"The Growing Trend of Childless Leaders" with Pearl Clutching

Edit: Link

People without children are an increasing part of the population, so why shouldn't there be increasing numbers of leaders without children? Also, despite the slur of selfishness, people without children often have more time to put into careers or public service, if that's what they want. But of course this article doesn't see it that way.

Quote

At the end of June, Japan will host the annual G-20 Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy, a gathering of leaders from countries with the most powerful economies in the world, including the European Union. Of the 20 leaders likely to represent member states at the summit, five don’t have any biological children. That number would have been six if Theresa May were still prime minister of the UK.

So 3/4 of them, a significant majority, have children. What's to get excited about over 5, especially when it isn't as if their policies are doing anything to address discrimination against the childfree.

Quote

This trend is even more severe within the European Union. The EU comprises 28 member countries. The number of those countries with childless leaders is now 10. If you include the first minister of Scotland, that number is 11, and, again, it would be 12 if May were still in office. In addition, the current president of the European Commission—the executive branch of the EU—has no children.

Wait, severe? They make it sound like a measles outbreak. (Measles are spread by unvaccinated children, not childfree adults.) Because of course it's a horrible thing to not have a biological investment in the future:

Quote

These statistics reveal that one-quarter of the world’s most powerful leaders and nearly half of the leaders of Europe don’t themselves have a biologically invested interest in the next generation. And the record-breaking low birth rate in the United States demonstrates that the condition of childlessness is becoming increasingly descriptive of the American people in general. For some, of course, not having children is a personal tragedy, but for a growing number, it’s merely a choice.

But what's so bad about that? Well, it seems that it might make you actually yearn for a better world, instead of being satisfied with the status quo and incremental change:

Quote

Having children to care for, though, gives you a more concrete interest in the well-being of both a specific people and a specific place in which to raise them. More importantly, having children offers you an enduring perspective on politics that moderates an otherwise immediate urge for radical justice in regard to all the perceived imperfections in society.

If you know that your children will have to live in the world you leave behind, you’re less likely to burn it down in order to purify it of defects you believe it had when you inherited it. The numberless sacrifices that mothers and fathers make for their children are tangible investments in their children’s well-being and which often redound to the benefit of their community. This investment constitutes a vested interest in the future that is difficult for the childless to rival.

Incremental change on the topic of the environment has really been working out so well for the well-being of future generations. More nonsense:

Quote

Human beings are wired to be concerned about justice. If they are less attached to their own political community through generational familial ties, they will likely be less concerned about facing and fixing problems in their own town than in showing support for more glamorous global causes.

He then goes on to blame the rise of populism on political elites, who he claims are out of touch because they don't have kids, neglecting the fact that 75% of the leaders responsible for today's policies have children, which obviously undermines his whole argument. Or is he back to the measles again, where one CF person infects the whole batch?

This guy needs to go fuck himself.

Sounds like this guy has a complete inability to feel empathy for anyone that is not himself or his crotch droppings, and he’s projecting that onto everyone else. Just because someone does not have biological children does not mean that they do not care about the next generation having to live in an overheated hellhole or Walking Dead-esque collapsed society. And why the emphasis on biological children? Is he implying that adoptive parents don’t really care about the future of their children, because said children are not little DNA replicants?

I find it frightening that a person like this is raising the next generation, because chances are he will raise them to be as selfish as he has shown himself to be.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name" - George Carlin

Quote
LoveToLurk
Just because someone does not have biological children does not mean that they do not care about the next generation having to live in an overheated hellhole or Walking Dead-esque collapsed society. And why the emphasis on biological children? Is he implying that adoptive parents don’t really care about the future of their children, because said children are not little DNA replicants?

That's breeder logic for you. The only way you can possibly care about the future after your lifetime is if there exists at least one person younger than you with approximately 50% of your DNA. Or maybe 25%, since grandparents aren't accused of a lack of concern about the future. (Even if their children pre-decease them.)

Continuing that logic, having more people genetically close to you should make you care all the more about the state of the world, yet breeders don't suggest that if you have only one child you give less of a fuck than someone with 10 children. So clearly breeder maths isn't some aggregate measure of total DNA close to you in the world, but a simple case of "close DNA = caring, no close DNA = misanthrope".

Of course if a CF person has a sibling that person shares approximately 50% of the CF person's DNA, which means any nieces or nephews share an estimated 25% of CF DNA - the same as a grandparent shares with a grandchild. Yet somehow that fails to confer a concern about humanity on the CF person. Presumably a person raising a much younger sibling or caring for a deceased sibling's children also doesn't care about the future, because it's established that only reproduction matters. (As previously noted, adoption means fuck all, apparently.)

But the strangest thing about the maths to calculate fucks about the future is the transitive property of concern. If you do have a child, it demonstrates that you have a deep concern for all humanity of the future, not only your little bundle of DNA. How does the mere act of reproduction accomplish this, especially in a man, who has to do nothing more than have an orgasm to discover humanism? (Not that I think going through pregnancy makes you a humanitarian, but it is more of a physical investment, which is what the author seems to be arguing makes all the difference.)

Hopefully this author will lay out all the calculations so that we can proceed to correctly evaluate a complete stranger's morals on the basis of the use they have made of their loins, and be properly prejudiced against those who fall short.

I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for the author of this smug, self-serving article.

With climate change rapidly approaching, with entire swaths of the planet to be unlivable in the future, why would you want to make the situation worse by having children? If you truly loved children, how could you in good conscience create them, knowing they will inherit a truly messed up world where the future will be survival of the richest, and fittest?

Now, about the author. Whenever I see articles like this, I always wonder what is influencing the author to write these screeds. Look no further, the internet is a wonderful thing.

Clifford Humphrey is a PhD student at Hillsdale College, ranked as one of the most conservative, and whitest institutions of higher learning in the USA.

https://www.hillsdale.edu/

Here is the author's twitter page: https://twitter.com/cphumphrey
Here is his bio on the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/author/cliffordhumphrey/
Here is his bio at Hillsdale: https://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/graduate-school/clifford-humphrey-2/

The typical Republican mantra of make more babies, babies, babies. The world is over populated as it is, and with AI in our future, we are not going to need large worker populations. Less people will help the planet and will help society. Less people fighting for dwindling resources is a good thing.

Quote
Peace
Here is the author's twitter page: https://twitter.com/cphumphrey
Here is his bio on the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/author/cliffordhumphrey/
Here is his bio at Hillsdale: https://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/graduate-school/clifford-humphrey-2/

I forgot to link to The original article. Oops. But I see you still found it.

And yet so many breeders are happy to fuck over the earth and every living thing on it so long as the worst repercussions hit after they die. Breeding doesn't make you compassionate or empathetic/P(DN)MYABP.

yeah, I have observed that most of my childed friends have the LEAST interest in recycling or other ways of (possibly) watching out for the planet's future welfare.After all, they are just to BIZZY with their cum trophies to actually DO anything to benefit ALL people.

Wow. After reading that whole screed, my IQ just dropped a dozen points. It’s almost funny how terrified Breeders are re: the coming Childfree apocalypse. You’d think they would be glad that our non-kyds won’t take what their spawn rightly deserve. Is it really so hard to believe that not everyone wants the same things in life? Too many breeders can’t empathize with people who just aren’t interested in the LifeScript. Or worse, believe we have nefarious motives for not reproducing.

I conclude that my efforts to care about the planet and its creatures basically mean jack shit because I have no DNA replicants. Therefore, if I want to do more on my bucket list—I’ll go right ahead. Some of that involves travel and is kind of expensive. But if the Breedersons resent my having the time or money to spend on myself, then TS, Eliot.

Funny how their belief that the childfree are selfish and greedy, actually makes me want to be that way. And maybe that’s okay.

Oh no! A diverse population might be served by a non- homogenous group of leaders!

Quote
bop
Oh no! A diverse population might be served by a non- homogenous group of leaders!

Yes! And seeing people leading fulfilling, relevant lives without children means THEY could have led a fulfilling, relevant life without children...and now they're stuck with a disappointing mundane life with these disappointing children....

I guess the estimated 30% (or whatever it is) of the population that were accidents aren't included in this group? What about the people who abuse, neglect or give up children for adoption?

Certainly it can't be claimed that these people made a vested interest in the future.

Quote
Quote
Having children to care for, though, gives you a more concrete interest in the well-being of both a specific people and a specific place in which to raise them. More importantly, having children offers you an enduring perspective on politics that moderates an otherwise immediate urge for radical justice in regard to all the perceived imperfections in society.

If you know that your children will have to live in the world you leave behind, you’re less likely to burn it down in order to purify it of defects you believe it had when you inherited it. The numberless sacrifices that mothers and fathers make for their children are tangible investments in their children’s well-being and which often redound to the benefit of their community. This investment constitutes a vested interest in the future that is difficult for the childless to rival.

I can smell the regret on this one, thinly veiled as lecturing the populace on their breeding duties.

This is beyond bullshit. Most politicians do have kids and are doing nothing or almost nothing about preserving the environment for future generations. I'm an American and have been following all the environmental protection rollbacks that the Trump "Administration" (more like Trump Clusterf***) have been quietly instituting. He has kids and grandkids and couldn't give one rat's ass about making sure there's still a planet for them to live on after he's gone. He purports not to believe in climate change or that radiation is bad or that dumping toxins into the water causes problems, but I think he'd probably feel differently if himself and his family had to live next to a toxic waste dump. I'm sure he figures they're rich enough that that will never happen. They'll always be able to live on clean property away from the riffraff. But they can't find a new earth that isn't being bombarded by severe weather and other problems. Yet he doesn't care.

And in the first paragraph he bitches about "climate alarmists". So much about his caring for the children's future.

Quote
khan
And in the first paragraph he bitches about "climate alarmists". So much about his caring for the children's future.

He's just telling his educated readers how much credence to lend to his rant.