‘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?

@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.

Dsis decided not to have children, and there is no way I would have criticised her decision, or tried to change her mind. It is her life, and her choice.

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.

Indeed. It’s a problem that requires a better solution, even if it systemic overhaul, than putting the onus on individuals to have children they don’t want (which would introduce a whole host of other problems). Realistically this is what needs to be done rather than kicking the can down the road.

Governments that have tried to control birth rates aren’t exactly thought well of, for good reason.

We don't necessarily need more dc to support the ageing population, there could be more tax reforms instead eg higher CGT, wealth taxes, higher social care levy etc. The growing gap in inequality will make it more palatable.

It'd be great for the environment if humans died out.

I know that supposedly the birth rate is falling in the UK (difficult to believe when everyone you go there are tons of babies and toddlers) but, if true, it has to be a good thing.

As another poster said, you can't keep adding to the numbers in order to pay for the older ones as where would it ever end?

I have seen quite a few posts where posters say their children are likely to be the carers wiping the childfree posters' bums or be a surgeon, find a cure for cancer etc.

Some may but most will just do an ordinary job and maybe not even wipe their parents' bums (meaning their parents may need a carer).

The tax argument also doesn't work as unless they have some high flying job paying masses of tax they are far more likely to take more out of the system than they ever pay in.

I do know quite a few childfree by choice couples but by far the majority of my friends and neighbours have children. Lots have 2 but quite a few have 3 or 4.

Some neighbours of mine in their 30's are expecting their 5th child. The woman has worked 2 years in the 16 years since she left school and the man has worked 3 years in the 18 years since he left.

He likes to tell people that they don't work because they are not mugs like us. I can't work out how they are getting benefits but they are obviously cheating the benefit system. Who knows whether their children will work when they have such terrible role models.

I know that supposedly the birth rate is falling in the UK (difficult to believe when everyone you go there are tons of babies and toddlers)

😆 Why do you think statistics are false based solely on your surroundings?

It is generally used as a defensive statement though, like there’s a greater moral component in someone choosing to have children than there actually is. People, in the west at least, have children because they want them, because they have the biological drive to.

It comes down to the fact that people lash out when they feel their life choices are being attacked. The childfree (of which I am one) do it too. I do think in many ways it is getting better for the childfree as it’s becoming less of an unusual choice. It is only relatively recently though, in the great scheme of things, that women actually have the freedom to make that choice for themselves. Those that do still face pushback and disapproval for making that choice. People been made to feel like they have to justify their perfectly reasonable life choices is invariably going to lead to them feeling utterly fucked off.

I think if the ‘childfree agenda’ is anything, it’s ‘don’t treat us as somehow lesser, quit asking us to explain ourselves, and respect our choices without passsing negative comment’. A lot of people genuinely can’t seem to comprehend that there’s no universal formula for happiness, and that that not everyone wants the same things. I don’t know if it’s lack of imagination, resentment, or ego.

@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.

Exactly.

If a magic genie gave me one wish, I'd wish humans away and leave this poor planet to the other species.

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.

Whoever is suggesting that?

@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.

Ding ding ding.

I've been hit by the "but the human race will DIE OUT" one before. I was like... and? Is that meant to be a bad thing? While I love individual humans, I am entirely uninvested in the species' long-term survival.

I also consider it low-key homophobic given how often gay friends have been told "but if everyone was like you the human race would DIE OUT".

@whoatealltheeggs

I know that supposedly the birth rate is falling in the UK (difficult to believe when everyone you go there are tons of babies and toddlers)

😆 Why do you think statistics are false based solely on your surroundings?

It was meant as a light hearted comment but, certainly where I live, I see little evidence of families/women having less children.

As I said, if it is falling, then good. Needs to fall even more or the future for children and future children is more than bleak

Where I live I don't see much evidence of homelessness but I know it's a thing!

As I said, if it is falling, then good. Needs to fall even more or the future for children and future children is more than bleak

What do you want it to fall too? What is an acceptable rate?

Me neither @mydogisthebest! Maternity is at a 10 year high in my workplace, my department has 15 currently off. The majority of my colleagues have 3+ as did the friends I had in my 20s. If anything it feels like the birthrate should be going up…

The birth ratee_ in the UK has been falling since the Seventies, but it has now hit record lows. The number of children per woman stands at 1.58 in England & Wales, almost half the post-Second World War peak of 2.93

@whoatealltheeggs

Where I live I don't see much evidence of homelessness but I know it's a thing!

As I said, if it is falling, then good. Needs to fall even more or the future for children and future children is more than bleak

What do you want it to fall too? What is an acceptable rate?

I don't know what an acceptable rate is but we need far less people in the UK than we presently have. There were 613,936 births in 2020, a ridiculously high number even if it is lower than previous years.

Where are all these extra humans going to live, work etc? As it is our hospitals can't cope with the number of people, GP's can't cope, the education system can't cope. There are not enough houses, far far too many cars on the roads, the trains and buses are, in many places, overcrowded.

Yes if money was put into health, education, transport etc it would help but, let's be honest, that is not likely to happen is it?

I don't know what an acceptable rate is but we need far less people in the UK than we presently have. There were 613,936 births in 2020, a ridiculously high number even if it is lower than previous years.

The increase in population is due to immigration & people living longer. In 2020 there were more deaths then births.

@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.

Yes, this.

To be blunt...the problem is not that people are having children but that people are living so long. It's unpalatable but it's true.

Where are all these extra humans going to live, work etc? As it is our hospitals can't cope with the number of people, GP's can't cope, the education system can't cope. There are not enough houses, far far too many cars on the roads, the trains and buses are, in many places, overcrowded.

I don't think you understand. The UK population will not continue to grow much more & the main driver of it will be immigration.

"Change will also be driven by an ageing population, with the number of people aged 85 set to almost double between now and 2045 from 1.7 million to 3.1 million. Between now and 2045 there will be an estimated 1.4 million more deaths than births. But the population will still grow by 3.9 million, driven by net migration, with an estimated 5.3 million more people coming to the UK than leaving."

Ugh i hate how these threads always devolve into dehumanising humans to the status of parasites and not a even form of life worth saving unlike a blooming dandelion.

To be blunt...the problem is not that people are having children but that people are living so long. It's unpalatable but it's true.

Why do so many not understand that this is the driver of population growth. Birth rates have been declining for decades. In 1900 life expectancy was approx 52 for women & men 48. By 1951,women lived to 72 and men to 66. Today our median population age is 40.5.

Net migration will go through the roof. The reason? 19% of the world's land surface will become unliveable.
The reason? Uncontrolled population growth.

The single best thing people can do for the environment is have less/no children.

@whoatealltheeggs

To be blunt...the problem is not that people are having children but that people are living so long. It's unpalatable but it's true.

Why do so many not understand that this is the driver of population growth. Birth rates have been declining for decades. In 1900 life expectancy was approx 52 for women & men 48. By 1951,women lived to 72 and men to 66. Today our median population age is 40.5.

Those are average whole life expectancy which were seriously deflated due to high infant mortality rates. If you survived infancy, your adult life expectancy wasnt that short. The average 1900 woman did not die at 52.

static.ons.gov.uk/visual/2015/09/expected_age_to_reach2.csv

Is interesting. It shows if you were male and made it to age 20 in 1900, you could expect to live until age 63. A hundred years later, if you are male and age 20 in 2000, you could expect to live to age 76.

Of course infant mortality impacted life expectancy 100 years ago. Just like today not everyone dies or lives at 81. Are you saying life expectancy hasn't increased?