2) Well, broadly speaking, humans are generally productive during the middle parts of their lives, and nonproductive consumers during the beginning and end parts. Those in the middle therefore tend to support those at the ends, either directly or indirectly. (e.g., if you’re a retiree living off a 401k, you’re living off the labor of the productive workers in the businesses you own pieces of.) Inevitably we all end up supporting and being supported by those we aren’t related to. If you have children you draw extra help from the general pool to raise them. If you don’t have children, you are drawing help at end of life without having replaced yourself with more productive citizens. Eh, call it a wash.

3) From a libertarian perspective definitely not. I don’t really know.

4) Everyone? But, as far as usefully pointing it out, probably limited to those who have many children, if only from an environmental perspective. And perhaps those who have any children who are particularly incapable of supporting them for one reason or another.

Incidentally, I’m working on the premise that somebody has to have children. To those that don’t share the axiom that human extinction is to be avoided, I doubt we have enough common ground for any kind of discussion. Of course, I also don’t find the possibility that not enough people will choose to have children at all likely in the foreseeable future.

I have also found that I am much better equipped to appreciate the joys of parenthood this time around… and we had the wife’s tubes tied.

But when people say it’s selfish not to have kids, what they mean is that the lifestyles of childless adults are self-centered, or at least appear to be from the perspective of parents. I think this is because it’s hard for a parent (for me at least) to imagine a childless person being devoted and interested in someone else’s being and welfare as deeply as I am to my kid. It also looks “selfish” from the outside because non-parents are able to treat themselves to more–even non-monetary things like sleeping ’til noon–appear selfish to us breeders. And lastly, I think there’s a bit of self-selection at work here. Some people who choose not to become parents do so precisely because they don’t feel cut out for it–are too into their art, their work, or whatever–all pursuits that lead back to the self.

If any one has any good ideas, I’d be delighted to hear them. I doubt I could adopt, I am on a fixed income.

We have a lot of commenters with children, but we definitely have a lot of child haters as well. Or at least commenters who don’t understand why three year-olds refuse to take complete personal responsibility for their lives and enjoy the benefits of the invisible hand of the market.

The anger, hatred and derision from the more militant “child-free” is pugnacious, filthy and disgusting. There are those within this “movement” who actively spew their disgust of parents and children and equate us with microorganisms. These are the LAST people I would want representing me, if I were one of the many decent child-free people.

If you have self-selected to remove yourself from the gene pool, you have nothing to crow about. I accept that your genes will not be part of the future of humanity – that’s your choice. Don’t try to rub it in my face as some sort of superior moral/aesthetic/ecological imperative.

I’m not sure boingboing readers are less likely to be parents – in fact, I’d guess they are educated, affluent, and over 30, making it quite likely they are parents. I’m curious what the demographics are now…

Anyway, what’s with the term “Child free”? What’s wrong with “Childless”? Freedom is not about steering clear of long term commitments and there is nothing freeing about remaining childless, it’s just you end up with different people and different things demanding your time and attention. Not having children limits your experiences in some areas of life, and having them limits your experiences in different areas of life. Usually you can have both, just not at the same time.

Having a child is a kind of temporary state, in that within 20 years you can expect them to be self sufficient, more or less. So all those books you never had the time to read and those movies you didn’t get to see, you can go see.

Let’s have a look at post 284 from Andrewb:

> I look at their faces. They are tired. They are stressed. They don’t smile. They don’t sleep.

Tiredness is from pushing the pram. It’s called exercise, and it’s not known for causing smiling. Obviously we do sleep. Maybe not enough at times, but of course, we sleep. Of course we do.

> They never have any money.

Some do some don’t. They have new priorities for their money that’s true. But kids don’t cost all that much (at least in the last 6 months it hasn’t).

> They don’t get to go out, or travel as often as they would like.

Well, perhaps they had kids too early. I did a lot of pissing beer against the urinal, and you know what? It’s not actually got that much going for it. Some of the recent movies are shockingly bad unoriginal thoughtless pap.

> They complain a lot, about their kids, and their spouses, and their obligations.

People love a good moan. I doubt that they are the only ones complaining.

> Their lives are governed by schedule and routine.

Which is fine. Most people live like this. Think “job”.

> They have no freedom.

See above. Freedom is not about avoiding long term commitments.

> They lack the time and/or money to pursue their passions.

Rubbish. You are busy, fine, but our 6 month old is awake 10 hours a day. I’m awake for around 16. There is time. Especially when you consider that there’s 2 of us and only one of him. Though of course that’s not quite true as you have more children.

I think 2 is probably the best number as any more and you have to move from man-to-man marking to zonal defence.

And as for money, well, as ever, some people are more equal than others.

Wow that’s a really nice theory on the childfree you have there. Seeing that my husband and I eat vegan and organic, haven’t EVER purchased a new car, have only owned one brand new tv (which is now 5 years old), were the only people on all the block after Xmas day with a trash can that was only a 1/4 full (no one else could close theirs), recycle everything we can and choose to not purchase things that are un-recyclable… where did you come up with this theory?

My theory is that you are a person that can’t bear the idea of other people going against the reproduction status quo, making a well informed choice that leads to a positive world impact and a life DIFFERENT then the ideals you were brainwashed with as a child.

“The bottom line is that absolutely nothing else you can do—driving a more fuel efficient car, driving less, installing energy-efficient windows, replacing lightbulbs, replacing refrigerators, recycling—comes even close to simply not having that child. All those good things still add up to less than 500 metric tons of CO2 savings. Not having the kid saves between 10,000 and 13,000 metric tons of CO2.”
Tiniest of Baby Booms- A Monster

8lbs, 21 inches, and 3,800 diapers worth of planet-pummeling joy

I think having a kid is completely selfish and fullfills a biological desire.

When thinking about the issue, I was trying to come up with any non-selfish reason I could for having a kid. Is there any? It isn’t like I am doing the kid a favor, they either exist or don’t. They wouldn’t know the difference. I am not necessarily contributing to society, we don’t need more humans beings on the planet. Who’s to say that my kid would contribute anything but more pollution, consumption and heaven forbid mental illness and suffering? Just what does the kid get out of the deal of being brought into existence? And who am I to make that decision?

I also think my decision to not have children is completely selfish. I do sleep until noon, and go where I want when I want. I fly to Europe for weeks at a time, and have disposable income. I am completely selfish in that regard. But I am a high school teacher, I spend all day with kids. I am their mentor and confidant, I am invested in their lives. I would make a great mother, but I only have so much of me to give.

I respect the decision to have children. I love my job, and wouldn’t be able to go to work everyday if it weren’t for people with children. But I ask for respect in my own decision to forgo the motherhood experience.

Here’s some counter “evidence” — a lot of comments disagree with your view.

Also, re: staying late vs leaving for kid responsibilities. At my job, I take vacation time if I need to leave early. It isn’t “free time” nor is it something I just do — I have to plan for it. Then again I don’t work for an org that makes me work beyond 40 hours without paying me overtime.

A: Yes. One is a dog. One is a child. If the difference is a confusing one to you, be thankful it wasn’t to your parent.

I know I’ll get flamed for creating life when my own life is on the wane. Let’s just say that my kids are far luckier than many I know with young parents in less desirable circumstances. Older parents are a whole ‘nother thread, and I would suggest that the only ones whose opinions count are their children.

But an important reason I have chosen not to reproduce (which is separate from my choice not to parent – those are two different issues) is that I believe I owe it to the populace to remove my type-1 diabetic, fibromyalgial, myopic – et .c, et c. genes from the gene pool. I don’t want to pass my genes on – and I think it’s fine to classify that as a choice in keeping with my ethics.

I do appreciate your point on all the really nasty, awful people out there – there are plenty of moral, respectful, kind non-reproducers and non-parents, and I think we can get a really bad rep from the hateful folks. That’s why I always try to point out sources of reasoned debate on the issue, when I can.