I recently read the little book "On Getting Out of Bed" by Alan Noble (written to encourage people with depression or anxiety) and then read the recent NYTimes series on Embryos, and personally am walking through a season of infertility ... all these plus your post has driven home to me the idea that human life in and of itself is Good - not human life that is healthy, or has a high IQ, or is beautiful or without depression - but all human life.
In the hyper-rationalism / post-Enlightenment of today, it feels strange to say that every time a life is created we witness a miracle - but the fact is that, though we can take steps to create life, we do not create it ourselves; we can only receive it and we have to recognize it as miraculous. That recognition brings a beautiful sanctity to every child's life. I wonder if when many of these fairy tales were first written there was a higher value placed on the holy mystery of creating life. Wondering all of these things alongside you!
I had similar thoughts this past winter when I read aloud The Christmas Carol by Dickens, unabridged, to my kids. Children are shown as so valuable and delightful, a treasure through life. Such a stark contrast with the modern view.
I'm a long time reader who enjoys your writing, at least partially because it is quite articulate and erudite despite my not being anyone remotely resembling a person of faith. I haven't commented before, but as an anti-natalist with a partner who is the same I think you've left out a bunch of us in the no-children-ever camp. Our choice is largely a moral imperative. It's very basic existentialism; life is suffering, so don't foist life upon the innocent unborn.
Amongst the bourgeoisie, the wealthy and privileged classes, yes, perhaps the aversion to having kids might just be "selfishness," but for those of us in the working class (who are often highly educated and identify as either agnostic or atheist) it is quite the opposite. Let me answer, or at least complicate, some of your points:
-We have little if any disposable income and often live paycheck to paycheck, like the vast majority of Americans.
-We have plenty of communities and are not narcissistically individualistic.
-We acknowledge that institutions are crumbling, but that's part of social Darwinism. When an institution no longer serves the people well anymore, the people should move on from it and/or replace it.
-We have longer lifespans, yes, but no matter how long we live on average, it's still immoral to force an entity into existence without its consent, and that's exactly what having kids does. Also, look at who has the most kids in America--our poorest and least educated citizens! That's why we have the idiocracy that we do.
-We agree that families are dispersed and fragmented, but this has nothing to do with our decision not to procreate. We didn't ask to be alive in the first place. As bad as the day-to-day suffering is in adulthood, we see childhood and old age as even more viciously rebarbative phases of life.
-We are right not to trust authority because authority = power and most human beings are very bad at not abusing power. If an authority can prove it deserves respect, we have no problem respecting it, but that respect is given based on competence, a quality sorely lacking in the USA. As per Noam Chomsky (one of you breeders!): It only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them.
-We agree with you on female autonomy. Virginia Woolf (one of us childfree people!) had the right idea, but a room of one's own is a bulwark, not a "comfort."
-We disagree that too much information is killing us. Info is not the problem. It's that people are too lazy, fearful, and sheeplike to turn that information into knowledge or to turn that knowledge into wisdom.
-We agree that we can't conceive of a life where forcing people to exist could be fulfilling or joyful, but we are not chasing money or ephemerality. We like and need work, work is good, but we want to reduce the sum total of anguish and abuse and misery in the world (so we're not with you on the virtues of "suffering and hardship").
-We see children as neither burdens nor gifts. We see them as fellow endurers of this firmament, outside of which there is nothing.
Thank you, as always, for good brainfood. And you continue to have fine taste in literature (I think re: this week's bookshelf, Ms. Levy is on Team Breeder while Ms. Zink is Team Childfree).
I think you could add to your list of what’s changed since the Brothers Grimm is the fact that women are, yes, emancipated and have more agency, but are also increasingly recognized (sometimes, at least—*sighs deeply*) as valuable contributors to society in roles that extend beyond mere childbearing. In other words (very crudely put!), perhaps women once desperately wanted children because it was one of the only ways they could be seen as having worth and value.
Something I’m personally working on as a mom is being less apologetic for the public chaos my three little ones bring to nearly all the spaces they inhabit. I’m trying to learn to embrace it, champion it, celebrate it. For me, that starts with recognizing just how deeply I’ve been conditioned to assume a constant posture of apology for their rambunctious, spirited existence. I’m a people pleaser, and those roots run deep.
This line is a helpful reminder of the importance of uprooting those toxic frameworks: “We tend to see them as sticky nuisances instead of what they might actually be: an eternal joy, a legacy, an unfolding new life.” Thank you. Beautifully put.
Thanks for writing this, Abby!
I recently read the little book "On Getting Out of Bed" by Alan Noble (written to encourage people with depression or anxiety) and then read the recent NYTimes series on Embryos, and personally am walking through a season of infertility ... all these plus your post has driven home to me the idea that human life in and of itself is Good - not human life that is healthy, or has a high IQ, or is beautiful or without depression - but all human life.
In the hyper-rationalism / post-Enlightenment of today, it feels strange to say that every time a life is created we witness a miracle - but the fact is that, though we can take steps to create life, we do not create it ourselves; we can only receive it and we have to recognize it as miraculous. That recognition brings a beautiful sanctity to every child's life. I wonder if when many of these fairy tales were first written there was a higher value placed on the holy mystery of creating life. Wondering all of these things alongside you!
I had similar thoughts this past winter when I read aloud The Christmas Carol by Dickens, unabridged, to my kids. Children are shown as so valuable and delightful, a treasure through life. Such a stark contrast with the modern view.
Hi AFP,
I'm a long time reader who enjoys your writing, at least partially because it is quite articulate and erudite despite my not being anyone remotely resembling a person of faith. I haven't commented before, but as an anti-natalist with a partner who is the same I think you've left out a bunch of us in the no-children-ever camp. Our choice is largely a moral imperative. It's very basic existentialism; life is suffering, so don't foist life upon the innocent unborn.
Amongst the bourgeoisie, the wealthy and privileged classes, yes, perhaps the aversion to having kids might just be "selfishness," but for those of us in the working class (who are often highly educated and identify as either agnostic or atheist) it is quite the opposite. Let me answer, or at least complicate, some of your points:
-We have little if any disposable income and often live paycheck to paycheck, like the vast majority of Americans.
-We have plenty of communities and are not narcissistically individualistic.
-We acknowledge that institutions are crumbling, but that's part of social Darwinism. When an institution no longer serves the people well anymore, the people should move on from it and/or replace it.
-We have longer lifespans, yes, but no matter how long we live on average, it's still immoral to force an entity into existence without its consent, and that's exactly what having kids does. Also, look at who has the most kids in America--our poorest and least educated citizens! That's why we have the idiocracy that we do.
-We agree that families are dispersed and fragmented, but this has nothing to do with our decision not to procreate. We didn't ask to be alive in the first place. As bad as the day-to-day suffering is in adulthood, we see childhood and old age as even more viciously rebarbative phases of life.
-We are right not to trust authority because authority = power and most human beings are very bad at not abusing power. If an authority can prove it deserves respect, we have no problem respecting it, but that respect is given based on competence, a quality sorely lacking in the USA. As per Noam Chomsky (one of you breeders!): It only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them.
-We agree with you on female autonomy. Virginia Woolf (one of us childfree people!) had the right idea, but a room of one's own is a bulwark, not a "comfort."
-We disagree that too much information is killing us. Info is not the problem. It's that people are too lazy, fearful, and sheeplike to turn that information into knowledge or to turn that knowledge into wisdom.
-We agree that we can't conceive of a life where forcing people to exist could be fulfilling or joyful, but we are not chasing money or ephemerality. We like and need work, work is good, but we want to reduce the sum total of anguish and abuse and misery in the world (so we're not with you on the virtues of "suffering and hardship").
-We see children as neither burdens nor gifts. We see them as fellow endurers of this firmament, outside of which there is nothing.
Thank you, as always, for good brainfood. And you continue to have fine taste in literature (I think re: this week's bookshelf, Ms. Levy is on Team Breeder while Ms. Zink is Team Childfree).
-Sean
Ah, thank you for your thoughts on this. A colleague shared The End of Children article with me this week, so it’s been top of mind for me.
I also read In Praise of Unruly Children in Church (https://www.christiancentury.org/voices/praise-unruly-children-church) earlier this week. It offers a refreshingly open-minded pro-child perspective that feels like more and more of a rarity these days.
I think you could add to your list of what’s changed since the Brothers Grimm is the fact that women are, yes, emancipated and have more agency, but are also increasingly recognized (sometimes, at least—*sighs deeply*) as valuable contributors to society in roles that extend beyond mere childbearing. In other words (very crudely put!), perhaps women once desperately wanted children because it was one of the only ways they could be seen as having worth and value.
Something I’m personally working on as a mom is being less apologetic for the public chaos my three little ones bring to nearly all the spaces they inhabit. I’m trying to learn to embrace it, champion it, celebrate it. For me, that starts with recognizing just how deeply I’ve been conditioned to assume a constant posture of apology for their rambunctious, spirited existence. I’m a people pleaser, and those roots run deep.
This line is a helpful reminder of the importance of uprooting those toxic frameworks: “We tend to see them as sticky nuisances instead of what they might actually be: an eternal joy, a legacy, an unfolding new life.” Thank you. Beautifully put.
Add to the list:
* Fun had not been invented yet.
* Your children were your retirement plan.