Child-free or Child-for-me?

[Lady Macbeth]

(I'm posting in this forum because I'm particularly looking for Pagan opinions. Christian opinions are welcome as long as the entirety of your argument is not based out of Genesis or any other Bible scripture.)

Pangaia magazine's "Toe to Toe" column ran an article on the controversial issue of Pagans who remain child-free in issue #40. I, fortunately it seems, was not able to read that issue, but the resulting letters to the editor since then in Pangaia magazine have been disturbing, to say the least. I realize, that as Pagans we are not perfect, and some of us can be downright mean, just as any other person can. However, the hostility and intolerance toward BOTH those who are child-free and those who choose to have children to the fullest extent was astounding. There were very few voices of moderation, speaking up for those of us who would like to have children but are forced through physical or financial means not to, and those who would rather not but are forced through various means TO have children.

I thought I'd come in here and get some input on the issue. How do any of you stand on the issue? Should it truly be a "duty" to uphold the sacred union of the God and Goddess and produce children, should our concern for the Mother Earth as a whole encourage us to NOT add to the burgeoning population, or do you fall somewhere in the middle?

[sc_q_jayce]

(I'm posting in this forum because I'm particularly looking for Pagan opinions. Christian opinions are welcome as long as the entirety of your argument is not based out of Genesis or any other Bible scripture.)

Pangaia magazine's "Toe to Toe" column ran an article on the controversial issue of Pagans who remain child-free in issue #40. I, fortunately it seems, was not able to read that issue, but the resulting letters to the editor since then in Pangaia magazine have been disturbing, to say the least. I realize, that as Pagans we are not perfect, and some of us can be downright mean, just as any other person can. However, the hostility and intolerance toward BOTH those who are child-free and those who choose to have children to the fullest extent was astounding. There were very few voices of moderation, speaking up for those of us who would like to have children but are forced through physical or financial means not to, and those who would rather not but are forced through various means TO have children.

I thought I'd come in here and get some input on the issue. How do any of you stand on the issue? Should it truly be a "duty" to uphold the sacred union of the God and Goddess and produce children, should our concern for the Mother Earth as a whole encourage us to NOT add to the burgeoning population, or do you fall somewhere in the middle?

I'm not exactly familiar with the details and history of the zeal either for or against, so I'm afraid I may need some background information on that.

I suppose the question boils down to why producing children is a duty and is a faithful act of upholding this sacred union. Since I'm unfamiliar of the understanding of why this [idea] is necessary, I can't really comment.

But I do have to wonder as to why adding little grubby babies to the world will automatically mean disregard for the state of the world as it is.

As far as personally for me: I don't see having children as a duty and I don't see not having children as one, either. I don't see how the state of the world can convince me to lean towards either, especially for the reason of the earth. The best I could see in my own point of view (on a strictly topic-based reason; this is not why I personally would or would not have grubby little children) is... "Not having children to not subject them to the world" or "Having children so they can be the next famous Green Chemist!" So I think my reasons would be more "selfish."

Yeah, I essentially gave a non-answer, but it was interesting nonetheless. :P

As a sidenote: Green Chemist refers to the chemists who are looking into new methods of synthesis that produce less side product (read: waste), cheaper materials, efficient methods, etc; in effect, methods to make chemistry a more environmentally friendly science. :)

[technomage]

Should it truly be a "duty" to uphold the sacred union of the God and Goddess and produce children, should our concern for the Mother Earth as a whole encourage us to NOT add to the burgeoning population, or do you fall somewhere in the middle?

When I was Wiccan, I have to admit that I never saw how upholding the union of the God and Goddess necessarily meant producing children. It certainly could if the couple chose, but that kind of decision is so deeply personal that I would greatly resent anyone outside of the relationship attempting to encrioach on the couple's decision. I respected the views of those who felt it was (even though I disagreed with them), but if one of them had told me I wasn't a "proper Wiccan" because my wife and I only had one child, or that we were "selfish" to have a child, I would have given them complete and exaustive instructions on where to go, how to get there, and what to do when they arrived. And NONE of those directions can be posted here without getting into severe trouble! :hehe:

[James Peter]

I can see both sides. In many ways the best thing we can do for our planet is to cease to exist. We all consume so many resources and cause so much damage, especially in the West, that in many ways the most ecologically friendly thing we could do is to commit suicide. It would follow that producing another problem (aka person) merely for our own pleasure would be the height of selfishness.

Then again it will take more to 'save the earth' than a few people choosing not to have children. Quite frankly you choosing to have no children will have an almost-zero effect. However producing a child who will be a 'positive influence' can actually have a (probably still small) effect on the good of the planet.

I guess its a question of will your child be a force for good? If so then let them be, if not then you have no right to bring them into the world and certainly no duty to. Just make sure your children do enough good to counter the 'bad' that they will inevitably produce...

Maybe its a little simplistic and heartless but I think that weighing the good against the bad is the best approach to take.

[tmancour]

I can see both sides. In many ways the best thing we can do for our planet is to cease to exist. We all consume so many resources and cause so much damage, especially in the West, that in many ways the most ecologically friendly thing we could do is to commit suicide. It would follow that producing another problem (aka person) merely for our own pleasure would be the height of selfishness.

Then again it will take more to 'save the earth' than a few people choosing not to have children. Quite frankly you choosing to have no children will have an almost-zero effect. However producing a child who will be a 'positive influence' can actually have a (probably still small) effect on the good of the planet.

I guess its a question of will your child be a force for good? If so then let them be, if not then you have no right to bring them into the world and certainly no duty to. Just make sure your children do enough good to counter the 'bad' that they will inevitably produce...

Maybe its a little simplistic and heartless but I think that weighing the good against the bad is the best approach to take.


Actually, I think that there should be fewer people in the world. I just think more of them should be Mancours.

I see having children as fulfilling my genetic destiny. By reproducing I have self-selected my genes to go on another generation. I see having children as a way to responsibly craft human beings in a world that desperately needs that kind of attention. I see kids as a way of projecting your personal creative energy through the lens of your ancestors, ensuring your personal accomplishments are not limited by what you manage to do on your own.

I'm also tired of stupid people reproducing and smart people staying childless. Is it a "sin" of any sort? No, it's just short sighted. By having a choice to have kids and chosing not to, you have self-selected yourself out of being a candidtate for genetic ancestory, which is, biologically speaking, the only possible measure for success.

Just sayin'.

Arion

[James Peter]

Actually, I think that there should be fewer people in the world. I just think more of them should be Mancours.

I see having children as fulfilling my genetic destiny. By reproducing I have self-selected my genes to go on another generation. I see having children as a way to responsibly craft human beings in a world that desperately needs that kind of attention. I see kids as a way of projecting your personal creative energy through the lens of your ancestors, ensuring your personal accomplishments are not limited by what you manage to do on your own.

I'm also tired of stupid people reproducing and smart people staying childless. Is it a "sin" of any sort? No, it's just short sighted. By having a choice to have kids and chosing not to, you have self-selected yourself out of being a candidtate for genetic ancestory, which is, biologically speaking, the only possible measure for success.

Just sayin'.

Arion


I understand the principle and think that ultimately it would be in the best interests of the species... Unfortunately no government would be brave enough to introduce it (in a democracy at least). I'll be having children because I believe that they will do more good than harm, that basically my kids will be 'better' than most other people's kids. 'Fewer kids as long as I can still have mine' does sound kind of selfish I admit but I can't help being so amazing can I? :wink:

[guacamole]

This is probably cold comfort, but Christians get bullied for the same sort of thing all the time. At pre-marital counseling my wife and I were told by the good reverend that if we didn't have kids we weren't fulfilling the will of God. We've been childless for nine years. People still don't get it that we aren't not following God.

[Ryokan]

I like me some babies. Deep fired, with a loaded baked potato on the side.

In all seriousness though, having a kid is the funnest, best, and most worthwhile thing I have ever done. i would recommend it to anyone, assuming they were willing to be responsible.

[tmancour]

I like me some babies. Deep fired, with a loaded baked potato on the side.

In all seriousness though, having a kid is the funnest, best, and most worthwhile thing I have ever done. i would recommend it to anyone, assuming they were willing to be responsible.


Some think-tank once came up with a solution to the world's population problem: Allow every man and woman to have exactly .75 kids, with the ability to sell the unused ration to those who could afford it. While certainly draconian, it would reduce the size of the population appreciatively in the course of just a few generations, as well as provide an income of sorts for those who remain childless.

Arion

[Ryokan]

Some think-tank once came up with a solution to the world's population problem: Allow every man and woman to have exactly .75 kids, with the ability to sell the unused ration to those who could afford it. While certainly draconian, it would reduce the size of the population appreciatively in the course of just a few generations, as well as provide an income of sorts for those who remain childless.

Arion
I am skeptical of the world's population problem as such. in developed economies with women's rights, population rates dramatically fall. And fast. So fast that it creates economic problems just as troubling as too fast population growth. So, how do we even deal with that? Women's rights are good, and not having to many people is good. However, even population growth of 1.5 kids per person is crippling to our economies and government as it is set up today. We can see this because alot of countries have growth naturally at this level or lower now. And the US would be getting down there if it were not for migration. So.... what then?

[Alien]

I am skeptical of the world's population problem as such.

Look at it this way. When my daughter was young we bought her a small cage and two mice. Unfortunately, the mice turned out to be a male and female and proceeded to do what mice do well. With enough food and no predators, they were threatening to fill the cage after a while. The Earth is finite, and any unchecked population growth will eventually reach the limit of its ability to support us.

In a more "natural" state, we would probably have been limited in the same way that other species are limited, by lack of resources, disease, or whatever. As we have (so far) been able to use our brains to circumvent these things, we will have to apply our own controls if we want to avoid the inevitable "crash" that awaits us.

In the meantime, we are destroying the more pleasant parts of the Earth at an increasing rate. I remember how things were even fifty years ago. Since then, more and more species appear on the endangered list. More and more areas of pleasant countryside disappear under concrete.

Is a world population of six billion intrinsically more valuable than one of three billion, or one billion? I don't see why.


in developed economies with women's rights, population rates dramatically fall. And fast. So fast that it creates economic problems just as troubling as too fast population growth. So, how do we even deal with that? Women's rights are good, and not having to many people is good. However, even population growth of 1.5 kids per person is crippling to our economies and government as it is set up today. We can see this because alot of countries have growth naturally at this level or lower now. And the US would be getting down there if it were not for migration. So.... what then?

If the problem is going to be self correcting, then hooray! What troubles me is that the smaller population produced by economic development then proceeds to consume more resources per capita than the original more primitive population could ever do. Is it better on balance? I don't know.

As far as short term adjustment is concerned, it's just that, short term, and we should live with temporary problems in order to solve the problem. Unfortunately, democracies seem to be very bad at long term thinking, and nobody wants the kind of dictatorship that is capable of enforcing unpopular solutions, at least I don't. I fear that, as in the case of global warming, nothing serious will be done until it is too late.

[Ryokan]

Look at it this way. When my daughter was young we bought her a small cage and two mice. Unfortunately, the mice turned out to be a male and female and proceeded to do what mice do well. With enough food and no predators, they were threatening to fill the cage after a while. The Earth is finite, and any unchecked population growth will eventually reach the limit of its ability to support us.

In a more "natural" state, we would probably have been limited in the same way that other species are limited, by lack of resources, disease, or whatever. As we have (so far) been able to use our brains to circumvent these things, we will have to apply our own controls if we want to avoid the inevitable "crash" that awaits us. Yes. Bu are, generally. The highest estimate of peak global pop is 13 billion people. More likely, though, we'll see between 9-11 billion.

In the meantime, we are destroying the more pleasant parts of the Earth at an increasing rate. I remember how things were even fifty years ago. Since then, more and more species appear on the endangered list. More and more areas of pleasant countryside disappear under concrete. I agree. However, more animals and more green space don't justify faster, but more draconian population controls.

Is a world population of six billion intrinsically more valuable than one of three billion, or one billion? I don't see why. It depends entirely on what you value. A higher pop. planet, everything else remaining equal, will advance faster technologically. However, enviromental concerns appear as the pop grows, and at a certain level its not sustainable. So... ita a balance, I think.



If the problem is going to be self correcting, then hooray! What troubles me is that the smaller population produced by economic development then proceeds to consume more resources per capita than the original more primitive population could ever do. Is it better on balance? I don't know.
FOr the consumers. In general, people like the idea of the enviroment, but like their big screen TV more in reality. So, that is why things go the way they do.
As far as short term adjustment is concerned, it's just that, short term, and we should live with temporary problems in order to solve the problem. Unfortunately, democracies seem to be very bad at long term thinking, and nobody wants the kind of dictatorship that is capable of enforcing unpopular solutions, at least I don't. I fear that, as in the case of global warming, nothing serious will be done until it is too late.
:shrug: Make me dictator, and I'll promise I fix everything.

[Alien]

:shrug: Make me dictator, and I'll promise I fix everything.

Hmmmm. Why don't I become dictator first, then I'll be able to promote you? <innocent look>

[Ryokan]

Hmmmm. Why don't I become dictator first, then I'll be able to promote you? <innocent look>
I would hate to be your vp and then have to arrange an accident.

[Alien]

I would hate to be your vp and then have to arrange an accident.

:lol:

Right. Just try it.

[sunflower sally]

I personally would rather not have children of my own. After working with foster children, I would feel wrong about bringing another child into this world when so many need homes and support, and I can't see myself caring for more than one child. I suck at multi-tasking, hehe.

I understand most people would rather not do it that way; but that's how I feel about the issue. I kind of think it's almost selfish to have children without considering adoption/fostering first.

Maybe I shouldn't say it's selfish exactly, but I definately have my own morals that go against it for me, personally.

In the end, though, it's no one's business. Do what you feel is best, don't let the opinions of others get you down.

[elysian]

I think it's a stewardship issue, one of personal responsibility. It is not responsible for anyone to aim to reproduce knowing that they cannot support or provide for their offspring. In other words, if you have the ability (mentally, spiritually, physically and emotionally as well as financially) to provide for the children you conceive and bring forth, then great. But if for whatever reason you do not believe you can provide for and nurture a child, then you should take steps to avoid conception (abstinance, sterilization or barrier methods that don't allow for fertilization to take place.)

Not everyone is of suitable temperment and desire to parent children. Good stewardship is in discerning and asking "can we provide for and love and cherish this child?" If not, then avoid conceiving one.

[junipersilver]

I thought I'd come in here and get some input on the issue. How do any of you stand on the issue? Should it truly be a "duty" to uphold the sacred union of the God and Goddess and produce children, should our concern for the Mother Earth as a whole encourage us to NOT add to the burgeoning population, or do you fall somewhere in the middle?

With the population where it is right now, I don't see why people would feel a duty to have children. Even if the population wasn't so large, people who aren't responsible enough to have children shouldn't have them. Also even if they can afford a child, if they don't want one, it's definetely not a good idea to have one. But basically...people should have as many kids as they want if they can take care of them in all the different ways that elysian mentioned.