TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Double Income-No Kids (DINKS)

Quite a few couples these days opt for 'no kids'. Some say this is a dangerous trend, some simply call it a 'personal choice' while some say its a mindless decision taken initially, but regreted later ! Should having kids be regarded as a 'natural course' that should be taken by couples and not go against nature or should it become a matter of 'personal choice' !?

Share:
  • thumb
    Feb 1 2014: Some individuals are happiest single, others prefer to be attached but without kids while focusing on personal work, interests, and goals, and others prefer to raise a family alongside whatever else they do. As having a family is the most common of these, it seems questionable to assume that those who depart from the norm must have made the decision mindlessly. People are more likely to follow mindlessly the more common rather than the less common path.
  • Feb 16 2014: The decision to not have kids is not a mindless decision. To follow though with that requires planning, a time investment and education. Some methods require surgery to not have children. I don't think people go into something like that mindlessly.

    That said, it should be a personal choice. It doesn't matter if there is a chance that a couple would regret it later or not. How would something like this be enforced? Marriage laws? A couple is required to have two children by 5 years or they are fined? Would this take into consideration a couple that cannot have children for medical reasons?

    If someone doesn't want a child, selfish reasons or for a reason like they don' think they would be a good parent, why should they be required to have a kid? A culture should not pressure people not equipped to emotionally deal with raising children to have children.

    Personal choice all the way. We go against "nature" everyday. Antibiotics, glasses, shoes, those types of things go against nature everyday.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2014: One of the most pressing problems facing most parts of the world is over-population or population explosion. It may even do the Earth a lot of good if we slow down in having children we can't afford to raise. What's wrong with 2,000,000,00 (2 Billion) as the total population of the world? Now imagine the opposite - What would the world be if the total population is 15,000,000,000 (15 Billion), more than twice of what we have now? This may seem unthinkable, but at the rate the world population is growing, it does not take long before we reach that point. Should we not consider the carrying capacity of our planet Earth? Our great, great, great granchildren will not forgive us if we don't do something about this now.

    It is common among many people to neuter/spray/sterilize their pets because they believe it makes sense. Contraception, natural or artificial, is controversial, to say the least, in some circles. Is having an intelligent discussion and coming up with sensible solutions about ovepopulation not the right thing to do now?
  • Comment deleted

    • Feb 1 2014: Pray tell, what exactly is the limiting factor your assumption of 3 billion is based on?
      • Comment deleted

        • Feb 4 2014: So, life was fine where you lived. First world, I'm assuming; the rest of the world wasn't all that great at the time.
  • Feb 5 2014: It should be a personal choice.
  • thumb
    Feb 1 2014: i'm a dinknw, how about that, bro?
  • Feb 1 2014: If a couple doesn't want to have kids, that's their business.
    Why should anyone else have a say in it?

    If you want more children, offer incentives to have kids, don't punish the ones who opted not to. Its not only friendlier in terms of civil liberties, its also easier to implement.