More baby talk

It seems as though I managed to stir up the pot quite a bit with my entry a couple of days ago about not wanting to father children. So since there was quite a bit of interests, well thought discussion, I figured we may as well revisit the topic.

First I do want to comment on a comment made by Silentknyght. Since you suggested to leave the biology to the biologists I will. The quote below was taken from the web page of Dr. Robert B. Suter, a biologist:

Monogamy is exceptionally rare in mammals. The mate-assistance hypothesis suggests that males who make a parental investment in their young are usually monogamous. Although fewer than ten percent of male mammals give substantial parental care, most of these exceptional males are monogamous. Males who make a large parental investment increase the likelihood that their offspring will survive and pass on their genetic information, thus it serves the same genetic purpose as the paternal animal not making an investment in his offspring, trying to fertilize as many females as possible, and having many litters with low survival rates. There are rare cases of males being sexually monogamous and not making a large parental investment in the offspring. This is known as facultative monogamy.

A quick search of google or any scientific journal database will yield many hits on the lack of monogamy in nature. So with less than 10% of mammals following the route of monogamy I think it's fair to say that monogamy is in fact a rarity in reproductive strategies. As for bird I have seen instances (Discovery channel) documenting life partnered female birds mating with other males, superior to their own mates. Dr. Suter's page delves into this a little as well, but the point is once again, monogamy is rare.

Now one of the big questions that needs to be asked in this day and age is, should we be having more children? Let's face it, there are a hell of a lot of us as it is. And in western nations the amount of energy and material consumption per person is greater than anywhere else in the world, do we need to have more people using up more resources?

I'll agree that there is a need for there to be a generation after mine, if only so that there is someone around who will be capable of changing my diapers when I'm old and decrepit. But with the worlds population growing at the rate it is, does it make sense for those of us who do not benefit from having children to do so?

You see there is a point to having lots of children, if you have farm land and need cheap labour. As long as they can help produce more food/profit than they can consume, it's worthwhile to have kids. In a western economy where children are simply an expense is there a need to have them? Some may say that they are part of the economy, and they are, but hey without kids I think the amount of money I will pump into good restaurants and bike shops will be a hell of a lot more. Plus I sure as hell won't be saving any money in the form of inheritances, I'll be spending it all.

But yes, we need another generation of consumers to keep things going. So why don't we follow the example set by the business world, we could out-source! Interestingly enough, the countries that seemed to have already profited from the business world out-sourcing are likely to be the ones that will benefit from baby out-sourcing. The only down-side to the whole thing is that the babies won't be in the consumer's favorite colour, too bad about that social hang-up, I think I was really onto something there.

So I guess that if we do want things to keep functioning we will need to have another generation or two. But in doing so, is there a bit of a class distinction between those who chose to have kids and those who do not? I think that there is the prevailing attitude in society that if you are not having children there is something wrong with you, physically or mentally. Perhaps this will change, after all, there are certain going to be more and more gay couples and generally that seems to prevent the whole procreation thing. But for those who are heterosexual I could easily see the act of not having children as being selfish. But is it really? After all, if it's selfish not to reproduce is it any less selfish to only have 2 kids and not 12? To me the choice to not have kids is no more selfish than choosing to have them. After all, I'm not only impacting my life by having them, eventually they will leave the house and inflict themselves upon the rest of the world. The choice to have children is a method to fulfill a desire, which by it's nature is a selfish act. Choosing not to have children is simply a sign that the desire is not there.

So I suppose I will end this post on this note, if you feel like commenting, do you think that there is a social stigma attached to those who chose not to have children? Or am I just becoming paranoid with my old age?