[7thaccount]

I should have further specified that I didn't have a child at 14 or 17, but at approximately 30. I essentially had about a decade to live the care free life with my wife who I'd been with since 18. So I understand that lifestyle choice and it's fine. I'm offering a counter explanation for the other comment suggesting we're all delusional for saying it is a unique experience. That doesn't mean the childless lifestyle can't be rewarding as well in a different manner (I already acknowledged that), but for myself, I consider myself better off and I believe most probably agree (although I'm sure there are plenty out there that may have a different opinion).

[mcny]

Here’s the problem though. If you had your kids at about age thirty five and they do the same, you’re seventy when your grandchildren are born. How much can you realistically expect to help raise a child at seventy plus?

I think we should teach young people that it is ok to not have children. There is nothing wrong being child free and it ought to be the default for most people.

[em-bee]

if not having children is the default, then population will decrease and eventually die out, or the burden of keeping the population stable rests on those few who need to have lots of children.

if the replacement rate today is 2,3 children per couple, then when half of couples don't have children the others need to have more than 4 children. in an environment that is not supportive of having children this is going to create a two class society.

better to spread the load.

also, having children late also means that more children per family are needed. so you can choose between having 2 children when you are young or having 3 or more when you are older. (i don't know the actual numbers but i think you can get the idea)

so i disagree that teaching young people that not having children is ok. we need to teach them the opposite, and most importantly, we need to teach those that do not want children of their own, that they need to actively support those who do have children instead.

we need to create a child friendly society. and we can't do that without everyone contributing to that.

[mcny]

> if not having children is the default, then population will decrease and eventually die out, or the burden of keeping the population stable rests on those few who need to have lots of children.

oh, no. I want the population to decrease. Please do not have more children to "offset" me not having any children. That defeats the point.

I want fewer people to have children. I also want the people who have children to have fewer children. In fact, I am against this whole idea of "reproductive rights". Nobody should have a right to have as many children as they want. There should be a cap in the number of biological children a human can have.

[7thaccount]

That sounds pretty tyrannical.

If you want to see what that policy leads to, look no further than China's one child policy and the horrors that came with enforcing it and what is now occuring to their economy.

If you're concerned about population control, you'll see that it naturally goes down with industrialization like what is occuring all over Europe right now. There's no need to move to a forced system that will lead to human rights abuses.