Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I met my wife about 34 years ago in the Miami Beach area. It wasn't until about 7 years later after three kids and we had moved away that we discovered cruises. Had we take our first cruise when we were single, I might have been able to convince her to remain childless. I doubt it, though.
If a person or couple decide to live their lives childless and they use the extra money they save to plan for their old age, then what is the problem.
Looking back on what it cost to raise three children, we could have done a lot of travelling and still be retired by now, living a good life. Now, we are trapped in a large house that we cannot sell because it is upside down, since the last of the kids finally moved out just after the housing bust. We had taken out an additional mortgage in 2007 to pay off bills accumulated during child raising years. Two of the three kids that moved out around the time of the bust are stuck in homes they cannot sell, but they would like to move to better areas. I suggested they move back in(we have three unused bedrooms), and either one would only need two, and rent their house out, but neither likes the idea. Can we count on them if we need help later in life? They aren't willing to sacrifice for a short time for their own benefit, even when we could use the help.
I could retire right now, if I could convince my wife to move to somewhere else that we could afford to live, after taking out enough of our 401Ks to pay the difference to sell the house. Too bad we have grandkids, that makes that impossible. How selfish am I to think that we should or could move away from our grandkids instead of continuing to work when my health is in decline?
People should never spit out kids, intending to use them as a safety valve, later in life.
People who are quick to criticize others for their decision to parent or not to parent, should never have kids of their own, if they would otherwise pass that need to criticize others down to the kids.
Fertility rates for U.S. women are currently around 1.8 children per woman, below the replacement level of 2.1 per woman, and although still above the European average the U.S. wouldn't look one bit out of place in the European mainstream. Americans aren't any more obsessed with having children than the rest of the developed world by the look of things. I do concede that Americans were obsessed with having children in the past - just a decade ago the fertility rate was near replacement and well above any other developed country, being single was not as prevalent, being childfree was not nearly as accepted and was widely chastised as selfish, and "families" and "for the children" were the twin rallying cries of American society and politics in the context of the Culture Wars. All of that is over, and has been since the 2008 Crash.
Although they were beyond pretty much anywhere else in the developed world, it's worth noting that American fertility rates have been sub-replacement every year since 1972 excepting 2006 and 2007. If net immigration was zero the population would be leveling off right now. You have to go all the way back to the baby boom to find sustained replacement fertility, and that was a highly anomalous period, considering fertility rates were settling to near replacement in the 1920's and 1930's. Considering that unlike in the 1930's people don't want to have many children it's likely that this shift is more durable.
Frankly, given the demographic transition and the way the U.S. is going I think a Russian Cross is likelier than any baby boom. People's finances aren't getting better, they have no confidence in their core institutions and believe many are a direct threat to them, and the country's future looks bleaker with each passing year - that's many of the same factors the late USSR had, and people don't want to have children in those conditions. Unless and until they gain any real and durable confidence in their core institutions and in their country's future they'll be skittish about having children. Trust and confidence have been shattered to such a degree that it'll take years to get to that point even if optimal conditions return immediately. If you ask me it will take at least 10 years, probably much longer, and it's worth noting that once people have had these ultra-low birth rates for some time they begin to get used to them, and after a certain point birth rates will be permanently depressed. We see this phenomenon today in Eastern Europe. I think it's likely that this will happen, and if it does American fertility rates will remain below replacement indefinitely. America's demographics in the future will bear much more resemblance to central and eastern Europe now than America a decade ago.
An uptick in the death rate has been observed recently in the U.S., which means the birth and death rate trends look eerily similar to the last years of the USSR. Even the late 2000's US peak looks similar to the mid 1980's USSR peak. A Soviet-type implosion is a distinct possibility, the common factors including total lack of confidence in and perceived legitimacy of the federal government and its guiding ideologies, decaying and rotting infrastructure, high levels of debt and currency debasement, and the government and economy no longer functioning. If that event were to occur it would certainly cause an American major depression and a global minor depression. The world would have to go on without America for an extended period while that country rebuilds and reforms into whatever more sustainable form comes next. Soviet birth rates in the 1980's trended higher than America's in the 2000's, so if a similar fertility implosion occurs the nadir would be even lower, around 1.0 children per woman, many states dropping to well below that, clocking some of the lowest birth rates on record anywhere. Significantly higher mortality (though likely not as bad as Russia's) and negative net immigration (even now there's a net outflow to Mexico for the first time) for an extended period is likely. This situation would persist for at the very least 5 years and possibly up to 15-20, and would lead to immediate population decline. The end result of this could vary; Russia recovered the most, now with a higher birth rate than the U.S. and a stable population, and Ukraine recovered the least and is still shrinking rapidly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave72
Why would you support making your own species extinct? Have we "evolved" so far as to take ourselves out of existence?
Our huge population of 7 billion gives us plenty of room to shrink and still be viable, seeing as even a thousandth of the current population (7 million, which is still more people than we had tens of thousands of years ago) is more than enough to continue. People could simply choose to have more children if the species was in danger of dying out; many if not most of the childfree are childfree precisely because that situation doesn't exist now. Their copulation is not needed for human continuity at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
I think people who never have kids are generally more childish than people who do have kids.
Then of course there's the pure economics of who takes care of an aging population and who runs the country once the older generation enters its dotage. The country of Japan is in dire straits because of their low birth rate. They were so affluent for so long that their young people became infatuated with technology and entertainment, and forgot about growing up. We are following the same path Japan went down a couple decades ago, and the future does not look rosy for us.
Estonia's population has been shrinking almost as long as Japan's has, and yet they're doing better than ever and are on a better economic and financial trajectory than the United States and western Europe.
simple answer is that people have a herd mentality and want everyone to be like them, and when somebody isn't they tend to get snowballed by the majority.
Most people have been successfully programmed by the media and facebook and act in a certain predictable manner and are in fact run by their emotions and subconcious rather than using their consious mind to open up to new possibilities...
I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome children into my life I'm just saying I understand why some people wouldn't. They are expensive and in the US wages are lower than ever relative to costs, and people are more flaky than ever quick to break up relationships because they are 'bored' .. leavning a situation where the family is broken up and the guy is stuck with child support... be careful who you mate with....
Kids are too expensive, especially now. Whenever I ask parents (especially mothers) why they have them, they say, "Having kids is fulfilling." I have never heard them sayhaving kids makes them happy; more that they feel like it's an obligation somehow. I ask this because I am genuinely interested in learning why people have children. Fathers often seem to be railroaded into becoming parents by their wives/gfs. Many times, they don't seem to be as thrilled with their children. There are always exceptions, of course. These are just my observations.
I have noticed that the majority of Americans are very keen on having children and find it weird when someone doesn't want to have kids. Why are Americans so obsessed with having children? What's so great about it?
And why do people call women selfish when they don't have the desire to have children? I think it's better to admit you're selfish than have kids you're going to resent later on. And with how uncertain the economy is these days, how do people even afford to have children?
A lot of the commenters were very hostile and said these women were deranged and selfish for not wanting to pop out a few kids.
Does anyone else have trouble understanding the fascination with having kids?
I absolutely do, since they involve responsibility that I'm not prepared to handle. I just don't care for dealing with that, plus it involves a lot more responsibility vs. dealing with raising a dog or cat. If I ever do anything as of now, I'd rather adopt a dog or cat at a no-kill shelter.
Also, I don't like the direction the country is going, with the economy getting weaker as time goes on, and it seems fewer and fewer jobs are available as more industries go to automation. When I'm not making enough money to think I'd properly be able to handle having a kid(and preferring dealing with the issues of having a pet), why bother having a kid?
The United States has a fertility rate (average births per woman) of 2.01 making it rank 124rd in the world's sovereign nations. And that rate is significantly lower that the world average of 2.6 children per woman. For example, Israel is just above 2.6 and is ranked 75th. So Americans are far from being obsessed with having children.
In your own post, you call them selfish, then just say it's ok for them to be selfish.
As you've pointed out, there's nothing wrong with being selfish, but you need to recognize that it is selfish to choose not to have children based entirely on the fact that you want more nice things for yourself.
Parents who choose not to buy christmas gifts so they can go on a cruise are being selfish. It's their money, so they are entitled to do whatever they want with it, but they are focused only on themselves.
Taking that a step further and choosing not to give life and raise children so you can go on a cruise meets the very definition of selfish.
Refraining from having kids is NOT selfish, because it's not taking something away from someone else. IT's taking, as it were, something from a "hypothetical" person, but not from a real person.
Acknowledging that "I am not the kind of person who will be a good parent to my kids [for any number of reasons, usually not "selfish"] therefore I choose not to bring any into this world so they won't have a crappy childhood/life" is actually Unselfish, compared to the ones who have children for very selfish "Look at me and fans all over me because I have a BAYBEE!" reasons (then they get tired of the baby when it's not cute anymore, and have another one to get another "toy", rinse, repeat).
There are SOME selfish reasons for not having children, but simply foregoing reproduction--when the population of this world is growing exponentially and so many children already go homeless and starve--is not selfish in itself. And the ones who refrain from reproducing for selfish reasons would have been selfish parents, and not likely given their children the best childhoods, so frankly it's a good thing they did not have any.
It's rare that people say "Oh, let's not have children so we can have more for ourselves." But even if they did, while it might be somewhat self-centered, that's not the same as selfISH, which usually means taking something (or refusing to share) from someone else. When there is not a person to be "taken from", that's not selfish. Why don't you ask all of the homeless children of the world rotting in orphanages whether their parents were "selfless" in having them?
Because if everyone thought like this, humankind would eventually go extinct. Somebody has to do it (have children), if nobody did, we would disappear as a species within a century.
Since when is "everyone thinking like this?" I love how so many arguments that are basically "I should be able to do [something that affects nobody]" are net with "but what is everyone did this??" Everyone is NOT going to do this, the majority of people in the US, and the world, DO have children. Have you looked at World Population lately? LOOK AT THAT GRAPH.
We could do with a few fewer people reproducing, frankly, or at least having fewer children, especially when they can't take care of them.
When population is declining and the majority starts remaining childless, then you can haul out your tired "but what if EVERYONE thought that way?" argument, which is not even an argument, because it is still a very small percentage of people who forego childrearing. Frankly, that graph would be substantially steeper if everybody were forced to "breed for the Motherland", as you seem to imply you wish they would be.
Never mind that current society depends on people without children to help pay for those who have them. Think how many childless people pay property taxes for schools but don't "use" the schools or cost money to educate their own kids? If all of those people had children, it would require more schools, more crowded classes, but no more money to pay for it. And as for your "child tax credit" that seems to go up every year on your tax return, who do you think picks up the tab for that? Childless people. If every childless person were entitled to the average "Child tax credit", there wouldn't be enough money to pay a "credit" for anybody.
So, you're welcome. And again, talk to us when world population, or even US population, is shrinking about how "everyone is going to stop having children".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
