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.

Most people are not thinking of the children, the environment or their duty to preserve the species when children are conceived. They are just having a f*k. So those of us who are childfree get to pay taxes for those who are out on the shg. Great.

I do not think having children is selfish. Life goes on and having children is the only way for it to happen. I only had one and am proud to have produced a good citizen but that is by the by.

Planning to have children at the moment is unwise in my opinion, whatever the fertility circumstances. When the pandemic is done and dusted (when?), we do not know what sort of country/world we will be faced with. If I was young and thinking of starting a family I would not do it right now. Apart from the 'selfish' angle, it would be a scary prospect.

( However those already pregnant and having babies will manage and muddle through somehow with a bit of help.)

Having children is selfish.

We are massively overpopulated.

If you want someone to look after you (which would also come under selfish) or to be there for the next generation etc, adopting would be the unselfish decision.

The fact is having children is the worst thing you can do for the environment.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to have children, just don’t pretend it isn’t selfish.

I’ve made selfish choices too like having a car & going on holidays abroad previously & hiding the last of the biscuits so I didn’t have to share. What’s the point pretending it isn’t selfish?

What you need to do OP is not care if other people think you’re selfish. There’s no plans to ban selfishness or make it illegal so just accept it and move on I reckon.

Of course its selfish, it's hardly altruistic is it?!

Most parents invest huge amount of time, effort, energy and resources into bringing up their children - not just so that they are able to fend for themselves, but also to be good members of society. Without this, society as we know it would collapse.

You can’t agree or disagree with a debate.

If it really is biological then why do some people have no urge whatsoever? Why are some people attracted to members of the same sex rather than someone they can procreate with?

That's a good point, ViciousJackdaw. It's a line people readily trot out but there are plenty of us who don't have the urge, even if we are partnered with someone of the opposite sex. Is it a selective biological urge?

Where do people think the next generation of doctors, nurses, care workers, lawyers, law enforcement etc are going to come from if everybody stopped having children? It's not like we'll not need such professions in the future.

If the human race were to become extinct, we wouldn't need a next generation of anything.

Having kids to take care of the older generations in the future is just a neverending pyramid scheme of needing more and more children to support the larger and larger ageing population with each generation. It's not sustainable.

Also the comments on this thread telling another poster to kill herself were absolutely disgusting.

I actually think the human race should become extinct because the only threat to the planet is us. People don’t live forever...brillian!

Mist selfish thing ever, as if your kid is going to change the world?!

Like I said, misanthropy.

Misanthropy? Has anyone actually said 'I hate all people' then? I can't see it anywhere. You're not getting confused by the posters acknowledging that the planet would flourish if the human race were to die out are you?

Oh good grief I dont take those idiots seriously! They spout all that crap about it being selfish and yet they still drive a 4x4 or take regular flights to go on holiday 3-4 times a year or do other things that have an equally bad effect on the environment.

I respect people's choice not to have kids and I expect the same respect back. Even if they do disapprove, I really couldn't give a fck- I dont tell others how to live their lives so I really dont care what some judgy stranger thinks. Most people in real life are too busy getting on with their own lives to be busy poking their nose into other people's reproductive choices.

Biglouis

Taxes are an inescapable part of living in a society; some people will always pay in more than they get out. Being single and childless doesn’t necessarily mean you will pay in more than you take out and your assumptions about council tax for a single person v family is just plain wrong. A single person’s bin has to be emptied just the same as a family’s - they aren’t done by weight. Is a family any more likely to need the services of the police or fire than a single person? Likely not - just look at (for one example)?how car insurance is cheaper for married couples, because they’re deemed less risky on the roads than single people. You assume that a family of 4 uses up 4 times the communal resources as a single person, and that just isn’t true. There’s also evidence to show single (lonely) people get sicker than people in relationships, so why should couples subsidies treatment for loners? Because: society.

They spout all that crap about it being selfish and yet they still drive a 4x4 or take regular flights to go on holiday 3-4 times a year or do other things that have an equally bad effect on the environment.

What is your source for that assertion?

A single person’s bin has to be emptied just the same as a family’s - they aren’t done by weight.

This undoubtedly varies by local authority but a quick check on my council's website tells me that households of six or more and/or those with children in nappies (under 3) get an extra wheelie bin.

Pelleas

Definitely not the case where I am - and from a quick scan, where it is the case, any ‘large household’ can get a bigger bin - so a group of 6 singles would be as eligible as a family of 6.

They spout all that crap about it being selfish and yet they still drive a 4x4 or take regular flights to go on holiday 3-4 times a year or do other things that have an equally bad effect on the environment.

I'm one of those people- childfree by choice. I do have holidays. Don't have a 4x4 but do drive.

But

I accept I have an impact. Just by being alive I have a carbon footprint.

But having children is proven to be the worst thing for the environment. Flights etc don't compare. It's in no way equal.

People have a choice but at least own the fact that multiple children are contributing to further overpopulation.

People judge others for not recycling, taking lots of flights. This is just the same thing but there's a real blind spot with many - as this thread proves.

so a group of 6 singles would be as eligible as a family of 6

It's not very common to have six unrelated single people living as one household, though. Perhaps they might in a student house share, but generally a house would be let as multi-occupancy - i.e. six separate households - in those circumstances.

Having children is the worst thing for the environment, but keep being in denial. I can recycle all I want, but it's going to do fuck all compared to not having children.

... and in a multi-occupancy property, Council Tax would be charged to the landlord and it would be for him/her to pass the cost onto the tenants, with whatever profit the market rental rate allowed for.

Pelleas

I would imagine a household of 6, related or not is fairly unusual. But the point remains that this is just one example of where Biglouis’ assumption that a single person is subsidising a family isn’t necessarily true. S/he suggested that it was unfair that a single person pays 75% council tax when a couple / family pays 100%. I was pointing out that it isn’t as simple as that because a single person doesn’t use half the resources.