‘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.

Alternatively we are a communicating, social, creative species...

An increasing population is an environmental problem. A falling population is an
economic problem. However, I don't think there are very many people who decide whether or not to have a child based on the economy or the environment. It's usually mainly driven by whether they personally do or do not want to experience being a parent. The other arguments are then used to shore up the decision that has already been made.

Fewer people having children would also be good.
Many have 1 or 2 DC in Eastern Europe similarly now in Ireland and the UK.

My parents both came from a family of 9 DC.
They had 4.
The 4 DC has 1 or 2.

Plenty of couples are saying "no thanks" generations of family are skipping due to much later pregnancies.

First time grandmother at 70 whereas it was average to have great grandchildren by 70's in the past.

It'll continue to change, my niece's aren't planning DC they're focusing on careers and a good lifestyle.

There'll always be outlines who have a football team.

Those who have repeated pregnancies due to cultural or religious reasons.

Some of my grandmother's generation had a child every other year with contraception banned for religious reasons.

@Mummy1608

Yabu because UK birth rate is far below replacement level.

That doesn’t make me unreasonable.

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".

Yes, sadly I have heard this argument made towards gay people; albeit not for some years now. It’s even more ridiculous, because apart from the fact that there’s zero chance of everyone turning gay’, even that wouldn’t prevent people having children. All it would prevent is unplanned pregnancies.

Replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per female. It's already below that across the entire developed world. The only reason the population is increasing is because of immigration from the developing world. As PP said when women are educated they delay marriage and childbearing and gave fewer children. The developing world will follow and world population is predicts to peak around 2050 and then start to decline.

China is now trying to encourage people to have more children after years of restricting births.

It's interesting. There will be massive social change. I do wonder what will happen. Empty houses that no one wants - prices will go down . Will we gather together in cities or spread out? Retirement as a concept will probably have to go - if you're fit enough you'll have to work til you drop. Environmentally it's good news but societies will have to adapt.

I don't think humans will ever die out though. The population will probably stabilise at a certain level.

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"
I've never heard anyone say something like that.

It's awful and very outdated considering many same sex couples have DC through alternative methods.

@WomanStanleyWoman you have (deliberately?) Only quoted a small part of my comments. I was responding to this part of your op, which is unreasonable in my view:

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.

Your way of estimating birth rates based on mumsnet users (!) is scientifically flawed. That is why i explained that the UK birth rate is way below replacement level. As it is across western europe and in other rich countries like China. People HAVE suddenly stopped having children en masse, so that part of your op is factually incorrect.

I did go on to say that of course any individual couple is free to choose whether or not to have children and they are both reasonable choices. I was only disagreeing with your unscientific and ill-informed statements about birth rate.

I genuinely don't understand why some people are so bothered by other people deciding not to have kids. I have a friend who never wants children and the sheer amount of people who seem offended by her life choice and try to persuade her otherwise is astonishing.

I've just checked and the total fertility rate in England was 1.59 children per woman in 2020. That's far far below replacement level at 2.1/2.2 and is continuing to plummet.

Solutions include (arguably) better maternity and paternity leave rules, better options for flexible working, and more got funded nursery hours.

As I say, of course everyone is free to choose whether or not to have children. But people HAVE stopped having children en masse: that is the bit of the OP I'm saying is plain wrong.

@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?

Society I'm guessing would develop creation of human life, via other methods e.g. Human cloning etc

[quote Mummy1608]@WomanStanleyWoman you have (deliberately?) Only quoted a small part of my comments. I was responding to this part of your op, which is unreasonable in my view:

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.

Your way of estimating birth rates based on mumsnet users (!) is scientifically flawed. That is why i explained that the UK birth rate is way below replacement level. As it is across western europe and in other rich countries like China. People HAVE suddenly stopped having children en masse, so that part of your op is factually incorrect.

I did go on to say that of course any individual couple is free to choose whether or not to have children and they are both reasonable choices. I was only disagreeing with your unscientific and ill-informed statements about birth rate.[/quote]
The quote was direct and complete. How can you complain about that?

As for saying my ‘estimates are scientifically flawed’, you’re making a fool of yourself, frankly. I’ve never claimed I was estimating birth rates or anything of the kind. I was making the point that parenthood is in no danger of becoming a niche status. My comments weren’t scientific because they weren’t meant to be. As for being ill-informed, are you really using China as an example? A country that for decades forced people by law to have no more than one child?

data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

Information on world fertility rates. Even including all the developing world, the overall rate is 2.4, so we're not far off the point where world population will start to drop. Even if couples all still chose to have 1 child each, it's not going to stop the population decline.

No need to panic yet about the species dying out. But social change will occur, and it will happen in our lifetime. Tax and pensions and social care models will have to change, as well as many other things. Some people do categorise this as a "crisis".

Information about abandoned houses in Japan.

asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/As-Japan-s-empty-homes-multiply-its-laws-are-slowly-catching-up