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.

12345ct

The reason why poorer countries have countless of kids is not due to selfishness but lack of access to healthcare and health resources such as CONDOMS and the pills. The right thing to do would be for wealthy countries to redistribute their wealth and help poorer countries have access to to a decent lifestyle that would allow them to have a choice re- the amount of kids they have and, also a fair shot of being able to feed and look after them. That's the right thing to do.

I don't personally have a problem with the elderly dying of natural causes such as an illness like Corona BUT it's more taboo simply because you can't really wish death on the living BUT you can advocate for people to have less kids.

As for 7 siblings becoming doctor it's nice, but also in which way is a doctor more beneficial to the planet (not humans and humanity) than say, a mailman? And while yes, if you wanted to value the life of a doctor as more than a mailman, that's fine, but again there is no guarantee what those kids will be until they become adults. It seems like an unnecessary gamble to me to have 7 kids and the consequences that imply in the mere hope they all turn out to be doctors which would change fuck all for the planet (apart from making it worse) ... but yes, as long as it benefits us short term I guess?

As for 7 siblings becoming doctor it's nice, but also in which way is a doctor more beneficial to the planet (not humans and humanity) than say, a mailman? And while yes, if you wanted to value the life of a doctor as more than a mailman, that's fine, but again there is no guarantee what those kids will be until they become adults.

Agreed. Doctors are only needed in proportion to the population.

I think a far more interesting calibration of importance is in working out what proportion of people make up a society worth living in. Does that mean art, tv, media, sport, entertainment, books? We place a high value on these things. Their existence is supposed to be worth going out to work for day after day.

The present global human society is fundamentally based on inequality and unfairness.

Chucking extra doctors into the mix doesn't solve that.

@BabyLlamaZen we all read the post, we just disagree.

Are you aware that being children or having one less child is more effective in saving the planet than: being car free, recycling, using green energy, not using a tumble dryer and avoiding a transatlantic roundtrip on a plane (when you add them all up, not even individually!) each year?

The planet is overpopulated. Want kids? There's lots of them that could be adopted. But that wouldn't be the selfless thing, bringing more people into an overpopulated planet is selfish. There's no debate here, it's just facts you don't like OP.

No one tells people they are selfish for going to the cinema, buying new clothes, upgrading their phones, replacing old furniture, going on holiday.... (because they want to). but having children is selfish apparently!

@Tsubasa1

Uh, are you new to AIBU? Plenty of people definitely call people who do those things selfish. Over consumption of unnecessary /waste is ons of the biggest ecological issues. People buy endless crap every few weeks/days/month and toss the old stuff as is traveling. Have you not seen all the threads about air travel and cruises and all the angry mumsnetters?

There are plenty of ways to be selfish and you can be sure that there are plenty of people around to happily call you so and point it out to you if you are. Having kids just so happen to be the most selfish thing you can do.

Unnecessary goods/waste is one of the biggest ecological issues*

At least we decompose when we die. So... there's that.

I think that if IVF and fertility treatments are available then people shouldn't complain about other people having 4 or 5 children naturally. If you really cared about over population these treatments wouldn't be available as they are more of a strain on resources plus children born from parents who had fertility treatment are more likely to need it themselves www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/infertility-claims-over-ivf-children/

The global birth rate is below population replacement level. It has been for decades and it's still dropping.

As long as the decline is slow enough, falling population isn't a problem. In fact in the past it's been beneficial. Apparently after the black death, the survivors were wealthier, because there was more land per person and only the best land needed to be farmed to support the population. Economics was zero-sum in those days. (I think the industrial revolution changed that.)

@Jobseeker19

People who would use IVF are obviously people who see value in bringing more kids into the world and therefore aren’t the people who are complaining about overpopulation.

As someone who will only be able to have a biological kid through IVF, I still don’t think IVF should be a thing at all. I personally think adoption should be the only available option for people who can’t naturally conceive, considering there are plenty of kids to adopt who just end up staying in the system until adulthood. I don’t see why spreading one’s own genes is in any shape or form a necessity, especially now we know the impact.

In countries were people stopped having kids like Italy they have an awful problem. We need young adults entering the workforce, paying taxes and funding people’s state pensions. Also we need nurses, doctors, carers, bankers, cleaners, refuse collectors, teachers, sewerage and water workers. Emergency services, hairdressers - who will do all this when we are all old?

This argument is nonsense. There is no world-wide shortage of people to any job. World population is still rising (because of people living longer rather than birth-rate being above replacement) and will continue to do so for decades. Even once population starts falling, in a few decades time, it would only be a problem if it fell very very quickly. Women having 1.5 children on average instead of 2 is too slow a decline to be problematic.

@Poetryinaction why do we NEED drug problem in society? I'm confused at your thinking that that is something society needs?

As long as the decline is slow enough, falling population isn't a problem. In fact in the past it's been beneficial. Apparently after the black death, the survivors were wealthier, because there was more land per person and only the best land needed to be farmed to support the population.

Yes. The utopian level solution would be some sort of mega plan where humans collectively agreed on a rationale that determined the 'right' population for a blissful existence.

The right number of doctors, scientists and food producers to keep that population alive. The right number of artists and creators producing entertainment and stimulation, the right kind of care for everyone who needed it. Breeding and educating the right number of people to sustain this paradise, and all living sustainably within the planet's ecosystem.

Nothing about that is physically impossible. This planet has abundant resources, and we have an abundance of intelligence to create this world. Heck, there's even people smart enough to work out a humane and sustainable path to this from our present situation.

What stops this heaven upon earth happening? People, powerful, stupid, religious or money-worshipping, unable to achieve what would be best for everyone.

The teenage stoner philosopher in me sees humanity as just another experiment of evolution, with immense potential, but even more stupid flaws.

How like is it they will all be surgeons? I’m going to guess not very likely

I'm one of four. My mother was a dinner lady and my father a postman. I'm in my fifth year of medical school, my brother is in his third and our other sister will start next year.

As someone who will only be able to have a biological kid through IVF, I still don’t think IVF should be a thing at all. I personally think adoption should be the only available option for people who can’t naturally conceive, considering there are plenty of kids to adopt who just end up staying in the system until adulthood. I don’t see why spreading one’s own genes is in any shape or form a necessity, especially now we know the impact.

I’m not sure about that. Having your own child is not at all the same as adopting one. Not everyone who is/would be a good biological parent would make a good adoptive one.

Most people who have children do so for selfish reasons.

Most people who are childfree are so for selfish reasons.

Most of what we do in life is motivated by self-interest. That's not a bad thing so long as you're not hurthing others. But just as parents don't have kids in order to continue the human race, neither do the childfree refrain from doing so to protect the environment. Both are making life choices based on their own priorities in life.

The reason why poorer countries have countless of kids is not due to selfishness but lack of access to healthcare and health resources such as CONDOMS and the pills

That's not true in most circumstances a big family is seen as powerful in a lot of villages and there is a lot of Marital Rape that goes on but that still doesn't change the number of children brought into the world that the parents cannot feed or give healthcare for and it goes on for another generation etc.... If the world let these poor people die out it would stop all that from happening over again. So that would prevent future generations having too many children. Is that what's you want? As I said there is a fine line between what is acceptable to reduce the human population and there are not too many options that are humane.

Oh forgot to add that I stated 9 siblings not 7. That became GP's and Dentist's and i only disclosed that fact in to response to earlier replies to OP who said that maybe 5 children could grow up to become doctors and the replies were suggesting that it was not possible for that to happen.

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 hmm So are we expecting to all grow old and be cared for by nobody until we're 110?
Exactly. Presumably people want to carry on working/ paying tax/Ni /keeping the country running until the day they die and never retire

I know someone who has 7children ranging from 14 down to twins under 1. She's only early to mid 30's and will very likely have I imagine at least 1 or 2 more. It is very unusual in this day. It's not something I would want. I have 1 child. However she loves her kids and I don't see her as selfish or destroying the planet.

Hmmmm I get the impression the op is trying to say that having lots of children shouldn't be seen as more selfish than having none. I do get that. Everyone has to do their part whatever that is and choice about having children may or may not come into it. People will or won't have children because of what they want and I don't think anyone can pretend the reason is really down to the environment. Those who are desperate to will do it. Those who are happy at 2 will say that's their reason. Those who don't feel that phased and decide to have none must have not wanted them that badly. It's such a big life decision that can't just be about the environment whether people pretend it is or isn't.

I for one would like 3 children. I don't think that's any worse than anyone else. I have 2 friends who have long term partners and they don't want any, so I'm doing it for them. But to be honest I don't feel the need to justify it to anyone, especially on here.

@TheVanguardSix This would only apply if you were buried without a coffin. Decomposing within a coffin is taking up space.

I mean, at the end of the day it is though. You're not doing it for the child, you're doing it because it's what you want. Just own it and go about your life 🤷🏾‍♀️

@BabyLlamaZen Read Ten Billion by Stephen Emmott, and see if it gives you a different perspective on this issue. I am not one of the people you're railing against, but there are a lot of issues your post has not touched on in terms of the harsh reality of even producing food and providing clean drinking water for an ever-growing population. It's a short but fascinating read.

Thanks @rincewindsHat

Is there not a chance that the population WILL decrease?

All assumptions here are that people in every country other country are going to continue having lots of children.

Is there not a trend even in developing countries to have fewer? Not there yet, but getting there.