have 1 child who will thankfully replace me. Most of my friends don't have any and most don't WANT any. Who is replacing and supporting them? I do not call them selfish because this is their choice and they have a right to this choice. And because of this, someone having 5 is not only bloody unusual but useful. So either let them be or be thankful that not everyone has decided to let us all die out. Funnily enough my friends are quite happy about this. They don't think anyone is being selfish. They enjoy their lifestyle and admit they are not perfect for the environment but will still do their bit.

1. The fact that people who use this argument never wanted children in the first place. Good for you, but this isn't really a sacrifice.

There is so much hypocrisy. Another thing that is terrible for the environment is air travel, meat consumption, food waste, plastic consumption, fast fashion. These are all TERRIBLE things that can be avoided and are not useful. Yet continuing the population is?

So get off your high horses people!

We ALL need to reduce something. If you don't feel the need to have kids, brilliant! Make sure you also live your life as well green as you can. You feel the need to procreate? Great! Also do what you can.

Children are an essential aspect to being an adult, and giving back to society.

You're not seriously suggesting that people who don't/can't have children are not adult and are not contributing to society?

Of course having children is selfish, but when I look at my friends with their kids I see how much they love them, prioritise them and willingly make sacrifices for them. Bringing children up well is, if not exactly selfless, a positively heroic undertaking in my view. Having children only to neglect them, or having so many that they need to care for each other, is another thing entirely. Even then it would be better to offer the families help than to condemn or judge them. And yes it is generally the mothers who get the brunt of the criticism.

The reason many childfree people get angry is because they are financially raped to provide subs and handouts for people who choose to have children.

Lets just look at how council tax, that most corrupt of all taxes, is worked out.

Firstly its not based on your ability to pay,. So if you are a single retired pensioner with a very modest occupational pension you do not qualify for any rebate, except the single person rebate.

So lets look at that GENEROUS single person rebate. Its 25%.

Yet council tax is based upon the fact that the average home is occupied by two adults. So why do single occupants only get 25% discount and not 50%?

Lets take two identical houses with a tax of £1000 pa. One is occupied by a widow/widower. Thats one person using up one persons resources. They pay £750 pa

The other house is occupied by two wage earners with 2 children. They take up the resources of 4 people and pay £1000

You dont have to be a genius at maths to see that the widow/er is directly subsidising the selfish family, who pay NOTHING for the resources which their children suck up.

Children contribute nothing to the community until they begin work and pay taxes. They are like parasites.

People with children should be paying extra taxes to account for the resources which their little offspring suck up.

I’d think people choosing to have five children were selfish in exactly the same way as those who could recycle but don’t. Perhaps more so, because we all need to consume products to live but we don’t need to have five children.

I’d also think they were a bit immature and one dimensional.

I’m sure they’d have a few things to say about me too. Such is life

Yes, some people need to have children to keep humanity going, but more than enough people are already doing that. When we make a choice to have a child, we therefore do so knowing that that child will benefit only us and our immediate family, and be a detriment to the planet and environment. (There will be some exceptions, but on balance of probabilities our children will probably not cure cancer, or win a Nobel prize, etc).

or even wipe old people's bottoms in care homes, which is something I've often heard claimed.

I always think there is a kind of verging on racist undertone to some of these arguments- there are enough people in the world, if every U.K. citizen decided to remain child free we could invite other people to come and work here to ‘look after us’. But those people... would be immigrants. I do think for some people this is a problem.

I've got five.

Two are accountants, one works for a national charity, one is a scientist and one is a musician.

So, yes, you can have five children who grow up to be 'socially useful'. Okay, I'll allow you the musician though.

Of course having children is a selfish act, but its also a biological urge which is dictated by the need for the survival of the species. It's no more selfish than flying transatlantic four times a year etc.

I do, however, admit that I do slightly judge these people who come on and say "DH is opposed to having a sixth child. I can't live without another one, what do I do?"

Having the urge to procreate is one thing, seeing the desire to start a farm as an essential human right is one I do judge.

@biglouis parasites ? I don't think anyone who has children or planning on having children think about Jane next doors council tax before making a decision to have a baby or not.

No, I think people shouldn't have children if they don't want to. I also agree that if everyone had 5 children then it would be a problem. My point is that they don't and yet they get accused of not caring about the environment by people who do other things that clearly wreck the environment.

It used to be that not having children is selfish. Now it's having too many is selfish. Neither on it's own is intrinsicly selfish and it's unfair to say that to someone.

I don't actually want 5 children btw. Let me guess. Somehow I'm still selfish?

What if we change 5 to 3?

According to a lot of people on mumsnet if you don't have the perfect 2 you are a terrible person. For others it's any at all. Basically people do EXACTLY what they want and claim it makes them a better person and better for the environment.

No but they are happy to be subbed out by someone less well off than themselves for their selfish decision. Maybe if they had to pay an extra tax for the resources which their children sucked up they would think more and plan carefully.

of course having children is selfish. How could it be otherwise? In fact we are told again and again only to have children is we truly want them for us. We don't have them to 'repopulate the world', we have them because we have a strong innate desire for them and for many people (though not all of course), not having a child would make them very unhappy. They are not willing to be very unhappy so they have a child (or children).

We have children because we want to leave something of ourselves in the world when we are gone. We want out legacy or genes to continue through our children, we want to shape and nurture someone and see them thrive. It is creativity at its most primal and most humans are driven to be creative in some way or other

Of course having children is selfish, but when I look at my friends with their kids I see how much they love them, prioritise them and willingly make sacrifices for them. Bringing children up well is, if not exactly selfless, a positively heroic undertaking in my view.

It's enlightened self-interest, because they're their children. They will further their children's interests over those of other children, ultimately.

Yes, some people need to have children to keep humanity going but more than enough people are already doing that

They're not though. Not at all. The global birth rate is below population replacement level. It has been for decades and it's still dropping. Birth rates have dropped everywhere and in some countries eg Japan, Brazil, they've plummeted. We are in fact having too few babies, not too many.

I also agree with a pp in that I am sceptical that there is anyone who makes the decision to not have children purely in order to "save the planet". It's a post hoc rationalisation for a decision already made.

However many children anyone has is their business as long as i as a tax payer dont have to pay for them

Every Western child born takes up the resources roughly equivalent to those of 4 children from the global South.

Of course having children is selfish.

OP can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you've had children for the greater good of society? I very much doubt it.

Well personally I had six children just to get my hands on biglouis's money. It's been a struggle at times but it was worth it.

@Zaphodsotherhead
It's not that no-one is socially useful. (And I'd argue the musician is useful too - I for one would not want to live in a world where music doesn't exist). With very few exceptions, most people are socially useful, and benefit those around them every day. But in general we also fit into the society around us as a part of it - a non-distinct cog, if you will. If society were smaller, less roles would be needed. And whilst those roles are there, they will be filled by multiple people.

I'm struggling to articulate what I mean, so using myself as an example:
I'm an accountant too. The role I perform is vital to my company, but if I weren't here then someone else would fill that role, and if I leave then someone will replace me. The same with the people around me - I'm sure some would miss me if I were to die or disappear, but if I had never been born then there wouldn't be a me-shaped hole in their lives, life would go on for everyone on Earth pretty much the same as it does now. The only things in this life which are unique to me are my "spot" within my family, and my carbon footprint. If I had never existed, the world as a whole would be infinitesimally better off, while life for everyone other than my immediate family would look the same.

But that's starting to go down a bit of a scary road! I'm not debating the worth of an individual life - you can't put a value on it, and everyone will shape the world around them in a multitude of ways. But the harsh fact is that most people don't change the world in a way that will be recognised by those outside of their social circle. You could go back in time and pluck out a select few people, and life today won't look any different other than for their descendants. The same for the future - my children might be Marie Curie, or Stephen Hawking, they might cure the sick or help the poor, but chances are they will live a normal life, with a normal job, and be forgotten within a few generations. Their descendants will probably also live normal lives with normal jobs, use a normal amount of resources, and produce children who do the same.

Agree OP.

Do not understand why it is "acceptable" to slag off people who are having a normal, replacement level of children, but it's "unacceptable" to consider it equally selfish the lengths which are often gone to to extend the lives of the elderly, often in an increasingly frail condition or racked with dementia and no longer enjoying life.

E.g. it was routine in my grandfather's care home (where all residents were extremely frail) to provide the flu vaccine to residents. Occasionally this was pressed on residents without checking they wanted it!

We should consider it acceptable for frail very old people in poor health to pass away at the end of long lives from flu etc, rather than prolonging them.

Obviously it isn't selfish - unless happen to be in favour of the human race dying out. Reasons people give for having a baby are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Of course having children is selfish. I have two. I had them for entirely selfish reasons. I wasn't thinking of the country or planet's need for a new generation. I wasn't thinking of the possible environmental impact either - though when I had them that was not such an issue. If I were still of child-bearing age now that would be something that I would consider.

Just because having children is selfish, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Those of us who want them, and can have them, shouldn't feel guilty if we do, but we should think about the consequences of doing so, both for ourselves and the planet

TAAT

Having one child, or two - yes.

But families who have 4 children because it's their choice, right or whatever else while they can barely scrape by as it is or aren't in a stable position and then cry that they deserve the world for their kids, that really does my head in.

Why do you need more than 2 kids anyway? It's just a bit entitled to feel like you deserve to have as many kids as you want. Same goes for the debate when one partner wants another child and the other one doesn't. They're not possessions.

If you love your first child, stop having 5 more kids to then struggle to provide for them and blame everyone and everything for being a poor single mum. The more kids you have, the higher the financial risk and the more people to provide for.

Many people have kids because it's what they want, no logic or sense whatsoever. Can't afford it, don't have a stable relationship or work situation?Great let's have a kid because I fancy it.

It's selfish and irresponsible.

mijak I totally agree. I may be shot for saying this but I've never understood why people want to have huge numbers of children and I'm very sceptical when people to have some huge biological "urge" which they have to adhere to. People pop up here routinely who already have four or five children saying their life is being destroyed because they can't have yet another one.

I really struggle to see this as anything other than selfishness tbh. It makes absolutely no sense to anyone -- spreads everything thinner for the kids, makes the parents even more harried and stressed, potentially damaging for the taxpayer and terrible for the environment.

If you really feel that having a fifth child is the difference between misery and happiness I respectfully suggest that you need to do a bit of soul-searching and find other sources of happiness.