Captain Capitalism calculates the ROI on a vasectomy.  Sadly, he only bases the calculation on the costs of children but fails to take into account any benefits whatsoever, from societal to individual.

His comments are highly informative to the debate actually.  Some commenters of like mind express their disdain for reproductive outcomes (though they clearly enjoy the process).  It was interesting to read a couple of commenters point out a drawback to pursuing permanent birth control may be an increased likelihood of decreased pleasure - both in the case of the removal of a uterus and in the tying of the vas.

It is common in North American culture to see only the net expense of children, but it shouldn’t be surprising.  Considering only the immediate ramifications of anything is a major downfall of our collective thinking, and is certain to bring about the downfall of our civilization.  Most of the best arguments against the childlessness position are based upon the long term consequences of such decisions.  I will concede that Captain Capitalism’s numbers on the TCO of children are legitimate.  However, there are major rational arguments for childbearing, despite the cost.

Demographics

Steyn makes the point: since we’ve turned to immigration to keep our populations trending upward, we are dealing with higher and higher assimilation costs as the places in the world that have excess populations are more and more foreign to the western style of life.  We are also facing the consequences of cultures and religions that in some cases actively work against the organization of our western free state.  If we don’t have kids, in a few decades our countries will be transformed into states much like where the immigrants are coming from.  It’s not fearmongering - it is just a statement of fact.  We are spending so much time telling people to not change that sooner or later, we will be the ones to change.

A nation is made up of citizens.  If the citizens all (or mostly) opt individually not to reproduce, they sentence themselves to planned obsolescence in 50 or so years.

Services

We live in a socialist state.  We have very expensive social programs that are designed to give everyone the benefits of familial support even if we don’t have any.  Because people don’t need families to help them health-wise, retirement-wise, we aren’t having kids.  We are trusting in government to be there to prop us up and nurse us as we sicken, and we trust government to give us what we need to live out our lives after we cease to be as productive.  Yes, I know most people don’t expect government to literally have the money in the retirement plans once we get old (though if they keep up the immigration and those immigrants don’t change the face and aims of our government there still might be CPP in 40 years), but I have news for even those people: even with a fat RRSP portfolio, you are still trusting in your government to be your sustainer.  The government manages your currency - that which gives value to your RRSP’s.  The government manages your economy - that engine that sustains the value of your RRSP’s.  The government manages the peacefulness of your society - that which keeps you alive and unaccosted by those who would take advantage of you.  If the government fails on any of those fronts (as governments are wont to do), then you have nothing.  All you can hope for is that you can somehow maintain a prescience about impending societal change, and can get out before you lose out.

How likely is the government to let you down?  Well, let’s see.  How many nations in the world have been in existence for more than 50 years?  Now, subtract all those which have faced wars on home soil in the last 50 years.  Now, subtract all those who faced massive natural disasters on a national scale.  Now, subtract all those who have faced massive civil unrest in the last 50 years.  Now subtract all those who have faced massive economic upheaval in the last 50 years.  How many are left?  What are the odds of your country bucking the trend for another 50?  What I am saying is that in the event of any of the above, your investments in paper and banks will avail you next to nothing.  Only human capital will be of any worth in any of those situations.

Genetics

From a strict genetic standpoint, not having kids is stupid.  The lowest rates of reproduction are found in the highest earning, highest educated, highest standard of living brackets.  Therefore the smartest, wealthiest people in society - the ones who contribute most to the society - will not be replaced.  Their children, should they have them, have the greatest statistical chance of success and adding to the value of society.  But they are not.

Increasingly, it is the ones who are least disciplined, the ones who make the most rash choices, or the ones who simply don’t get it are the ones who are reproducing.  Promiscuous sex, young, unwed mothers, young men with no sense of responsibility, dropouts, seem to be the childbearers of today more and more.  I am generalizing - obviously I have a bunch of kids, and I don’t fall into any of the previous, but the percentage of people having kids that do fall into those groups continues to climb societally.  It is a problem that gets worse with each generation - if your mother was an unwed teenager, the odds are much greater that you will be an unwed teenage parent.  Where does that take us societally?  See the Services section above - it will either bankrupt the system or send the country into chaos sooner or later.

Loneliness

Number one on my hit list is still emotional.  It was something my grandfather found out when he moved into a mature living community.  Those gated communities that don’t allow anyone under 65 to live there?  Those ones.  After he moved in, we were over for dinner one night and he told me that despite all the programs and activities organized by senior’s groups and even the residence, the most consistent indicator of happiness in advanced years was kids.  Those with none were sad.  Those with were not.  Those with none had nobody in their lives.  They had fewer visitors.  They had nobody to give to.  They had nobody to receive from.  As society is increasingly mobile, people live farther and farther from siblings - and when you get old they all start dying anyway.  Friends are not as consistent because they move closer to their families and away from you.  In the end, you are alone.  And they uniformly wish they had kids when they were younger.

There are exceptions to the rule, but it is ludicrous to base your future on being the exception.  That’s like taking the financial argument and saying, “well, I don’t need kids because I will win the lottery and I won’t need financial support.”  Yes, you might live out the perfect storm of friendships and retain some into your advanced years.  But the vaast majority won’t.  At the same time, a person with kids may screw them up so bad that they all hate his guts and never want to see him or her again when they are old.  But they most likely won’t.  It takes a lot to alienate family.  A lot.

Ultimately, the way I see it, there’s a lot of things I can’t control.  But one thing I can control is how I raise and treat my kids.  If I love them, they will love me.  Then, no matter what comes, whether new taxes, no taxes, revolution, recession, I’ll have them to count on.  When I focus on giving emotionally to someone else, then I ensure I will have more in the future.  There are only two reasons not to have kids: 1) believing you will fail to raise them properly (and I don’t fault you for thinking that if you come from a rough background, but I would encourage you to believe in yourself - love is really easy to learn); and 2) believing that you will have to give up something for your kids.  It is true - you will.  But if your reason for not having kids is self-interest alone, well, that’s just sad.  A penny clung to does not give you more money.  Emotions wrapped up in yourself never make you happier.  Only investing in others, giving of yourself -  reliably leads to true happiness.  And that’s what kids are really all about.