"The Case Against Kids," reads the headline in the New Yorker, over a provocative piece by Elizabeth Kolbert. In it she analyzes three new(ish) books on the subject of family size, as looked at through economic and philosophical lenses. It probably won't surprise you to know that smart writers start with the same data -- kids cost money, most parents choose to have them, lots of them are a drain on the planet -- and reach entirely different conclusions.
You can read the details of each argument here, but briefly stated, David Benatar, author of "Better to Have Never Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence," believes that our mistake as parents starts with the core assumption that existing is good, whereas he is convinced that most of the lives led by humans are "worse than no life at all."
Bryan Caplan takes exactly the opposite view in "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids," arguing that parents are actually having far more fun being parents than they think they are, and if only they would take the long-term view, they would recognize this.
And Christine Overall (whose book, "Why Have Children:The Ethical Debate," is the most recent, and therefore the one on which Kolbert focuses her attention) takes the reasons so many of us currently use and dismisses them categorically.
Because "childbearing is 'natural'"? "There are many urges apparently arising from our biological nature that we nonetheless should choose not to act upon," she writes.
For the good of the not-yet-born child? As Kolbert summarizes Overall's argument: "... nonexistent people have no moral standing. (There are an infinite number of nonexistent people out there, and you don't notice them complaining, do you?) Second, once you accept that you should have a baby in order to increase the world's total happiness, how do you know when to stop?"
To pass on your genes for posterity? "Is anyone's biological composition so valuable that it much be perpetuated?" To have comfort and financial support in your old age? "Anyone who has children for the sake of the supposed financial support they can provide is probably deluded."
All of which is very interesting academically, but reading it, I was struck that of all the arguments raised and debunked by these deep thinkers, none addressed the reason that so many of us have children. To create a family. To craft a whole greater than yourself, of which you will eternally be a part. To take part in a life from its start to your own finish.
Are these morally defensible reasons? I doubt Ms. Overall would think so. But moral tests imply logic, and we are outside that realm when we are talking about certain subjects. Love. Faith. Children. It is likely none would exist if rationality were the test.
Why did you have kids? Did it have anything to do with common sense? Was it "morally defensible"? Must it be?
Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisabelkin
Neglecting unwanted pregnancies that were carried to term, each of us exists because his parents thought it was a good decision to have kids. Since a person shares his parents' DNA, the odds become more likely that that person will also want to have kids. Of course there are "mutations" - people who don't want children, but by not having any, they don't pass on those "childless genes".
The whole situation is really a variation of the weak anthropic principle, whereby we have kids not because it is rational, but because we wouldn't be around to ponder the decision of whether to have kids if our genes hadn't programmed our brains to want them.
However, there is no greater miracle. None of us would be here had there not been some mother out there that made the “irrational” decision to conceive us. I believe anyone that loves their life can understand why it would be important to bring new life into this beauty. Seeing my 18 month old son is a true miracle. He is a reminder of what was intended for us on this Earth. He discovers, he learns, he observes and he lives. I HIGHLY recommend that everyone read “The Prophet – on Children” from Kahlil Gibran – he was on to something.
Why people with no kids most of the time have pets? Because they need some kids in a way. Whatever they would admit.
is it more reasonable to have a pet? Considering the number of them on the road (not to say the number of them suppressed at birth), the thinking animal in me is wondering.
As long as you don't consider your kid a burden in your life, and you conisder it as a future citizen of the world, who will but leave the home one day, you can be good parent.
I always find it odd when people state "It's selfish to not have children" or "People who don't have children are selfish." Because...having children IS a selfish act...you have them because you want them, right? Not to make the world a better place or anything. I see nothing wrong with that, either...I presume it's normal/logical to do what you want! I just don't see how having or not having children differs in terms of "selfishness". The word "selfish" seems redundant when you're talking about people doing what they want to do in life...
As for rational: I don't know, and since I don't have kids yet I don't even want to think too much about it (so, there's your answer :) )
What I don't get is why people have these conversations at all. I think it's ignorant for someone to expect others to understand an emotion they've never encountered before. I didn't expect my college roommates to understand why I wanted to spend all my time with my soon-to-be-husband (the same roommates who proceeded to fall off the face of the earth when they found their mate), I don't expect those without kids to understand the profound impact having a child has on your priorities. I was incredibly selfish before I had kids. It's the nature of that phase of life. And if you never leave it, so be it. But be assured you will understand if you ever choose to have children.
I agree people shouldn't have these conversations, because like you said, if you haven't experienced something you can't be expected to understand it. I hope to have kids in the next few years, and believe I'll be agreeing with you!! But I realize I don't know what a childfree person feels, either...
My tubal ligation was the best $200 I ever spent. I get a lot more satisfaction out of my career and the life I've built for myself with my friends than I ever could being a mom. Besides, I touch MANY more lives through my career (healthcare finance) than I ever could if I had kids.
It's interesting you just knew from an early age... I wonder if it really was from your brother??
Anyway, I just wanted to say you sound like you're doing exactly what to do, and good for you!! I know that even CONSIDERING not having kids can get you a lot of flak and it's very frustrating. We really should do what we want to in our one life, and no one should push personal decisions on anyone else.
2) You are not guaranteed to such a choice nor ethically superior for it and 3) There appears to be a moral disincentive for the existence and continuation of human beings.
Are people going to stop having babies? No. Is that the best decision for the society around them? It depends. Does a society have a right to stop someone from having a child? Well, then things start getting interesting…
The NYer article names multiple rational reasons to not have children, due to the practical and moral consequences implied to society and possibly to the child itself. There is an ethical burden in the decision to have children and it is not illogical. So simply because the desire to have a child does not seem rational (though there are clearly biologically, psychologically, socially driven factors for this, as well as for believing in Love and Faith), does not mean that is outside the realm of logic or morality. And, as the article states, and almost every commenter here (pro or anti) states (intentionally or unintentionally), it is a choice and essentially a selfish decision (seeking self gratification, enhancing your life, self propagation, getting to experience the process of life). There are lots of other tangential considerations (being a parent makes you a better person, spirituality, etc.) which complicate the picture. Finally, having the desire to give someone a better life does not imply that you must have children; you can adopt. Having more children does not guarantee that the world will be better off from the existence of more possible minds with good ideas. And so, yes, it is a repugnant conclusion because it implies that 1) Having children is a choice. cont. above.
I'm afraid you feel
-more often challenged in your integrity
-more often silly
- even psychologically abusive when you are a parent than when you are not.
It is not such a gratifying role, Mr Scibot.
Having childen was a logical process of my falling in love, and wishing to build a family, perfectly knowing it would not be easy.
I wonder if , in the choice of not having children, there's not a fear of engagement, fear of your own possibility to be a decent parent, simply fear. (more than selfishness, may I correct my provocative first message)
The moment of the birth of my kids are the most magical moments in my life, along with their father : you can call it gratification, I will call it beauty, if you permit.
Man 1: "Why would anyone want to bring someone into this world? There are so many problems and everything is such a mess."
Man 2: "If you are going to have children, raise them to be kind, hardworking, honest and compassionate, then by all means you should have children. After all, it will be people like that who can right the ship."
It's easy to focus on the downside, especially when it comes to the financial responsibility right through College.
The bigger picture for me is about the added dimension, the life enhancing, the joy, the love, the challenge of opening up myself to make lots of emotional space for children.
Both Todd, 29 and Samara 22, are two very special emotionally connected young adults, good eggs and productive people that contribute their being, love and smarts to the world. Honestly I can't imagine a life without them.
However there was a time, up until the age of 30, that I truly didn't consider having a child.
I was the lucky one who choose to get pregnant two times and experienced the miraculous act of conception. No, I didn't enjoy being pregnant. I was glad when each of them was born. What a life enhancing teaching experience.
This doesn't mean that having a child is for everyone. So much chosen and committed energy goes into the raising of a kind, protective and smart soul. I'm a better person for it!
Having said that, I do think that there are people who are naturally very good at parenting. They raise children who are capable of changing the world for the better. And maybe all of us hope, a little bit, that we are those people and that our contribution to the world will be greater than ourselves.
Kids make adults of you ...or if not (like my mother), they will at least improve the evolution..because these kids will try to do better than their parents, once parents...or we prefer to think so.
People who write articles against the fact of having kids have no child, so their view is biased : it is like a woman talking about giving birth who never experienced it.
Some events reduce the population (Fukushima : not much is said about the non-future of the population gradually contaminated, wars, new illnesses)...and let's people have kids, but at a reasonable rythm : the work should be done at the contraception level.
- and people who do have kids aren't biased? How silly...
Thank you for the insult by the way, I'm so happy not to be your kid. :-)
The silly mother