If you think not having children is selfish…

[JolieFilleCommentCaVa]

Can you explain why?

Saw a thread on X/Twitter that went viral of an OP stating they were choosing to stay child free in their 20’s. Hundreds of replies telling them how ‘selfish’ they are.

What makes it selfish?

So older people rely increasingly on the younger generation - which they did not contribute to in terms of time or life sacrifice.

Well, we’re all helping to pay for schools, hospitals etc.

And sacrifice is, as far as I’m concerned, the operative word. Some sacrifices are a step too far - I simply could not have stood being a parent, would have found it suffocating & got no joy out of it, so not having kids was by far the most sensible option.

Most parents presumably do get at least some joy out of it.

I'm 52, child free and happy with that decision. Its not woman's job to breed just to produce more tax payers.

Also what if it really wasn't a big sacrifice for you? You had great wealth, family connections etc etc I'm thinking of the super rich with nannies and boarding schools, internships for their offspring before they are even born and great inheritances to pass on. There are always sacrifices but some people will always have it harder than others.

Whereas what about the people who struggle with infertility and tried and tried to have children and were unable or those who were unhealthy and decided it would not be fair on a child? There are just so many different circumstances. So many different types of sacrifice.

It's not about deserving care. Everyone deserves care when they need it, whether they've had children or not. Just as, in a civilised society, everyone should be able to eat whether they've helped cook the meal or not.

But if you are one of the cooks that makes the meal every day, and you have given up your time and resources and skill and labour - would you describe people who have deliberately not contributed to it at all but always take a good hearty plateful every day regardless, as 'selfish'? They've deliberately chosen let others do the work but share in the outcome. Should we let them starve? Of course not.

And obviously people are childfree not by choice, that's not the same argument here.

Maybe the use of the word 'selfish' is part of the problem. It creates quite a strong reaction and is inherently provocative. It makes people feel attacked and that may be why they're so defensive?

Huh? Pretty sure you did say you wanted children. You've also clearly implied that those who don't choose to reproduce are selfish. You're doing so in this post too. I find your posts quite disingenuous.

And no, the logic of your argument is not 'sound.' It's not about whether or not we will rely on future generations. It's not about whether an individual child grows up to be a surgeon or a drug addict. It's about the motivation for having children, which is invariably a selfish one. I don't mean that in a bad way. Choosing not to have children is also done for selfish reasons.

Not to mention that raising a child also costs a lot of money, some of which will be borne by the childfree who are not making a similar demand on taxpayer resources.

So no, your arguments are not 'sound'.

Maybe the people who deliberately didn't contribute to the meal spent 2 years previously building the kitchen the cooks cooked in. Maybe they taught cookery to the cooks when they were young. You don't always need to do the cooking yourself to have contributed.
Obviously there are very selfish people in all walks of life. Both with and without children. Some people with lots of children may only ever contribute to society the children and that's it. Never working. Just taking all their lives in all other ways.
Some childfree people may be teachers. Or youth workers. Or doctors saving the lives of other people's children. Generally improving the lives of many many children for decades. Just because you don't directly do something doesn't mean you have never and will never contribute in meaningful ways.

And I don't think people would get so defensive over the word selfish if it was acknowledged that people who have children tend to do so for selfish reasons as well. People want them, they have them. People don't want them, they don't have them. But yet it's normally the people without children that get called names about it.

Sure. People can contribute in those ways. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that childfree people contribute more because they have more financial resources and time to volunteer etc. That's certainly a good point.

But ultimately, if every person stopped having kids right now, and used their resources as their own to do with solely as they wanted - including altruistically contributing heavily to the good of society - within 70-90 years every single person would be elderly, and increasingly there would be no one to drive the trucks, or build the homes, or treat the patients, or relieve your pain, or lift your body, or make, sell and deliver your food.

What good are your financial contributions then? It's the act of creating the next generation that is the key - of making people that can do all the things you are no longer able to do.

I don't really care about the individual examples of people who wanted kids or didn't want them or neglected them or any of that; on an individual level you can justify any decision. But in general, globally, we need a younger generation. Not YOUR child takes care of YOU specifically, but the 'children' take care of people, in general.

You can build as many kitchens as you like - if no one provides the actual food for you, you don't eat.

I mean people can just die out. The planet will continue on until the sun burns out. Species come and species go.

I mean you could automate it. That’s why you have people working on building robots and AI. Sure it’s not there yet. If there is no food you die, if there is no way to prepare it you die.

Most people choose to have children and if the government did something about things like wages, housing and maternity care and there were useable childcare provisions available for everyone everywhere and schools were better funded and university was free many more would choose to have children/have more children. And that’s what the focus should be on, how can the people who want children have the amount of children they want, not how can we force people who don’t want children to have them through things like horrendous abortion laws and shaming etc.

But overall everyone needs everyone. We need people to have children, we need people to provide the care for the mothers and children and cover for the mothers job and childcare and education and we need people to open businesses to employ the children etc. Most importantly we need everyone to vote for the things that will benefit everyone today and in the future.

@Othersidetoyou Your argument is based on the notion that childfree people need to have babies in order to contribute. Other contributions aren’t meaningful because only the production of humans matters. Childless people may have taught, treated, financially supported or emotionally cared for said children (through work) but that isn’t enough - to eat the food, you must produce a cook, not simply support someone else’s cook.

Your support for this is the falling birthrate.

But wouldn’t it be better to help those who want more cooks to have them, than call people who don’t want to have them (but are perfectly happy to provide support) selfish?

The logical outcome of putting that pressure on people who aren’t fit to be parents is fucked up children. I know, I’m one of them. It is mad to me that people on this website will go on about how selfless they are, but insist that people who are likely unfit to parent should “do their bit” and have kids anyway.

Well it's a good job that everyone on the planet has different wants and opinions.
Yes if everyone on the planet decided not to have children we'd be screwed. But if every single person on the planet decided to have 10+ children we'd be screwed in other ways.
If every single person on the planet decided not to be a doctor or surgeon we'd by screwed.
Everyone always relies on other people. It's the way of the world. We always need children. But we always need others working to support them in many ways.

But even I notice on this conversation on needing children we are taking about our own self interest not the benefit of these children. For our own comfort, safety and care in old age, regardless of whether we think it is a world worth bringing them into. There are people who think it is a big sacrifice to not have children, for those that remain to endure the calamity to come and letting the human race die out.

"It's not about whether or not we will rely on future generations"

That's exactly what it's about. The original question was why do people think people who don't have children are selfish - and I said this is an argument as to why.

You're getting a bit muddled up with what individual people might want, versus what is necessary. It's not about motivation to have kids - which you're right, is very often selfish - it's about actually doing so.

It's not about opinions, it's not about wants - you're making it a very egocentric argument. Opinions do not feed you when you're old.

Eh?

If the question is 'it is selfish to not reproduce' then of course motivation is important. The possible outcome of that decision is irrelevant. You are the one getting 'muddled up' in your attempts to drag this discussion off topic.

That would certainly help with boomer wealth distribution 😂

I thought the thread was about it being selfish not to reproduce. Not wanting to starve when you are old is understandable to be sure but is self-interested. Having people only for this purpose… would be selfish…

@Othersidetoyou you have a very bizarre outlook on life. Your arguments make zero sense

I'm trying to stay with you but it's a bit difficult to follow along...

If the question is 'it is selfish to not reproduce'

That's not a question. After that, your paragraph sort of loses meaning.

Once again, as an individual, I don't necessarily think that selfish is the right word to use for people who don't want to have kids, - I don't really care that much one way or the other. And at this point in our societal evolution the need is less and less urgent for everyone to do so - we are much more globalised and not everyone needs offspring to help tend their individual land or bring in the harvest or whatever so the goalposts are shifting.

But in terms of an argument for WHY people who actively choose not to have kids and allow other people to provide the next generation for them are called selfish, the argument I put forward is definitely a reason why. So very much 'on' topic.

You seem to have very strong emotions on the subject which contribute to the angle you're coming at it from and of course that will inform your responses. Everyone has their own history.

The most selfish thing would be to bring a child into the world for any other reason than because you want to nurture and love a baby into an adult and give that your absolute all

Ah, now you've progressed to the 'your views are tainted by emotion, unlike stone cold logical me' phase. Being patronising doesn't really work when you're not actually making sense however.

If the question is 'it is selfish to not reproduce'

That's not a question. After that, your paragraph sort of loses meaning.

It is quite literally the question in the OP which we are discussing. It's right there. Perhaps read it again? Maybe your views are so clouded by emotion that you can't follow the topic under discussion?

Really? ZERO sense? That's a silly thing to say. If you can't see anything about an argument that makes sense, whether you agree with it or not, then that says more about you than the person making it.

But as per my previous post about child free ppl more likely to be net contributors, then there's an argument to say parents are disproportionately using today's resources.

Unless you are very wealthy and don't use state education, NHS, subsidised childcare, child benefit, etc etc, chances are you are taking out more than you've put in to enable you to bring up those children that will support the elderly of tomorrow.

Childfree ppl don't take out anywhere near as much and presumably are more likely to pay higher taxes as are less likely to have time out as sahps or be part time.

So it's not really fair to say they'll be taking out more in the future when they have probably spent 40 to 50 years working, not taking out much at all compared to an average parent. I'm not for one second saying parents shouldn't be given this support and of course it's in everyone's interest to educate the future generation etc but you can't make out the childfree will be a drain in society In the future without looking at their full contribution. I dont know the figures but I'd guess its likely to balance out overall.