As much as people wring their hands about the environment, global warming and the diminishing resources of the earth, as long as the consequences of population growth go largely ignored it’s a bit of a waste of time. It seems rather odd to me that while politicians (and many others) herald the devastating effects of population growth they at the same see no problem with introducing and in many cases augmenting incentives to women to have more children and larger families, and in effect penalize women who opt to remain childfree.
Tax breaks, family friendly workplace benefits, tax credits and more exist for people to have (larger) families.
Name one – just one – incentive for people who remain childfree. Because I can’t think of any.
Of course, because birthrates are apparently falling in several countries, particularly Europe, people can easily silence their conscience – after all, aren’t they breeding to “keep the economy safe?” Well at least that’s what the government tells them anyway.That’s their story and their sticking to it… as the saying goes. Besides they need breeding to go up because their premise is that it translates directly into future support for the aging population. But isn’t there a flaw in that argument?
It seems to be based on the belief that only old people take from the state. Everybody, of every age, takes from the state. And considering that those who live in Europe, North America and Australasia use far more of the world’s resources, how does increasing the birthrate sustain any future generations?
Yet doesn’t environmentalism support having fewer children – or no children at all? If so, why do we hear so little of this argument – except from the childfree – to whom it is so obvious that it’s a no-brainer. Why are there no incentives for not adding to the environmental issues – like having no children?
Having ever more children in the face of the environmental argument has to be selfish (where is their responsibility to the environment?). Instead, it is childfree people who are called selfish, presumably for refusing to breed. When a woman wants to get a sterilisation to ensure she doesn’t “accidentally” or otherwise get pregnant because she knows she does not want children, she is blocked at every turn and her case is discussed by so-called experts, perturbed as to what could be wrong that she doesn’t wish re-produce and add to the world’s population. It may be years before she can find someone to do the procedure.
Meanwhile, no matter how bad the candidate for parenthood might be, having a baby would be roundly encouraged and much of it by the state. There is something very wrong with this picture.
If the government is serious about environmental stuff I wonder how long they will be able to ignore the fact that encouraging higher birthrates and increased breeding says the opposite. I wonder how anyone who encourages having children can explain how this does not impact the environment.
Or perhaps they don’t really believe there is an “environmental issue” and it’s just another passing fad?
Technorati Tags: childfree
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
While I see your point that people who spawn receive greater benefits than those who do not, I disagree that government policies make it easy to have a kid while women are at their prime reproductive periods. I couldn’t afford to contemplate the question until I was almost 30; I’m still not sure my spouse and I can afford child care. I sure as hell can’t consider staying at home for 10 years the way my mother did. It’s not that I would want to — it’s just not even a viable option.
I think governments don’t think deeply or well about the supports required to help younger people who work get on their feet in general, regardless of whether they choose to reproduce. I suspect the whole boomerang generation phenomenon is about that.
Mw – I didn’t say government policies make it easy for women in their “prime reproductive periods” to have a kid – that’s not what the article was about. I said the govt gives many incentives for women in general to have children and increase the size of families. Not sure where you are living, but In France for example many women can afford to stay home and have kids, as the subsidies provided by state are generous enough to enable them to do so. Germany is heading in the same general direction. Many women will stay childfree because of the unaffordability of having kids, but that’s another issue.
Here is my skepticism coming out.
Because it’s NOT about the environment. Ever. It never is. It’s about the bottom line: money. “More consumers, please.” How else do you continue to have “growth” in a business or economy? You have to have people to sell to.
I may be completely off base here, but.. those are my thoughts.
I’m shouting YES! in response to CFSinceSix. The bottom line is $. It’s business that puts and keeps governments in power. The two are wedded, so to speak and corporate moguls need legions of “kiddies” who are trained to be consumers from cradle to grave to give birth to even more little images of themselves.
Thanks for this website. I’ve been thinking about this very issue for the past year now, since I’ve begun to fully grasp the gargantuan environmental mess we are in. And it seems more and more clear, that those of us in the developed world would save a whole hell of a lot of resources by limiting our childbearing… Don’t get me wrong– personally, I’d love to have a kid, if I felt like it was sustainable decision. But when I see all the STUFF that is required and resources, it does seem rather like a drain on the planet. We also have to consider, there is definitely going to be migration of peoples happening in this century. There will be fewer land and water for all of us. Those of us who live in areas rich in natural resources are going to have to be ready to accept displaced people whose groundwater is drying up, and whose coastal cities may be submerged in the next 50 years. All in all, I think,– the less people added to the world, the better.
What amuses me is that many environmentalists (including field researchers, active protestors, and scientists) HAVE CHILDREN. And more often than not, more than one. So, seriously, if you’re that concerned about the environment, why continue having kids? Often the next thing mentioned is how they’re “teaching the next generation”. Well, what happens if they don’t listen, and go on to produce kids of their own? This seems incredibly hypocritical and selfish. And yes, I must agree with CFSinceSix and Brightfeather. Considering the average 4 year old can recognize most kid’s toy logos, its all about the money, not saving the planet (and also, if that were the case, shouldn’t we stop making so many damn plastic toys for these kids?).
I have yet to hear any well-known environmentalist coming out and saying have less or no children to protect the environment. Everyone of them seems to have neatly side-stepped that by not mentioning it at all. Meanwhile, governments are imposing more “green taxes” on everyone, while encouraging them to have more children. Bottom line? Consumers are needed. Just teach ‘em all to recycle – so they feel good that they’re doing their bit for the planet.