I am a man in my thirties. I've decided I never want children. Whenever I go on dates I am keen to bring this up. The reason why I will not have children is because I am an antinatalist and believe more population growth increases suffering, not only because new life can suffer but also because new life causes suffering on other living beings. Something I've always wondered is whether a man who does not have children, ie a childfree man, makes any difference to the total fertility rate or whether it is women deciding to have no children or fewer children that is the primary cause of global drop in fertility rate.
Imagine a room with two men and two women. If all two women refuse to have children, fertility rate is zero. There can be no children without women. However, you might think that a woman needs a man in order to have children, but with fertility technology nowadays women can use sperm donors. There is an excess supply of sperm, virtually infinite. In this hypothetical room, even if all men refused to have children, both women could still access sperm and have babies on their own. However, women need jobs in order to raise babies because they need money. The division of labour in a nuclear family helps with this, assigning one person as the child rearer and the other as the breadwinner. If a woman decides to raise a baby on her own, she faces the struggle of being both breadwinner and child rearer. She arguably needs a man to be a breadwinner assuming she wants to be childrearer. If this is the case then men who would otherwise be good breadwinners, if they refuse to have children, can help reduce fertility rate.
If I am a man who wants to have as much impact on reducing fertility rate as possible, what should I do? I was thinking of early retirement in my thirties or forties so I can engage in full-time advocacy of antinatalism but if this means my job is taken up by a man who needs the job to have more children, I've effectively contributed to increasing birthrate. Perhaps it is best if I stay employed and deny a job for a potential male breadwinner who would otherwise take my job. However, a woman could do my job, so if I deny a woman my job, I may have denied a job for a career woman who ends up being a stay at home mother instead.
Imagine a room with two men and two women. If all two women refuse to have children, fertility rate is zero. There can be no children without women. However, you might think that a woman needs a man in order to have children, but with fertility technology nowadays women can use sperm donors. There is an excess supply of sperm, virtually infinite. In this hypothetical room, even if all men refused to have children, both women could still access sperm and have babies on their own. However, women need jobs in order to raise babies because they need money. The division of labour in a nuclear family helps with this, assigning one person as the child rearer and the other as the breadwinner. If a woman decides to raise a baby on her own, she faces the struggle of being both breadwinner and child rearer. She arguably needs a man to be a breadwinner assuming she wants to be childrearer. If this is the case then men who would otherwise be good breadwinners, if they refuse to have children, can help reduce fertility rate.
If I am a man who wants to have as much impact on reducing fertility rate as possible, what should I do? I was thinking of early retirement in my thirties or forties so I can engage in full-time advocacy of antinatalism but if this means my job is taken up by a man who needs the job to have more children, I've effectively contributed to increasing birthrate. Perhaps it is best if I stay employed and deny a job for a potential male breadwinner who would otherwise take my job. However, a woman could do my job, so if I deny a woman my job, I may have denied a job for a career woman who ends up being a stay at home mother instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment