‘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?

I'm curious about the argument that people use to say that we shouldn't reduce the numbers of children being born because we need to support the existing people eg through healthcare, pensions etc (people need to pay in so others can take out). Someone above mentioned pensions as being like a big Ponzi scheme.

Where does the narrative come from that birth rates need to be reduced? They have reduced dramatically already in the west.

Studies predict the below. Obviously any change on that scale in terms of demographics needs planning for.

The number of under-fives will fall from 681 million in 2017 to 401 million in 2100.
The number of over 80-year-olds will soar from 141 million in 2017 to 866 million in 2100.

@whoatealltheeggs

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

Yes, and the western nations and Japan are not having enough children to even replace the existing populations, never mind become overpopulated. Some people are even predicting population collapse if we don't start to have larger families, such as Elon Musk. It is going to become more problematic for us in the not so distant future, as there will be far fewer people working, and more elderly people who need support if not total care. Are we to become like Nazi Germany and start euthanising those who need caring for? As a previous PP said, whom would we dispense with? Who would decide who should live and who should die? Who among us has that right? No one IMO! Anyway, every so often, the population has been, and will continue to be, culled, either by our own doing with war, or by natural means such as famine, natural disaster or plague. The overpopulation theory is fear-mongering , anti-human propaganda.

Errr... No. Unless your cat is going to give birth to 1-3 + humans, who each give birth to 1-3 + more humans and so on. The child is an infinitly bigger footprint.

I'm sure children have a bigger footprint although I actually didn't realise pets were bad until recently. However the idea that each person is having X kids who then have X kids isn't true otherwise most western countries wouldn't be seeing population declines in the near future.

@2Gen I don't care if someone has 10 dc or 0 dc but the narrative that everyone is having loads of dc is BS. "23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100." & the half that is left is going to be older.
Developing countries do have more dc but there are socio economic reasons for that so who am I to criticise.

It's really complex tbh. I did politics and economics at uni and declining birth rates are actually bad news from a purely economic perspective. Also, the population argument in environmentalism is now thought to have been quite racist originally, which makes it unreliable. The argument being that one, single, childless westerner produces more carbon than an enormous family in parts of less developed countries, so there clearly is a strong lifestyle component when it comes to carbon footprint. People who came up with the population argument were most likely influenced by wealthy westerners who don't want to change their lifestyle or stop using fossil fuels, but find it easy to blame that lot over there who have loads of children.

So I'm going to say yabu. Because I think there is some truth to the argument even if you disagree with it.

I don't know which one I agree with and I can see both sides; clearly it's true that more babies, especially western babies, are worse for the planet, however low birth rates also means an ageing population, which is bad for the economy and quality of life. I know lots of babies will just grow into old age, so the problem could continue. So I can see why you might object to that argument too

The declining birth rate alongside increased life expectancy is a significant issue. Government pensions for the retired are paid by those who are in work. If the latter steadily reduces while the former steadily increase, the youngsters will have a huge burden of tax and care responsibility.

It's morally neutral, imo. Some people reduce the drain on the planet by being child free, others support the future economy by having children.

Across the globe, we're going to have to be a bit more flexible to let people go where they are needed.

The argument being that one, single, childless westerner produces more carbon than an enormous family in parts of less developed countries, so there clearly is a strong lifestyle component when it comes to carbon footprint.

exactly!

he smug superiority especially since most child free people tend to be surrounded by furry pets which are just as bad “environmentally” for carbon footprint as is a human child.

You're overlooking the fact that many pets are rescued, not bred. They and their footprint were already there when their owner adopted them.

There is no reason to think that people who don't bother to get their pets neutered are more likely to be childfree. If anything, we childfree people are far more conscious of the need for meticulous birth-control, be it in humans or animals. I wish I could have been 'spayed' at sexual maturity, as my cats were, instead of having to wait until my 40s to have a hysterectomy.

@ComtesseDeSpair

Frankly I don’t really care if people choose to have children or what argument they want to make for it. As long as they don’t expect me to alter my blissfully happy childfree life out of concern for their offspring (“OMG, I hate how SELFISH everyone is nowadays, using all the planet’s resources and ruining it with their long haul flying and meat consumption for ever meal, what about the planet MY CHILDREN will have to live on??”), which I’ve absolutely no intention of doing because I don’t give a stuff about their children, then all is well.

I have a colleague with 5 kids and 4 cars including one gigantic diesel van who loves to lecture the rest of us on how we're not considering the planet her children will inherit. They all eat meat and dairy, fly abroad, drive everywhere etc.

I'm a vegetarian with no kids, I don't drive and I don't fly abroad. Upon hearing this, she suggested I could do more by becoming vegan.

I absolutely loathe her.

Are childfree people required to have children to prop up the economy, or do future governments need to consider falling birth rates and adjust to that? Hopefully without compelling people to have children they don’t want. Didn’t work out too well for Ceaușescu.

People make the argument because children are indeed needed to prop up the current way of life in this country (and indeed whatever country is facing falling birth rates), and to ensure the ‘survival’ of the country going forward. There absolutely isn’t a shortage of people worldwide, however. The human race itself will survive just fine, it’s civilizations that are feeling their mortality (as they have done throughout history).

Personally speaking, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that’s had children solely out of a sense of patriotism.

@MabelsApron, your colleague’s first name doesn’t being with ‘G’, does it?
And I’m much like you, but I do drive (for work- I work with vulnerable people in the sticks), and I have a dog (a lovely little rescue).

*begin, not being

@nellesvilla No, but now I'm depressed that she's not the only one behaving like this!

I only really hear this argument when people are talking about others being rude to them or acting inconvenienced when they’re out with their kids in public. (And the UK can be rather cold towards people just trying to get around with a buggy or a small kid).

But I don’t think it’s really meant seriously. And I don’t think everyone should have kids either, and I certainly think more people should have one. Lots of people seem to view having an only child as something sad or selfish, which I don’t get.

@MabelsApron, I know I shouldn’t judge (it upsets meat eaters) but this one is also the type to order shitloads of foie gras and massive legs of ham (and other unfortunate creatures) at xmas, and then ask me why I have the audacity to be a child-free vegetarian.
I know not all families are like this, but she and her brood are such rampant mega-consumers and meat eaters. They don’t give a toss about how they get something, and feel that whatever they want has to be sourced now.
I feel that some large families give other families a bad name. Ooh, controversial. I bet the vipers of Mumsnet will come for me now!!

I don't think OP has gone far enough with her objections.

1. The human race is in no danger of dying out due to lack of breeding.
2. A 99% reduction in the number of humans on the planet, achieved gradually via a lower birth rate, would be a good thing.
3. It doesn't actually matter if the human race dies out. At most, we care about what the planet will be like during our grandchildren's lifetimes, when exactly after that the human race ends, and how, isn't really an issue for us.

@twinsetandpearl

Oh dear OP someone has a childfree agenda don't they

Anyway whilst we aren't going to suddenly stop having children the fact is that the current birth rate in Europe is falling below that which is economically required to sustain economies

What ‘agenda’ would that be?

I don’t have any problem with people wanting and having children. Why would I? I do have a problem with the suggestion that people who choose not to have children are somehow damaging the future economy through their selfishness.

Tell me - do you have children? And if you do, was it because you wanted them, or because you thought they might possibly qualify as a doctor in 2043?

@mumoblue I tend to hear it most at work. We have a lot of battles over time off at Christmas (I've worked 7 of them in a row) and other special times of year. Many times, parent colleagues have suggested that the childless people in the team should work the anti-social days/shifts and see that as taking on for the team on behalf of those who are contributing future workers who'll pay our pensions etc. It may not be entirely meant but the attitude behind it certainly is, in my experience.

As I said earlier in the thread, I want voluntary euthanasia to be legalised. I'd absolutely use it (the idea of being in a nursing home is abhorrent to me) and I'd have something to counter the narrative with...

Christmas should be taken in turns. Pre dc I always had to work christmas which annoyed me simply because I was a Londoner to didn't need to travel back from "home".

@nellesvilla I hear you. I do get the strong sense from that particular colleague that having given society the gift of five future taxpayers, she's entitled to use up as much resource as she likes, and those who haven't given society that gift need to repent by being as frugal and environmentally-conscious as possible.

@whoatealltheeggs

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

Life expectancy is also heading down. I fully expect it to plummet now.

to 60? unlikely

Also, the population argument in environmentalism is now thought to have been quite racist originally, which makes it unreliable. The argument being that one, single, childless westerner produces more carbon than an enormous family in parts of less developed countries, so there clearly is a strong lifestyle component when it comes to carbon footprint.

If I had DC then they would be living the life of a westerner, not that of a subsistence farming sub Saharan. In other words, it's more effective from a climate change point of view for me to be child free than for a subsistence farming sub Saharan to have fewer or no children.

One of the more effective interventions, if you wanted to reduce birth rates, is to educate the girls. When you do that they tend to start reproducing later, have fewer children overall, and be better able to provide for the ones they do have. Perhaps someone will be along now to claim that educating girls in Africa or Afghanistan (or providing access to contraception) is racist.

It’s not necessarily about being a doctor in 2043, OP. It’s about having a workforce who are paying taxes to pay for services society needs, including those needed by older people in their retirement.

A falling birth rate alongside an ageing population is potentially a big economic problem.

I can’t remember the exact figures - if you Google you’ll find them - but the proportion of working age people in the population is predicted to drop while the proportion of retirees increases dramatically in the coming decades.

But you are right that we don’t necessarily need people to have children to fix that problem, because we can fill the gap with immigration.

Frankly, many of the people who claim that their DC will be our future taxpayers paying tax to support childfree people like me in old age are a) claiming back far more in tax credits themselves than they actually contribute in tax and b) seem likely to have DC who’ll be doing the same themselves with their own families - so they seem to be exacerbating the money pyramid problem rather than solving it.