The Case Against Children(harpers.org)
harpers.org
The Case Against Children
https://harpers.org/archive/2024/03/the-case-against-children-elizabeth-barber/
8 comments
I feel like I see antinatalism and childfree movements in the news more frequently now. I suppose if they're any good at their job, the movement won’t exist in seventy years or so.
It reminds me of this group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers which is down to 2 people.
They are evolutionary selected against rationalizing.
Meme infections burning themselves out.
Meme infections burning themselves out.
Around 20 years ago, I discovered the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and realized there were like-minded people to me. Got fixed in my early 20s.
I'm happy to see the antinatalist message hitting so many media outlets in recent years! My parents only had me due to boredom and social pressure, so it's thrilling to see people open their eyes to other options.
I'm happy to see the antinatalist message hitting so many media outlets in recent years! My parents only had me due to boredom and social pressure, so it's thrilling to see people open their eyes to other options.
And yet every article written in this same magazine about immigration suggests that our civilization will collapse without a growing population.
Perhaps there is truth to both, but also some unspecified nuance. It’s not just a numbers game. Each person on this planet either makes things better for the rest, or worse. If it’s getting worse, it’s because the size and effect of the latter group grows faster than the former.
Some people can only see life as a zero-sum game, and all good people as competition for their not-so-good schemes. For some reason, the anti-natalists seem focused on pushing their message at elite universities and their high-literacy readership. This is just stupid. Our sustained quality of life depends on children from these people, and probably suffers from those that would never thoughtfully consider the message.
Perhaps there is truth to both, but also some unspecified nuance. It’s not just a numbers game. Each person on this planet either makes things better for the rest, or worse. If it’s getting worse, it’s because the size and effect of the latter group grows faster than the former.
Some people can only see life as a zero-sum game, and all good people as competition for their not-so-good schemes. For some reason, the anti-natalists seem focused on pushing their message at elite universities and their high-literacy readership. This is just stupid. Our sustained quality of life depends on children from these people, and probably suffers from those that would never thoughtfully consider the message.
If you want highly educated people to have children, incentivize them to. If it is so easy to convince them not to have kids, the incentives provided (if any) suck even though "our sustained quality of life depends on children from these people." Clearly, there is a price value disconnect. Society must pay up if these children are so valuable. The evidence is that they are not, based on the environment people of childbearing age are currently operating in.
(I donate to Dietz and Stop Having Kids)
(I donate to Dietz and Stop Having Kids)
Ummm.., yes? I don’t know how to respond because I agree with all of this (I think). It’s not inconsistent to say that raising high-contribution children is a massive cost to parents and an even greater benefit to society.
And just enough of them have been ‘tricked’ by religion or culture or noblesse oblige, etc. to keep post-agrarian civilization going.
But also there is a huge number of people that have children that are poorly prepared for net-positive contribution, and they receive almost all of the structural incentives allotted to parents.
There are actually structural disincentives to intensive parenting, like triple-taxation levied on parents that hire professional childcare. It would be easy to make this fully-deductible, but, like I said, the people at the top don’t like competition. Also consider that Social Security is just generational transfer payment, so it might make sense to pay some portion of taxes up the family tree, as well as deducting for any social burden like welfare and imprisonment. You do well, you get rewarded, you screw up, you pay, and there’s a big element of chance, just like anything in real life.
But I really would like to know, do you want less total number of children in the world, or do you want more childless leisure-class adults, or are you genuinely trying to warn people that their lives will get a lot harder with children?
It seems to me that you’re not wrong in the small sense, but in the grand scheme, we still need those hero parents out there.
And just enough of them have been ‘tricked’ by religion or culture or noblesse oblige, etc. to keep post-agrarian civilization going.
But also there is a huge number of people that have children that are poorly prepared for net-positive contribution, and they receive almost all of the structural incentives allotted to parents.
There are actually structural disincentives to intensive parenting, like triple-taxation levied on parents that hire professional childcare. It would be easy to make this fully-deductible, but, like I said, the people at the top don’t like competition. Also consider that Social Security is just generational transfer payment, so it might make sense to pay some portion of taxes up the family tree, as well as deducting for any social burden like welfare and imprisonment. You do well, you get rewarded, you screw up, you pay, and there’s a big element of chance, just like anything in real life.
But I really would like to know, do you want less total number of children in the world, or do you want more childless leisure-class adults, or are you genuinely trying to warn people that their lives will get a lot harder with children?
It seems to me that you’re not wrong in the small sense, but in the grand scheme, we still need those hero parents out there.
> do you want less total number of children in the world, or do you want more childless leisure-class adults, or are you genuinely trying to warn people that their lives will get a lot harder with children?
All of the above. I want people who are resourced and intentional about having children to have them, and have the support they need. I want people who don’t want kids to be fully empowered to affirm that choice (temporary and permanent birth control). And yes, genuinely trying to warn people about how hard life is raising children in the current macro. In theory, this should lead to less aggregate suffering, with less unwanted children and less unhappy parents (of unwanted children).
No one should have to be a hero if they would rather not. The evidence is clear we don’t provide support for the parents and kids here today, and potential parents should know up front they’re on their own and always a few steps away from disaster or peril. If you choose the suck anyway, good luck, you’re on your own.
All of the above. I want people who are resourced and intentional about having children to have them, and have the support they need. I want people who don’t want kids to be fully empowered to affirm that choice (temporary and permanent birth control). And yes, genuinely trying to warn people about how hard life is raising children in the current macro. In theory, this should lead to less aggregate suffering, with less unwanted children and less unhappy parents (of unwanted children).
No one should have to be a hero if they would rather not. The evidence is clear we don’t provide support for the parents and kids here today, and potential parents should know up front they’re on their own and always a few steps away from disaster or peril. If you choose the suck anyway, good luck, you’re on your own.