That is the question. It is not an easy question. It is a question made difficult because of instinct inherent in our biology and the assumptions inherent in our culture. We all have assumptions. The nature of assumptions, of course, is that we don't question them. In fact, many times we don't even realize when we are acting on our assumptions. Then, when any one of us questions an assumption, the reaction of others may range from a puzzled look to out-right hostility. The question of whether or not to reproduce is one such assumption. To complicate matters, our biological selves give us an impulse - an instinct - to reproduce. It is difficult to make a decision contrary to our biological impulses, for example, in case of a hunger strike. When we act contrary to our biology, we must allow our higher selves - our minds and our souls - to rule. We have to be willing to research, read, study, and reflect on the best course of action and be willing to follow through on the conclusions our reason and hearts show us. If our unique, individual contemplation shows us a way that seems to run contrary to culture and biology, then we may feel that much explanation and reason is required from us in the face of overwhelming beliefs and impulses that differ from our contemplation. This extensive soul searching and explanation is not just for defending ourselves against others, but for helping each of us, in our own mind, make a final decision.

I believe that either lifestyle is acceptable. As I will illustrate later, if you choose to have children, consider stopping at one, or maybe two, at the most. In light of our current world overpopulation problem, however, I will show that it is probably best not to have any children. Most cultures encourage reproduction, as does our own. Because we live in such a society, I believe that there is no need to justify progeny. Precisely for the same reason - that we live in a pronatalist society - I believe that it IS necessary to justify and place at ease those individuals that choose a childfree lifestyle. The single person, the homosexual person, and the heterosexual couple who choose not to reproduce are examples of a childfree lifestyle. I do not offer an academic discourse here. I wish only to present a few facts, then point you to more. I speculate a lot and rely mostly on reasoning alone. I do not want to be "right." My goal is simply to stimulate your own reflection and to let you know that someone else "out there" might have thoughts similar to your own. I want to let you know that it's OKAY to be childfree!

Of course, this all begins with our biology. In fact, the assumptions we have as a pronatalist society no doubt begins with biology. It's axiomatic that individuals reproduce to insure the survival of the species. The assumption that we will "grow up, get married, and have children" is no doubt rooted in this instinct to reproduce. This assumption is just our brain verbalizing our biology. It is time now to use our brains as more than a mere middleman. It is time to use our minds to consciously to guide our own evolution. We should no longer blindly follow biological mandates. Other species have natural predators and environmental factors that keep their population under control. If that doesn't work, as humans, if its applicable, we will step in and allow "open season" hunting. We do not currently have a species that assumes dominion over us that would force some population control on us.

Actually, I believe that the Earth itself will deal with us. If we do not control our pollution and ravenous consumption, Earth will strike back. Perhaps the ozone hole will widen. It doesn't matter if you believe that this is a natural, cyclical occurrence or not. Maybe our pollution contributes to its widening. Perhaps rampant skin cancer will convince us to control our population. More flooding lately? Nascent evidence of the Green House effect? Another natural cycle? If its a natural cycle, does our pollution contribute to it also, making it more dramatic in nature? I don't know. The Earth has its devices. And the Earth may not be very gentle about it. I believe that the whole process of our population control would be more pleasant if we used our intelligence and will to manage it ourselves.

The world is currently overpopulated. We have already surpassed the planet's ability to sustain our species. The Cornell University Alumni News has a wonderful article written by Hillel J. Hoffmann about the overpopulation problem. The article includes many helpful facts, figures and even a link to a graph constructed with ASCII characters. The most salient concerns from Hoffmann's article to me are: The fact that it takes about 1.25 acres of crop land to support each person worldwide. With the current world population of over 5 billion, we are currently down to 2/3 of an acre of crop land per person. Many of us think right away, "Well, I'll just have 1 or 2 children," but consider: Each child born in an industrialized country consumes 10 times as much of the Earth's resources as a third world child ("To Breed or Not to Breed"). Thinking that having only 1 or 2 children is "OK" in an industrialized society is simply wrong.

We could continue discussing facts and figures, but I think you get the picture. Check the above Web sites for more reading! I have been discussing facts and figures as a way of providing understanding to combat biological impulses. What probably concerns us more are our personal feelings about it: what other people are thinking; what our personal reactions are to what others think; and our feelings about not having any children at all. Most of our feelings about being child free are probably based mostly on others' actual or projected reactions or thoughts. Some displayed reactions from others are no doubt based in biology also. Consider: Frequently an animal is considered to have reached maturity once it reaches an age when it is capable of reproduction. The animal is most useful to us when it actually conceives and gives birth; We now have another animal to eat or produce for us. Subconsciously, we could be applying these same assumptions to one another as humans. We are not fully mature, useful, or productive until we have reproduced! This is the reaction some Web authors on this subject report: They are not treated as mature because they have not had children!

Of course this idea of needing to have children to prove your maturity is ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is probably true. That is, if you don't have children you are probably more likely to be a generous, caring, energetic, mature adult. As noted by other Web authors on this subject, even the word "adult" stimulates a negative reaction in us. "Adult" all too often refers to a truncated process. The individual was in the process of maturing, then the process was cut off. The individual became physically mature, but emotionally and spiritually the process was aborted. The process, many times, is aborted due to the individual reproducing. The growth and maturation process is cut short as the individual now must turn his or her attention to the physical needs of the new young. What we have, then, are emotional and spiritual children raising children. Again: Physically we mature better than ever. The height of a human is greater than it ever has been. In industrialized nations, on a general basis, our health is excellent with increasing life expectancy. Intellectually, we have proven ourselves with trips to the moon, routine flights of the space shuttle, and computers. Where we lack, of course, is spiritual and emotional maturity. Industrialized countries possess a disproportionate balance of world wealth and resources while other countries starve. We feel good about loaning and donating money to disadvantaged countries, but their plight continues. What we really need is a complete overhaul of world socio-political and economic systems. Where is our courage and willingness to change that would provide the help needed for such a major overhaul? We gulp hard as we contemplate giving up much of what we've earned to help some else. What about us? We don't want to give up any of our security. But it's exactly this type of emotional and spiritual growth that's needed to insure the survival of our species on this planet.

On an individual level, we pass on our emotional and spiritual immaturity to our progeny. Transactional Analysis, which grew out of the Gestalt school of psychology, has a concept called the "family script." Each family has one. It includes how that family has learned to interact with one another. For good. Or for worse. The script is passed on from generation to generation, each generation modifying the script according to the combination of scripts brought together by the parents. We always have high hopes for our offspring -- that they will become so much more than we are. We can mean this not only materially, but socially and emotionally as well. But how can they when they are receiving our own faulty hybrid family scripts? Their growth is stunted from the beginning. So, right now, if you have children, realize that they will probably be no better (or worse) of a person than you! You are passing on all of your hang-ups and limiting beliefs to your children, so how can they really be dramatically different from you? I do not wish to paint a pessimistic, gloomy picture of the future. Instead, I wish to illustrate the importance of a childfree lifestyle. A childfree couple is free to continue their development, to become more fully adult. More fully human. To be more fully human means not to loose the inner child. It means to nurture that inner child. To keep it alive alongside maturity and a sense of responsibility. A most envied and admired adult is frequently one who has not lost his or her sense of wonder, of curiosity about the world; of honesty, humor, and spontaneity. They are energetic. These characteristics are mixed in with a mature - but not stifling - sense of responsibility to produce an energetic, positive personality. They have a side that is childlike. This is childlike and NOT childish. Childish indicates a lack of maturity. Childishness describes a juvenile personality. Childlike is positive. Childlike implies certain characteristics of a child, such as total trust, honesty, and acceptance. Children are not judgmental, nor are they prejudicial. They possess spontaneity. And so on. To be a fully adult human is to keep to these wonderful childlike qualities alive, and mixed in with the virtues of maturity such as diplomacy, discretion, self control, and so on.

We all, male and female, to some degree, possess a nurturing side. Use this impulse to nurture yourself and cultivate childlike qualities in yourself. Doing so will create a legacy that will live on with much greater impact on the world than producing a child with another defective family script: You can create an example as a growing, positive, self-disciplined adult who has not lost his or her childlike qualities. These childlike qualities may unwittingly and positively influence others working on creative solutions for humankind's problems. Or, of course, perhaps YOU will build on these qualities to create solutions to the world's problems. This is an alternative to reproducing: Parenting yourself. Help yourself. Help yourself to overcome your own childhood pain and growth truncation. See and understand your own spiritual and emotional needs. Heal thyself. Then you will have the patience, objectivity, and insight to help others heal. You may have an impact on a precious few people at your place of work, in your neighborhood, or in your family. But it's a start. It's a start we must all make if we wish to continue using this planet.

Even though the fate of the planet is at stake, the childfree choice can still be a sensitive subject. When it comes up, the most frequent response is: "Isn't that selfish? Isn't it selfish NOT to have children?" In short, the answer is.... "No." It is not selfish. As indicated earlier, if humans don't stop reproducing, we will choke the planet. The Earth's population control measures for Homo sapiens may not be too pretty. So, by ceasing to reproduce, we are improving humankind's chances of survival on the planet. Is THAT selfish? Is helping humankind to survive selfish? But, even though this argument is TRUE, it is quite academic and probably does not satisfy our emotional, instinctual side. So, lets delve into this selfishness issue a bit more.

I have been concerned about selfishness for a long time. From the beginning, from the time I was in college, I never really wanted to have children, and the thought that I was being selfish always nagged at me. After college, I married. We (and I do mean we - i.e. we both had the same feelings) vacillated between not wanting children and being ambivalent about it. During two or three periods of ambivalence, we actually tried to conceive a child with no results. From time to time, as we considered the issue of children, I would ask my friends and associates about it. Why did they have children? They responded with: "I wanted the experience." "I do not want to be lonely in my old age." "I wanted someone to take care of me in my old age." "It just happened; It was an accident." "I wanted the affection of a child." "I wanted someone to look up to me." And so on. I noticed early on that most of their reasons began with "I." That is, it was what was good for the adult. The desire of the adult was the overriding concern. It's also interesting to note that people are very willing to pay the 180,000 dollar (or so) price tag, per child, for having and raising a child to get these selfish needs fulfilled. Anyway, I have witnessed a couple of my siblings get divorces. They haggle over who has the children when, where, and for how long, as if the children are a computer and they are fighting for their time-share. Each complains that the other "won" if they don't get the money or the time with the children they asked for. Well, what about the CHILDREN? How much money do the CHILDREN need to maintain their current lifestyle at each parents' house? What is best for the CHILDREN when constantly changing residents? And so on. The parents are children themselves, arguing over who gets to keep the money and who gets to have more of the kids' time and affection. I hear parents "selflessly" volunteering to help with Little League baseball. The parent says, "You don't know how good it feels when those little brown eyes look up at you and ask you how to do it." Who's benefiting? The child, or the volunteer parent who's seeking validation that they are indeed grown-up and smart from a . . . CHILD? There's currently empirical evidence to support the idea that having children is selfish. In 1992, two psychologists interviewed hundreds of couples on their reasons for having or not having children. ( Results & Commentary) Their conclusions support the notion that having children is selfish.

In other cases, the child or children were an "accident." In online excerpts from the book "Childlessness Transformed," Debra Kaye states: "In 1975, when Ann Landers' reader/parents responded to her poll on whether they'd have children if they could choose again, 70% of 50,000 said "no". Though perhaps not a fair sampling because the disgruntled may tend to be more vocal, it is nevertheless a telling percentage." How many of these children were "accidents?" At best, these "accidental" children are a product of irresponsibility, ignorance, or instinct. I do not mean to use the words "irresponsibility," "ignorance," and "instinct" in a malicious fashion. Instead, I use them as indicators of a need. A huge need. An educational need. One cannot be responsible for something until one becomes aware of it. One cannot act from informed consent until the void of ignorance has been filled. One cannot act according to reason until instinct is mastered through responsibility and information. We need education. Not just sex education. A complete education. Why do you suppose that, usually, the more educated one is, the fewer children one produces? Perhaps this is because the educated are more likely to see a larger picture. To see the impact that an ever-increasing population has on the Earth based on scientific exploration and projection. I do not wish to indicate that this level of awareness is the exclusive province of the educated. One can be very aware and informed without a formal education. The indication here is that education apparently helps to stimulate awareness and related, informed action. YOU may not need a formal education for this! Anyway, the explaining of the mechanics of birth control is relatively simple. Providing the motivation to use it is the greater challenge.

Please note: The childfree choice can be very selfish, also. The couple may want their money to fulfill their own personal material dreams. They don't want to do the work that a child requires. They don't want to make the 18+ years of commitment to a child. And so on. My point is this: BOTH choices have selfish elements. In fact, there probably is very little any of us do on this Earth that is NOT selfish. We instinctually take care of "number 1" first. This is different from having a good self-esteem or having healthy feelings about oneself. Taking care of "number 1" is based on security needs - The need for survival. The brain construes almost everything into a support of, or an interference with, personal survival. One possible example: You are with your child in a toy store. The child wants a $2 toy in a bubble pack. You say "no." Why? Why do you instinctually say "no"? Because if you say "yes," the child may want something bigger. And as it grows older, something bigger still. And bigger. And so on. If you spend all of your money on buying what the kid wants, then how will you survive? All this train of thought, most of it no doubt subconscious, over a $2 toy. This example is rather fantastic, speculative, and ridiculous, but I believe it illustrates how the brain can work. So, are we "damned if we do, and damned if we don't?" No. Just realize that both lifestyles are OK. Realize that being childfree is OKAY! Furthermore, I hope that I have illustrated that one lifestyle is not superior over the other. I do not wish to imply that a parental lifestyle is inferior or degrading compared to a childfree lifestyle. The best choice between those two is probably best based on our current world overpopulation problem. Remaining child free will help the survival of our species!

Another rather personal issue is "passing on the family name." This issue is a very real concern to me. I have four sisters. I am the only male child. All my father's brothers either had no children or, they too, had only one male offspring. So, I have only 2 male cousins beside myself to pass on the family name. One has already given up, having had three girls. I have chosen to remain childfree. This leaves passing on the family name to the one remaining cousin. I have made the choice to be childfree, of course, because I believe that passing on the family name is a very base need. I believe that it dates back to, and is related to, a clan or tribal mentality. Next to survival of self is the survival of the group -- a tribe or a clan. A most common way to identify one's clan is with a last name. Of course this surname identified a family within a clan. It is passed on from one generation of males to another; thus it has become a masculine duty. Even the word "surname" contains the sound for "sir," referring to a male. Women, of course, did not retain their surname. As I see it, women were, in effect, passed from family to family or clan to clan as reproductive vehicles. Passing women among clans helped to prevent inbreeding and incest. The surname also helped to distinguish one group from another to also prevent inbreeding. Today, women are choosing to no longer accommodate this arrangement. They are bestowing their surname upon a child if its a girl, or the surname of the male parent if its a boy. So, now, what's the point? Theoretically, a lineage of girls will all have the same surname for generations. Regardless, I believe it is time to raise our consciousness above the tribal mentality. It is time to see ALL human beings as our brothers and sisters, regardless of bloodlines or race. I know this sounds rather unreal, but I believe that by striving to adopt this kind of attitude, the human race will contribute to its own survival! The recent trend towards women retaining their surname in marriage and passing it on to female progeny helps to encourage this.

I believe that "passing on the family name" and the practices surrounding it helped to form current female beliefs about reproduction. Women's identity was essentially lost upon acceptance of a new surname at marriage. How were they to maintain a sense of identity? A sense of self? Through reproduction, of course! Thus, with no loyalty to a particular name for identity, women began connecting their feminine identity with reproduction. To be fully feminine, they must have a baby. It is time now to see through this.

It is time to examine our motivations for reproduction. It doesn't matter if your motivations align with the preceding. Simply examine them. The world cannot support an endless number of humans and their ravenous consumption of its resources in search of perfect security (i.e. survival). Overpopulation, therefore, is a major concern. Nonetheless, what will always be MORE important are our own personal feelings. If you really want children, then have a child or two and realize that should do. Think: "A child or two will do." I agree with the clear implication made by James Redfield in his novel, The Celestine Prophecy: For proper, healthy child rearing, there should be no more than 1 child per adult. Realize also, that if you really don't want children, that's OK too. Given our current overpopulation problem and the pollution and unbridled consumption of natural resources it causes, no children is probably the better choice. I understand fully that being child free is not an easy choice to make. We have social and biological pressures to the contrary. I vacillated for 14 years before finally admitting to myself that the ONLY reason I would have a child would be to give in to cultural and family pressure to do so. To give in to those pressures would only produce a very unhealthy situation for me, my wife, and any children we may have produced. I'm sure my repressed resentment of the whole situation would have made life miserable for us all. I also saw that the cultural tendency of assigning selfishness to childlessness creates unhealthy pressure to have children. Finally, I realized that family pressure to pass on the family name as just that -- undue pressure. And, after examination of the motivations and pressures involved, I finally saw my desire NOT to have children is really OK. We all act selfishly. If I can be selfish AND contribute to the survival of the human race through preservation of the planet, then that's great!

There are still more issues surrounding this question. There is one I have already mentioned several times: Spirituality. Reproduction and spirituality somehow became linked. It's rather silly really: Spirituality and reproduction related? I suppose, for Christians, this link was established when God said: "...Be fruitful, and multiply, ..." (Genesis 1:28). I only wish now He would have added: "...but only to the point of choking the Earth to death, then STOP!" Also note that St. Paul clearly implied that it's probably better not to marry! Consider I Corinthians 7:37-38:

"Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better." (emphasis mine).

As you study, contemplate, and reflect, make the decision for YOURSELF first, then with your spouse. That is, make sure YOU are comfortable with the decision within yourself first. This is especially important if you follow through on your decision to be child free with voluntary sterilization. Make sure YOU are comfortable with it. Consider all angles as they affect YOU: What if your spouse were to die and you remarried? Is it possible you could want children then? Consider age in relation to all the issues that arise. And so on. Complete and sincere honesty with yourself is of the utmost importance here. If you elect voluntary sterilization, it is, of course, and after all, permanent. Even though we suffer overpopulation, being completely child free may not be for you. Just remember: "One or two should do," then reconsider after one.

I know this sounds selfish, but there are definite material benefits to controlling our population. First, realize that the Earth is more or less a closed system. Think of water in a sealed container. Water will evaporate into the atmosphere above its surface until an equilibrium is attained. At that point, the amount of humidity in the area above the surface remains constant. There is as much moisture condensing on the sides of the container and running back into the water as there is water continuing to evaporate. It has stabilized. It is now a closed system. There is constant change as water molecules leave the surface and as many condense on the sides, but the total amount of liquid and vapor water has stabilized. The Earth is essentially that same thing. Water literally evaporates from the oceans and rains down on the land. The rain and snow water gather together and run back to the oceans. And so on. Earth is essentially a closed system. Consider now modern living with all its comforts, conveniences, and security -- and all the pollution it produces based on our current large numbers. Remember: We're living in a closed system. Where does the pollution go? No where, of course. What if we were to substantially reduce our numbers? Maybe we could maintain, and even increase our modern comforts, along with all the pollution they create, but because of our lower numbers, the pollution would occur at a rate that the Earth could "absorb" (that is, effectively recycle). What a concept! Comfort and security with purity! (but only with fewer numbers).

There is a common belief about our economic security: "Grow or die." We have believed for a long time that we must "grow or die." If we're not increasing the size of our company, we will surely, eventually, die. This idea may be subconsciously applied to to population: If we're not increasing the size of our population, we may eventually die. I say, based on the closed system idea and overpopulation, that our new cry for security should be: "Stabilize and live." We no longer need to keep our population growing in order to avoid death of the species. At this point, we need to stabilize and live.

Hoffmann, Hillel J. "WAY TOO MANY FOR US." Cornell University Alumni News, June 1994. Population projections in article updated on 17 October 1996 by Wayne L. Pendley.

"To Breed Or Not To Breed." A collection of readings on population, procreation, and the meaning of life.

"Selfish." The Child Free by Choice Pages.

"CHILDLESSNESS TRANSFORMED: Stories of Alternative Parenting." Jane English, Editor.