Gaia: Child-Free - Conversations - 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://622622.gaia.com — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:11:11 GMT

i speak only from experience. i believe some of what i read anywhere and little of what hear everywhere. if i wasn't there i'm not sure it actually happened. from my perspective, we're all responsible for ourselves and what we believe in is part of our karma.

i was adopted at infancy by my mother and father and from 7 on raised by my single mother. my brother adopted a few years older than me could not handle this world, and the fact that his bio mom was a coke addict, and he too disappeared into the drug abyss. none of this shit is easy. even the unconditional love of mom. that's difficult too. however, my reality is that 38 years ago, a very special young girl adopted two american refugees and did the best she could. these facts have been re-occuring issues all throughout my life, and yet here i am following the same path illuminated by moms compassion.

i said it before and i'll say it again. the statistics of who is here or anywhere from how and why is meaningless to me. i believe in peaceful diect action and since i personally don't feel the need to father more children, i've chosen to be brother to the world and adopt. i transcend "be fruitful and multiply" every moment of my life to a place where exisiting suffering is reduced. humble as it may be, this is my approach.

i honor those who have chosen similar paths and have had similar experiences. i know many. for better or worse, in our inter-connected environment, i thank you all, as one that survived the transitions. at the same time i won't disparage anyone else's life choices. from a sufers eye, this is wave selection. again for better or worse.

i believe in oceans message. i've lived it. it's a path that chose me and i send her energy everyday when i pray. i feel these are life enriching values.

i hope i have not offended anyone with my views, they are mine.

aloha,
vince

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:19:20 GMT

I just had to remove two postings that were off the subjects by two people who had viciously attacked the Child-Free position and been crude as well as rude.
People who are of certain religious and /or ethnic backgrounds have real problems with people who decide to be Child-Free, and as long as they are polite they are tolerated.

Back to the subject - It's great for us Child-Free people that even on Oprah yesterday on a study about happiness, child-rearing came in at the bottom of things that make people happy - meaning what we've known all along - child-rearing is a drudgery that most people are simply not either interested in doing well or even unfit to do by temperament or by the way they choose to live their lives.
As we've been saying all along - parents are heroes - I mean the ones who consciously choose, prepare, and commit to doing the very best job of completely giving their entire lives over to parenting, that is - since that's the only way to do it as well as the life of any child deserves - and few of us are cut out to do this type of on-going service to someone we've never even met and with whom we might have personality clashes at best.
Following one's heart means that some, like one of my own siblings, always dreamed of parenting and grew up to do a great job with the child who was part of a life-long goal, even without a stable marriage to help along the way.

Many people who choose to parent - or, by default have become parents through an accidental pregnancy, are, possibly like the ones who were rude on this thread, bitter about others who have chosen not to have kids.
Misery does love company, and envy must play a part in some of the anger that this subject provokes in some people.
Our sympathy for them aside, we hope that those who think first about their life choices will, if they choose to parent someday, become conscious parents and will own their decisions to be happy about whatever child comes into her or his life.

Meanwhile, back to the thread - more and more people are choosing to be child-free, and the fact that even celebrities are choosing to adopt instead of bearing is a great thing!

Let's all give our support and respect to those who adopt and to those who choose to be child-free, as well as to those who have become parents and are doing a great job of it!

After all, giving up so much in life is a real feat, and is not for everyone, so let's all give our own parents a "thank you!" just for putting up with us and not leaving us behind! (if they have, that is - otherwise, let's find it in our hearts to forgive them - after all, they might really have wanted a better life for us.)

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:28:36 GMT

OK, Anthony, your arguments bolster your own concerns, and yet they make no sense to me.

You enjoy citing things and patronizing me, along with antagonizing everything I say to speak up for the helpless victims.

There are experts who can speak of the logistics of the whole enterprise and I'll list some authors and books in the next few days.

You enjoy taking the skeptical view that purports to be realistic and yet is negative in the extreme.

I am advocating something new in the long and tragic story of humanity - being child-free and/or adopting.

In learning to educate people to find better ways to live we will improve life for everyone on the planet as we understand that only a very few are truly drawn to parenting, and that the needs people hope to fill by procreating are much better met by other pursuits.

Even on Oprah today, an investigation into happiness listed, as I'd mentioned earlier, that child-rearing is very low on the list of things that make most people happy - right down there with house-cleaning.

It seems you might have a gender bias or some other reason for wanting women to breed.
The old keeping them barefoot and pregnant mandate has truly kept women out of the world arenas - until now.
Still, females haven't quite grasped that now we can enjoy the same freedoms that men have always had, and can feel good about ourselves while doing so.
For now, so many biases still prevail as traditions wear slowly away forcing women into servile and home-making, child-rearing roles, that we're still struggling to assert the fact that we are enough in and by ourselves, or with a romantic partner, and that three is a crowd.

I wrote above about religions - I never said they were "opposed" to adoption - I wrote that they often only see it as a last resort - and none of them has come out yet in favor of adoption over breeding - and that is what would morally and realistically, let alone by compassion - be the right thing for them to promote, and too often they issue imperatives that promote procreating as some sort of divine mission.
The world has long outgrown - literally - being able to bear so many humans and is groaning in death-throes over our sheer numbers, let alone our waste products.
It's time for a new model to promote that will give individuals true freedom and will heal the planet at the same time we save infants and children by adopting.
That's what I want to popularize.

It's great that you've brought out the prejudices that cling to our choices still today, and I appreciate your postings for that reason - you argue from the viewpoint of the old biases we need to grow past.

Re-read your own postings and see how I concluded that you are racist on this issue - we were speaking of children being born and you advocate not adopting, saying that races would die out or be merged rather than remaining separate, essentially.
Since it's no longer used in our society, and yet it's the only way to make sense of this discussion, race must be mentioned. Ethnicity and cultures mean something else entirely, and yet we're mainly confined to the more polite terms when discussing these sensitive issues.
The cultural thing I answered too - put the artifacts into museums and protect our heritages that way as we progress.
I love all races and all cultures, and find the idea of adopting from other socieites wonderful.
It's noble to bring underprivilaged kids to a world where they can prosper, and very cruel to have children while others are starving who could be adopted.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:25:51 GMT

Where did I miss the bit about which religions were opposed to adoption? How is it racist to prefer one culture over another? I'd rather live under a government that supported the principles of modern Delhi than those of the Jim Crow South, wouldn't you? I don't favor one race winning over another, but I do favor some cultures over others. Specifically I favor liberal democracy over various kinds of despotism and collectivism. If you're OK with those, then I have nothing to say to you. Oh, and by the way, I'm an immigrant. If we have places in the world where there is very strong prosperity and freedom, that could be jeopardized by a large influx of people from places where the values and education that enable that aren't in place. We happen to be enormously blessed by the time and place we live in. If you think that's automatic and can't be affected by migration patterns, you're living in a fool's paradise. Someone who advocates the cessation of reproduction does so irresponsibly if he or she isn't familiar with the concept of population replacement and the rates of reproduction it requires. Zero population growth is one thing, population decline is another. You're not advocating anything realistic. You haven't accounted for a variety of demographic concerns. You like the idea of "child-free" based on your concern about global overpopulation. Fine. But you're saying that people shouldn't have children because there are children elsewhere who aren't provided for. Well, then, how are we to get them here in sufficient numbers. If you were to say "We should reproduce less and adopt more," that would be reasonable. To say we shouldn't reproduce ignores demographic realities.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:33:58 GMT

I have answered your questions adequately, and yet you have your own agenda.

To further discuss it, here we go -

Your two subjects are these - you want to keep breeding and you want to keep immigrants out.

Your premise is a racist one to begin with.

I do not adhere to the elitist or racist idea that you hold, which is that one culture or another is more worthy.

I'm comfortable with the evolutionary flow of cultures combining by immigration, (however I am concerned about the jobs, the education, and so on as they affect the previous populations and do have solutions to that huge issue in hand and we can address these issues on another thread.)

The thing is this - there are right now ten times too many humans on our planet for it to sustain us comfortably, and the effects are already catastrophic.

I never used the phrase "replacement population" that you keep speaking about - it is your idea and your concern.

Your premise is that since the more developed countries are naturally tending toward zero population growth - that is, people with choices choose most often to have less or no children - and only the lesser developed nations continue to churn out children, that there should be some sort of breeding race to see which ethnic group "wins".

We'd all lose in the end.
We're all losing now.
Human overpopulation is continuing and will until we who can - the more developed nations - step up and assist in educating everyone on the perils of overpopulation, give the people tools to improve their immediate situations, find ways to get birth control into every home and school and church, and all work together on the world's problems.

Some - perhaps you - wish to defend the fact that they've already had children - others - perhaps you - wish to defend their religious or ethnic ideas on procreation.

I'm advocating a realistic, unbiased, unprejudicial approach toward saving the world.

It is revolutionary, yes, and yet it makes perfect sense, for the individual and for the entire world population.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:16:50 GMT

Ocean, It's refreshing to read some of what you say about people neglecting their responsibilities and taking reproduction more seriously. However, you haven't answered either of my questions. While you say we don't need population replacement (we do, even if we aim for a lower overall stable population), you still advocate adopting rather than bearing children. My objection is that this will not work for practical reasons, even if one were to assume that people would do it. Countries who don't maintain replacement levels of reproduction rapidly lose numbers unless they make it up with immigration. The results can be catastrophic. No doubt there are countries that could do with a little population reduction, but that's not the case in the wealthier countries. You have cited religious objections to birth control, but not to adoption.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:08:30 GMT

First of all, we do not need "population replacement".
We need to stop having children and to take care of the starving millions of unwanted children before even thinking of bearing them.
We need to popularize being Child-Free, and for those yearning to parent, to adopt instead of bearing.

Now, to the second part:
Those who want to parent need to understand this - parenting is a pot-luck situation.
If you even pretend to be fit enough to parent, first understand that nothing is guaranteed.
Any type of personality, any type of disability, any type of problem can emerge from the womb in that infant you have committed your life to having.

To have a kid, you've put your own bodily welfare, your looks, your weight, your security, probably your income, and your relationship if there is on, on the line already.
It is still unsafe as hell to have kids, despite all the ones being born.
You never know if you'll be the one who has problems or if the newborn will.

Then, there are all the other sacrifices, for at least eighteen years - and if you're at all a decent person, for life if you, as one family I personally know, have chosen not to send your autistic child to a "home".

It's outrageous to even think of putting a child you have created, had decided or opted out of deciding about by being drunk in the backseat of a car, or something else, or had not thought it out thoroughly and prepared financially and emotionally and every other way for before allowing yourself to get pregnant - and this applies to males as well.

Why should society be left holding the bag for irresponsible people who do not commit to their offspring?
Why should the children - who are the real recipients of the tragedies in peoples' lives when they do not first prepare and commit to that child, however he or she comes out - why should these innocent victims be made to pay for parents' crimes by enduring orphanages or foster homes?

Our entire system needs to be revamped to address this, and at the same time, we need to be able to adopt more easily abroad to help to save the children everywhere.

And at the same time, educating kids on how to be child-free, on how to get vasectomies and tube-tying, on how to value themselves as individuals and how to be emotionally healthy enough to understand that having a stuffed toy to throw around and lean on is entirely different than having a live doll.

Does the average high schooler know that t is as dangerous for women under their mid-twenties to bear children as it is for those nearing menopause?

Do the average kids know how much money it takes to care for a child? How many hours? How much sacrifice?

Not really.

The media with all its' unreal depictions of rosy scenarios and family groupings that kdis crave who've never had anything close to it stupidly associate breeding with home and hearth, with love - and education needs to be created to cut through the mind-control of the media.

These are just some of the issues we need to address.

The realisitc depication you want to vent about is your own reality. Many others have lovely backgrounds and lives with their adopted children.
You are heroic to have adopted at all, and especially, the special needs teens.

There should be more people like you.

It does take a heroine and/or hero to parent at all, and most are not suited to parenting their own or adopted children.

That is one of the two points I wish to popularize here.
The other is that adopting is preferable to having a child of the body for saving the planet.

And Catholicism and other religions urge people, despite the misery and tragedies involved, the health issues, the risks to life, limb, and happiness, to breed incessantly, sans birth control, even to this day.
That failing, then they advocate adopting.
Their idea is to have a hearthful of new Catholics born every moment.
Fundamentalists everywhere still adhere to the ancient mandates to breed - originally instated in order to out-number a tribe's enemies and to endure, conquer by numbers, etc.

This hideous idea is killing our planet and all quality of life.
We need to address human overpopulation as the very first problem of the world.

Only damming the continuous tide of ever-growing humans will protect our planet and our lives.

This is for Dee - I'm not sure whether you receive money for fostering or adopting children, but you should. You are heroic and deserve the respect of all, and I hope you get it.
Allow us here to honor you and all like you - especially the ones who adopt older, less adoptable children.
I'm sure the rewards far outweight the challenges involved.

I myself have no interest in parenting, which makes me right away unfit as a parent.

Since so many obviously do, I, as a child advocate, choose to speak for the kids instead, and to speak up for them.
I am in the position to assist them much more this way than by persnoally caring for only a few, and I adopt from afar by donating money on a regular basis to help children in need, and by continuing to advocate for them and to popularize being child-free - which helps all the other children by freeing up resources and potential parents for them.

Since every child born in developed nations uses the resources of hundreds of kids born to undeveloped nations, simply opting out of the breeding frenzy helps these kids.

To someone like you who likes to parent, and who feels adequate to the great challenge of raising children, anyone who does not personally parent should bow to you, and I do.

I know it's not easy for you - I can tell by your statements that you are giving a lot, but just as I do not run an industrial plant that pollutes and yet I contest their rights to do so and I use my energy to promote environmental healing, so I, as a former child and as a child advocate, do not need to personally parent in order to be able to assist them in getting their needs met.

It seems we two, as adopting advocates, should be on the same side, doesn't it?

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:27:14 GMT

Two questions: What religions are against adoption? How would you address the practical challenges of population replacement by adoption rather than procreation?

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:07:15 GMT

In reference to adoptable children, I was being absolutely truthful and totally realistic. I have THREE adopted children, all adopted from the state as teenagers. There is seriously no way in hell most people could have handled them. My ex-husband couldn't handle them; I parented them BY MYSELF and continue to do so. He was afraid of them and it lead to my divorce. I speak from personal experience. I reviewed the files of many children prior to adopting my boys and they were ALL difficult children. I do not have the time to even start to discuss all the things those boys put me through the first year/year and a half. The only thing that kept them in line was being tougher than them and loving them as much as I do. Luckily I teach martial arts or I would have NEVER got those boys under control. I say all this only because I want you all to understand.

This is real life, not some ideal of what the situation should be like or what happens when someone is adopted as a baby. I have met other people adopted as older children and they have had tough lives, in and out of jail, in and out of bad relationships, until they get it together. You have to understand that these kids were hurt, massively, by disturbed people. Kids don't get into the state welfare system without their cases being extreme. Which means their issues are extreme. Babies are one thing; they are easily molded and can conform to their new surrounding, but there are very few babies up for adoption. Many people do not have the social skills or personal development to handle regular relationships (look at divorce rates) and the kind of boundaries and rules you have to have with highly disturbed kids is very different. It takes a truly different kind of person. Parenting a child from infancy is much easier than trying to cram everything they 'should' have learned or patterned into three or four years on top of the bonding issues.

These kids often don't form strong bonds or attachment with anyone, let alone their adoptive parents, often they don't know how. It is a totally foreign concept and one of the main issues adoptive children have. If a child does not learn to attach early on, it is nearly impossible for them to form attachment later. Luckily, mine have been able to attach, but the attachment is not as much as I would have hoped and I am never called Mom. They have a mother and I am not it...even though I have done more for them than their own 'natural' mother has. Also luckily, I didn't adopt them for kudos or thanks, theirs or anyone elses. I figure you can stand there and complain about how the world is or you can do something about it. I did something about it and I did it for me, too. I did it because I didn't have a reason *not* to. So what is your reason?

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:42:26 GMT

On adopting, yes, I realize it has been made unpopular by some, and that includes religions, who have their own agendas, and that also the safeguards in place within the adoption procedure are there for a sound reason, but look at the foster system too.

Naturally, we need to revamp both systems, and that's one reason we're discussing these issues here.

I think it's cruel and untrue of Dee to have posted such negativities about adoptable children. Several of the most wonderful people I've ever known have been adopted children.

Also, all the negativities you mention about kids also apply to all kids, not merely orphans.
Yes, parenting is not easy. The sane and intelligent people know this, and yet the naive and dreamy people - many of them far too young to even think of successful parenting - use procreation as an unrealisitc idea of how to fix their lives to match those so untrutfully depicted on television or in other media.

Certainly if they used their own backgrounds or neighborhoods as yardsticks to measure their lives with, they'd think twice before considering parenting.

The tragic consequences of these ill-considered matings are children that are cast out onto an over-crowded system filled with flaws.
The children are always the losers here.

I advocate caring more about these innocent kids who've been dropped both by their parents and by our systems.

I advocate adopting rather than having children - as I'd stated before - and this is painfully obvious already - as long as millions of children languish in orphanages or even on the street, starving in most cases, we have no business being so self-indulgent and selfish and egocentric as to even consider having our own children.

Those who need to parent should adopt rather than bear.

Also, rescugin a special needs or a difficult child must be as rewarding a thing as any person can do, and we should all applaud these wonderful people universally and acclaim them as heroes!

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:42:23 GMT

In response to Vince, has anybody here disputed the nobility of adoption? My only point, essentially echoed by Dee, is that it is not realistic to pursue replacement through adoption. Societies will not go extinct by adoption. It would be closer to the truth to say that they will go extinct in the absence of adoption, or by immigration rather than adoption. Adoptive children (at least the very young ones) will be educated into the prevailing culture. The picture will be very different where a population relies on mass immigration to make up population deficit. As I wrote, adoption would be a far better solution if it were practicable. Unfortunately, it is not.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:45:39 GMT

I think it is funny that somehow the church ended up in this discussion...the few global religions that outlaw birth control are on the decline. It is PEOPLE who make these decisions, not a nebulous thing like 'religion' or 'church' or 'state.' Indiviudal decision. Furthermore, the actual number of people who adopt children is pretty slim and everyone can paint whatever rosy picture of it you want, but it is a truly difficult path. I truly get pretty tired of people advocating adoption as nice little babies who will be ever so grateful to not have to live as a burden or on the streets. Each and every state in the US has a few babies and HUNDREDS and I mean HUNDREDS of TEENAGERS...take a look at the New Mexico site www.cyfd.org for example. If you think parenting these kids are easy, you are truly nuts. This is the truth of adoption in the US...teenagers, hard to place kids with emotional problems, very hurt children with tons of issues that you have to be a tremendously strong individual to handle. Most parents of 'natural' children have it easy, way easy. It takes a special kind of person to adopt these children and I don't think most people have the skills or the desire do it. All the love in the world won't 'fix' these kids or make them grateful...good parenting skills AND love can help them become stable contributing adults. This is what you are advocating.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://622622.gaia.com — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:13:53 GMT

with what little i know about anything, i'd have to say, adoption by anyone from anywhere to aid children in need from anywhere is good. i don't care where kids are adopted from or what population statistics say about migration or any of that. i believe in extending compassion to the best of my ability to any living being wherever i am. we're all on this same rock spinning through space togethor. i think it's safe to say that many people will never give up there ability to create more life as long as their churches says to, so extinction by adoption of our give me more now culture here seems not so real. maybe i'm wrong, but i love the willingness of some compassionate americans or anyone in any country to reach out and save a life from suffering. i'd have to say that, again in my opinion, caring for one another across all political boundries will be the only thing to save us from what the big power players of this world seem to have planned for all of earths civilization.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 04:21:54 GMT

Due respect to the admirable ancient culture of the Indus Valley, and all the other cultures that bequeathed us things of value, many of which are no doubt untraceable. Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to say that modern sewerage and indoor plumbing mark a significant improvement on the beta designs of antiquity. Western civilization is hardly innocent, but its sins are not unique. It didn’t invent conquest, exploitation or despoilment, it just succeeded better because of its technological advantages. Happily, the culture also has a strong self-correcting streak. It is true that marriage is less popular, and that single mothers are often poor. But the remedy for that would be to make marriage more, not less, popular so that children are properly supported and that they and their mothers are not stuck with the burden. Where men do take responsibility for their children, those children enjoy the conditions for a stable home. People in tougher economic situations have done better in the past because successful families are not about money, they are about love. But you are right: there is a moral problem in our country that undermines children’s welfare. Funny then that you should prescribe our not reproducing but rather adopting children to introduce them into our sick society. It’s a moot point anyway, because substituting natural children with imported children is grossly impractical in many ways. The fact remains that failing to reproduce is a short route to extinction. The West is indeed importing large numbers of people to make up its shocking population deficit, but that causes problems I have already alluded to. Adoption from the same countries, if it were practicable, would be a far better solution.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:17:31 GMT

First of all, sanitation systems were invented in the Indus Valley region originally, as were many other achievements we enjoy in the West.
We weren't speaking of the entire industrialized world, and no one has suggested that those practices will be abandoned, although it would be wonderful for the planet if that would happen.

By the West, I mean European cultures.
These cultures, for whatever reason, - too vast to explore here - have caused the race to exploit and to destroy the world.
There are many good qualities, of course, and with our modern techniques of data storage, there will never be a time when these are not collected and saved for the future.
Thinking universally, as in "we are all one", which is the best way to think for the future of the world or any human generations, let alone the other species, will lead us to notice what is going on now : ( at least in the West)
marriage is not popular
religions have lost their hold on most of the people
we can all see that the economic situation for individiuals is shaky at best
single mothers are usually povery-stricken

(By the way, I do not advocate abortion, personally.
I advocate vasectomies as the sanest and easiest solution.)

Anyway, the conditions are no longer in place that would ensure a stable home for most children, even in the West.
There will be no loss of our culture, for better or for worse.
Many of us feel "familial" ties with a larger family.
The perceived immortality, which is utter nonsense, of handing down one's genetic heritage, is so egocentric and flimsy an excuse for further burdens placed on a world tottering under the weight of so many humans, is just pathetic.
If someone wants to live on, then contribute something of lasting value.
The momentary thrill of seeing one's own nose on another's face can easily be obtained by observing nieces or nephews or other related people.
Teaching the next ones can be done to unrelated and very needy children.
Contributing to the whole is the real value we can all give.

The major fact is this : we do not need more children as long as there are millions of starving babies and children already alive in this world.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:22:00 GMT

Surely "love of the species,”"like charity, begins at home. We don't love an abstraction ("the species") we love something real; we love other people, and above all, we love our children. And if we love life and enjoy the benefits our forbears we are enthusiastic about doing our part to hold the edifice together, so that others may enjoy the same benefits that were achieved at such a cost for so many who preceded us. All people are the same species but, unfortunately, we don’t all believe in the same things. Some cultures build museums, others don’t. In fact, the preservation rather than the destruction of the artifacts of other cultures is something new and very rare in human history. And it is something worth perpetuating, I would argue. The odd thing about a child-free movement is that it is emerging in the more advanced cultures of the globe, which are currently in a state of population crisis, where most struggle to achieve a replacement level of reproduction. That’s too bad, considering the amazing benefits these cultures have conferred upon the world, making countless lives so much more bearable, pleasant and productive. This is also the cultural segment of the world's population that is most engaged in the project of preserving the natural environment. I suppose one who disagrees with the value of the accomplishments of the industrial world, if they were serious and consistent, would eschew the use of sanitation engineering (i.e., sewers and indoor plumbing), medicine and dentistry, mass agriculture and manufacturing, telecommunications, electricity in general, and anything else that depends on internal combustion, such as computer technology. Never mind about liberal democracy and individual rights, free speech, and the Western literary tradition and the culture’s excellence in the plastic arts. Maybe there is a rationalization for conserving bits of pieces of this while rejecting the culture as a whole, but I haven’t figured out what it might be. Surely a group of people that has lost the will to procreate is in an advanced state of decadence. One has to feel detached from the sources of cultural vitality that resulted in one’s own emergence. Again, consistency seems to require a more thorough repudiation than seems compatible with spreading the word via carbon-burning media, but perhaps that’s a rear-guard practical measure necessary for the greater cause, in the estimation of the cause’s proselytizers. Of course this cause is doomed to the same fate of the shakers. Any culture that refuses to perpetuate itself will soon be extinct.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:31:34 GMT

Yes, and it's also true that fathering is much, much easier than mothering, lol!
One can father an entire population and not even know it!
Until, that is, DNA and accountability - now that the reality check is checking on the child support payments, fathering is finally slowing down.
But not enough yet, but the serial fathering that had caused much of the unbalanced numbers between the sexes is balanced out by the fact that is usually the female, and not the male, who desires procreation, at least in the West.
Cultural die-offs occur frequently throughout history, but the prominence of Western culture, alas, will ensure that at least the worst elements it has inflicted upon the world will not easily be displaced, whether sanity reigns and we stop breeding or not.
What does it matter?
Love for the planet and for all the species, including us, should be the paramount thing.
We're all one specie.
Besides, the more we mix, the more our cultures merge, the more rapport and the greater our understanding. Sharing will bring caring, I think, and as we all work together on the world's problems - each nation - each culture - we will grow closer to really acting like we are one specie.
We have history museums for most of the good stuff anyway.
Meanwhile, back to the millions of orphans - I think they should take precedence in any considerations, whether personal or collective.
Take care of the needy and homeless orphans first if you need to parent would be the kindest thing.
Putting those nurturing instincts to work somewhere else - somewhere they're needed, like in saving the planet - is a much healthier way to go in this state of the world, rather than further adding to the world's misery by creating ever more lives that will mathematically grow, should the planet survive.
The stats are great to know about, though.
In this day of constant bombardment by media and ads with their imperatives to breed, it's sobering to understand that most of us choose not to have children.Now we need to make it popularly known! And make it stylish and chic not to have kids!

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:24:34 GMT

One thing I would like to point out is that this is a statistic out of context. An obvious reason there is a higher percentage of child-free males than females could be that more males are leaving the child-rearing duties to females. You also have to look further into divorce rates and who is actually 'claiming' fatherhood to have comparable statistics...as it is easy to disclaim paternity but pretty damn hard to disclaim motherhood.

Re: 42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:31:31 GMT

Europeans are doing a far better job than Americans at being child-free. However, this has impacted their ability to finance their social programs, which have been built on assumptions of population stability. One of the solutions they have sought is immigration, but the downside of that is that it threatens to remake the social and political character of the continent, and not necessarily for the better. The problem is that far more than flesh and blood are transmitted from generation to generation. The result is that a child-free attitude is a vote for cultural as well as familial extinction. Given what our culture has to offer compared to the alternatives, I would call that a most unfortunate outcome.

42% of American Women are Child-Free!

http://Oceann.gaia.com — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:49:45 GMT

42% of American Women are Child-Free! And a much higher percentage of American men are child-free, so we're clearly in the majority!
It's time to combine and to create a co-alition to protect our rights and to popularize being child-free!