TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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' !?

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • 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?
  • thumb
    Feb 1 2014: Hi, Suyog Joshi!

    I am 58 years old and world human population has risen from 2.75 billion to 7 billion since I was born, and might reach 9.5 billion people by the time I die. My studies make me think that a truly sustainable number of humans on Earth might be around 3 billion people. So, there is the answer to your question, I believe. Frankly I don't see it as being much of a debatable issue, even if people would double my estimate of a sustainable world human population.

    Best!
    • Feb 1 2014: Pray tell, what exactly is the limiting factor your assumption of 3 billion is based on?
      • thumb
        Feb 3 2014: Just a rough guess that that number of ultra-greedy naked killer apes may be sustainable long-term. Any speculation about this is just a guess, so just I just put my gonads in the breeze at took a stab at it. I also actually remember what Planet Earth was like when I was young, and other than nukes, it really was a pretty decent place.

        Families had only one car, eggs, milk, vegetables, produce, were delivered to homes/neighborhoods, schools, stores/shops of all types were within walking distance or bike-riding distance... all that and so very much more that I long for with every fiber of my being as I approach old age, Nadav
        • 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.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2014: Nadav, you must have been as sleepy and grouchy when you wrote your last as I am now - no morning coffee yet!

        1) Since Suyog Joshi didn't mention anything about a standard of living, I'm not sure why you brought it up. I am guessing that he may be from the Philippines or another country in that region where overpopulation is a very real problem, especially for young people considering getting married. He may be right at that age, I'm guessing. Perhaps he can tell us more about that.

        2) The reason I mentioned the population and quality of life in the US middle class in 1960 was twofold: It was much simpler and less affluent than it is today. As I said, US families back then had only one car, so my father, one of the world's foremost jet propulsion engineers, had to car-pool to work with other engineers in our neighborhood. Clothes were passed down through the children and we took only one bath a week. We all worked from about age 10 onward if we wanted to buy things for ourselves our parents could not afford.

        My point was that if there were only 3 billion Earthlings they could all share that standard of living, which was a comfortable and sustainable one, not an overly-affluent one like so many greedy idiots here and those abroad who are trying to emulate those idiots. Are we done here? If you want to examine my personal life-style, read the very beginning of my "Crown of Creation/Crown of Evolution" chat, Nadav, then let me know what your personal standard of living is, in the interest of fairness, of course.

        But a much more relevant question to you would be, "How many offspring have you brought into our over-populated world?" About 35 years ago, looking at the world around us deeply, my brother and I decided not to father children, and so we never did.
  • 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.