Why it is important not to have children

"I therefore urge you to do as I did, and have no children."<p>Great, take smart people out of the gene pool. I don't think he's thought through his cunning plan. As he says, he doesn't believe he'll cause everyone to not have children. But the only people who even know who he is are the relatively smarter part of the population, and therefore any of those who act on his advice have just diminished humanity's potential.<p>My boy is the best thing that ever happened to me. I believe the world is a better place for him being in it.<p>Rather than "not have children" be the solution (of smart people, no less!), wouldn't it be better to figure out how to make the lives of all these children more meaningful, and by extension the life and effect of humanity?

He is entitled to his own opinion. I am glad for the four children I have, who I expect will be net contributors to the well-being of humanity.<p>AFTER EDIT:<p>The one reply to my comment here asks a pertinent question, which I hope I have given an adequate answer in a new reply. Meanwhile I will revise this comment to note that, as a subsequent comment has pointed out, there are already many countries in the world with negative population growth and a likely trend that the entire world will reach a peak population and then begin to have declining population while my children are middle-aged (and when I may, perhaps, still be alive). So, yes, RMS is certainly welcome not to have children if he is concerned about what bearing children might do to his family life or to the world as a whole, but I hope HN participants will be open to the possibility that some people choose to have children with their eyes open, knowing the trade-offs, and have a channel through having children to help you, me, and the whole world.

Stallman might not have thought this through or not realized how the pressues of evolution will eventually nullify his choice. For all those who make a conscious decision to avoid having kids, those who are genetically fitter at resisting the urge to reproduce are therefore less likely to pass on their genes. Also, of course those who don't bother resisting or have less genetic inclination to avoid reproducing are more likely to. Thus the next generation will inherit the genes of parents with less resistance to reproduction. Thus if the theory of evolution is true, and all other things are equal, the next generation will be more likely to reproduce. This cycle would repeat until the genes of those who decline to reproduce to save humanity are no longer in the gene pool. Thus Stallmans choice is only effective over a very short number of generations. Not only that, if those who are more likely to decline to have kids is a good quality, they are actually hurting future generations by removing themselves from contributing it to future generations. This is of course their right. This is not a new idea, the idea that population controls are doomed to failure is main idea of the novel 'The Mote in God's Eye' by Niven and Pournelle. The problem is real of course. However, when considering reproduction, which is so intimately tied with evolution, perhaps one should be aware of the consequences of evolution or possibly even use it when trying to solve the problem. Unless those who have fewer offspring are more likely to pass their genes on to the next generation, those in the next generation will have genes that favor more offspring.

I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle. You should decide on a child based on your situation and desires.<p>Also, more people isn't always a bad thing, even in an overpopulated world. If a person is a net gain for society, then it would be a loss not to have him born. If you're healthy and are willing and capable of raising a child in nurturing family, please do so. A well raised person can offset his impact on the world and contribute even more than they take.

&#62; First of all, it disregards the tremendous disaster that global heating and destruction of the natural world are leading towards. 30 years from now, large parts of humanity will probably find it hard to get water or food, let alone contraception.<p>Large parts of humanity have always had a problem getting water or food and it had nothing to do with global warming, rather politics, governance, and culture. These will always be a bigger problem.

Wow, all of the fathers are coming out of the woodwork to justify their decisions. I, for one, agree with him. Some levels of dedication aren't possible when your attention is diverted to offspring constantly.

"The human population is expected to grow by 2 or 3 billion by 2050"<p>That is the UN's low estimate.<p>The median UN human population projection estimates that we peak at 10 billion people around 2100.<p>Chart at: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe</a> (I wont pretend wikipedia is a source, the chart could be completely wroing, I have not crunched the numbers at <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm" rel="nofollow">http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm</a> myself)<p>In my personal experience, often when discussing war people will resort to the "there are too many people" excuse if I first convince then that other justifications to kill are invalid.<p>There is an organization that argues the other side of Stallman's reasoning: <a href="http://overpopulationisamyth.com/category/categories/pop101" rel="nofollow">http://overpopulationisamyth.com/category/categories/pop101</a>

He's right, yet to anyone who's seen the movie Idiocracy the problem is obvious. The "hicks, vatos, and homeboyz" aren't going to stop breeding.

Rather similar to VHEMT's reasoning:<p><a href="http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#schopenquote" rel="nofollow">http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#schopenquote</a><p>though RMS states his goal is simply <i>less</i> humans, not <i>no</i> humans.

I don't buy the overpopulation argument. There is good evidence to suggest that after 2050 the human population is going to decline and might reach as low as 2 billion people in the very long term.

&#62; Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money wanted me to do.<p>I don't buy the false choice of GNU/no children or children/no GNU. Why does it have to be either/or?

Well, if that is how you feel about children, not having them is probably a good idea. I'm not criticizing him, even if it might sound like that, just pointing out that his decision might be righ <i>for him</i>.

i hope we overpopulate the heck out of this planet, maybe once we're shoulder to shoulder on every sq meter we'll have the necessary impetus to get off this damned rock...

If you accept natural selection as a theory, the answer is obvious.

Isn't it crazy that the more education a woman has, the fewer children she has? You would hope that the more educated would have more, since they would be better able to care for and educate their children.<p>Darwin would get a chuckle out of this.

This guy. Remember the Monsters of Springfield episode of "The Simpsons"? Where the song was "Just Don't Look, Just Don't Look"? That's how I feel about him. After a decade of rediculous statements and <i>vastly</i> decreasing returns, it's time to stop paying any sort of attention to RMS.

In the beginning there was God, and the Word, and whatever.<p>Then, they were replaced by the Selfish Gene, and Science looked like a winner for a while.<p>Then came Stallman, with His Bright Idea: the Forrest Gump Gene That Watches Other Selfish Genes Thrive, And Then Dies.<p>In the end, Selfish Parrots will eventually inherit the world, and Science will triumph again.