‘If no one had children…’

[WomanStanleyWoman]

Whenever there’s a thread on MN about not wanting children, someone will inevitably pop up to say ‘Well, if no one had children, the human race would die out’ or ‘It’s all very well not wanting children, but someone has to raise the next generation - good luck getting a doctor or anyone to look after you in your old age if everyone takes that attitude’.

It shouldn’t need saying because it’s so bloody obvious, but I see this argument so often on MN that I really start to wonder. So here it is:

People are NOT suddenly going to stop having children en masse. According to Wikipedia, Mumsnet had 119 million unique users in 2018. Obviously that doesn’t equate to 119 million individuals, but it does give you an idea of how much traffic a site primarily promoted to parents gets. Even if half the active MN users are childless (unlikely), I still don’t think we need to panic about the end of the human race as we know it just yet.

Just as there are people who can have children but choose not to do so, there are people who cannot have biological children who will make huge financial and emotional investment in IVF or surrogacy. Just as there are countless people who plan to have children, there are plenty of unplanned pregnancies where the parents decide to keep the baby. People will always want and have children. They’re not like the Yellow Pages or high street retail - there won’t come a point where everyone just uses the internet instead.

So does anyone really believe ‘If no one has children, we’d be screwed’ is a valid argument? Or are these people simply just trying to justify their disapproval of the voluntarily child-free?

The less people who have kids the better, environmentally speaking. The world is hugely overpopulated. If the human race did die out, so what? We're a violent, war-like parasitic species.

Usually when people express this view they are using it to justify them having children they can't afford to raise without state support. It's the old straw man fallacy, Person A believes people shouldn't have lots of children if they can't afford to raise them, so Person B counters with a deliberate misinterpretation and exaggeration, saying if nobody had children we'd die out. Person A suggested nothing of the sort of course.

Like all straw man arguments, the person expressing the view is doing so because they can't come up with a proper counter-argument.

I agree with you. I actually think it’s more valid to point out that if everybody had children we would be totally screwed, because overpopulation is a fact that everyone can see.

Yeah there’ll always be people - it doesn’t really matter if some people don’t have children!

It’s another good reason to encourage immigration too - if enough existing UK people don’t want children, people with children will be happy to move in!

@Orangutanteddy

The less people who have kids the better, environmentally speaking. The world is hugely overpopulated. If the human race did die out, so what? We're a violent, war-like parasitic species.

As are all life forms. We just happen to be better at this stuff than all the others.

I like people generally, I love large numbers of them individually.
It is easy to say wouldn’t it be a good idea if there were less of us, but who would you choose to dispense with?

" The less people who have kids the better, environmentally speaking. The world is hugely overpopulated."

This is a truism, but the real enviornmental issues are caused by using the wrong types of energy sources. We are slowly rectifying that, prossibly too late, but it's too simplistic to say 'too many people'.

My take, FWIW, is: enviornmentally-conscious people having childen is a net postive if that mindset is passed on, because people who don't care about it will have kids anyway.

Overpopulation in much of the west is caused by people living longer though, birth rates have been falling for sometime.

I think it's usually said in response to people begrudging things like benefits or flexibility to work etc. Parents (and other carers) should be supported by the welfare system (where necessary), the workplace and society in general. The fact that we're all left fighting over scraps is the problem.

I also wonder what would happen if I had a child in order to make sure we had doctors in the future, only for them to grow up to tell me they want to be a painter or a ballet dancer or a graphic designer. Would I have to say ‘Sorry, I know you faint at the sight of blood and got an F in your Biology GCSE, but you’ll have to go back and retake it again and again until you pass because I only agreed to parenthood on the basis that you’d fill a hypothetical vacancy at St. Thomas’s in 30 years’ time’?

If we all chose to have 3+ kids, good luck getting a school place
It balances out to 1.7, some people have none, some have loads.
Those of us with none are doing are bit for those who want 3.

In my experience, those who get huffy about other people choosing not to have children deserve to be ignored. They generally seem to fall into three categories (those who regret having children and don't see why you should dodge the bullet; those who genuinely think you're missing out because they haven't got the brain power to understand that different people enjoy different things; and those who think you've copped out of life's obligations because "It's just what you do!") and none of them is an adequate excuse for spouting martyred nonsense of how their heavy lifting in life is preventing the human race dying out.

It’s another good reason to encourage immigration too - if enough existing UK people don’t want children, people with children will be happy to move in!

That's presumptuous though Younger countries will be the future & will start to prosper & emigrating won't be so attractive. Plus potential immigrants will have more choice as lots of countries will want/need them. There's a reason China is trying to push the 3 child thing.

I don't think I've seen this except in response to posters who are making an argument that we shouldn't have children (or more than 2) and that choosing not to have them is a morally superior position.

the birth rate is about 1.6, plenty are having none or 1 dc.

I agree. It really wouldn't hurt if 4 out of 5 couples had no children for the next 2 decades. Would do the world a favour actually.

@whoatealltheeggs

Of course you need children & "new blood", it's evolution. If the population is too large it makes just as much sense to cull the elderly then stop people having dc.

Yes. But not EVERYONE has to have them.

Yes. But not EVERYONE has to have them.

where did I say otherwise?

everyone isn't having them now though so what's your point?

@BrightYellowDaffodil

In my experience, those who get huffy about other people choosing not to have children deserve to be ignored. They generally seem to fall into three categories (those who regret having children and don't see why you should dodge the bullet; those who genuinely think you're missing out because they haven't got the brain power to understand that different people enjoy different things; and those who think you've copped out of life's obligations because "It's just what you do!") and none of them is an adequate excuse for spouting martyred nonsense of how their heavy lifting in life is preventing the human race dying out.

This is pretty accurate.

I have a genetic condition and each child would have a 50/50 chance of inheriting it. I live independently etc but its brought nothing positive to my life, and so it's just another nail in the coffin of deciding to be child free.

Bizarrely some people seem to think that this means I think my own life isn't worth living, or it's somehow immoral to not produce a string of disabled children. It's really weird

One of the main reasons I want voluntary euthanasia to be legislated for. Getting absolutely sick of being treated as a second class woman because I can't have kids and need to be grateful to those who can, for providing me with care in my old age.

Just wish people would admit that they're not having kids as a selfless gift to society, but because they want them.

Rather than badgering people who don't have children to have them, we should worry more about the people who are here living to their potential. Having hundreds of babies isn't going to be of much use if they're dying in infancy or living sickly insecure lives. Perhaps we should charge a pound for every utterance of why don't you have kids? And donate it to refugees or childhood immunization programs...just a thought

*fewer

🏃🏽‍♀️ 🏃🏽‍♀️ 🏃🏽‍♀️

I wasn't aware of so much disapproval re being child free. In my circle & particularly my younger siblings generation it's not seen as a negative at all (it isn't!).

Actually society will still function just fine even if the population decreases as more and more jobs and parts of jobs are becoming automated. It isn't just self scan in supermarkets. It is also administration like banking and taxes that we are now doing online. Information that used yo be typed in is now pulled automatically from one system to another. Then there is automated checking in many machines so you don't have to physically check that something is still working because the machine will tell you if something is wrong. Tasks that used to take hours sometimes only take minutes.Online shopping is more cost efficient and uses less manpower than retail shops.

population won't decrease for sometime even if no one had children. We are living longer