Antinatalist clickbait is as reliable as a summer mosquito, and like mosquitoes, its main goal is to suck blood and transmit viruses.
Last week, a familiar headline emerged based on a 2021 study by Jennifer Glass that was debunked by Brad Wilcox: “Childfree people tend to be happier than parents.” On Tuesday, an X-account named “Normie McDonald” posted a link to the Responded:
Every day when I leave the office at the end of the day and go out with my wife and kids, I feel filled with joy. There is literally nothing that not having kids can replace this feeling. It just doesn’t exist. Raising a family well not only makes you feel good, it makes those around you feel good too.
I know that feeling well. I’ve made it my business to speak out about the joys of family life. Those who are fortunate enough to have a family are afforded deep happiness, but this opportunity is obscured by a culture of constant complaints and worries about the climate.
But most of the concepts that are gaining popularity in the public consciousness are tied, however tenuously, to a kernel of truth. Why is the claim that single, childless people are happier so plausible?
Children may bring joy, but they can’t fill the God-shaped hole in someone’s heart.
So what does happiness mean? If we accept the modern consensus that happiness means being able to move, consume, and act “freely” without sacrificing our own will for the sake of others, then yes, childfree people are “happier”; they are, by definition, less tied down; generally speaking, there are fewer restrictions on their freedom. If happiness means being able to go on a foodie tour of Asia whenever the moment strikes, then single, childfree people have an advantage.
I don’t want to belittle fun, single people, people without children, or their hobbies. Although many single people want to marry, many of them are not cut out for it. I also don’t think that single people’s lives are necessarily easier than those who are married and have children. Many single people are habitually ascetic, but Asian food is one of the great loves of my life. The earth is littered with God’s blessings, big and small. There’s no shame in being grateful for them whenever they come along or in rationally seeking them. But the classic definition of happiness provides a context for a difficult life that isn’t present in the original antinatalist argument that celebrates single people’s easy access to fun.
I like the sports to parenting metaphor because it captures a classic notion of happiness. Excellent athletes don’t necessarily expect to enjoy their efforts. They strive to perfect themselves in pursuit of objective excellence. There may often be momentary pleasure or enjoyment from this, but it is not the ultimate goal of their pursuit.
For Christians, the ultimate purpose of life is God. Christ is the centre of Christian life. The Catechism states that our bond with Christ takes precedence over all other bonds, including family and social bonds.
That is, the children make In modern terms, you are happy, because the happiness exalted by a Christ-less world is truly empty. Having children may make you miserable, especially if your happiness depends on them. In the classical sense, having children means: make You’re not happy either, but the act of raising children is an opportunity to give glory to the One who does it. Children may bring joy, but they can’t fill the God-shaped hole in someone’s heart. Children are not pawns for our own pleasure, but people who share the same ultimate purpose as us: to embody Christ through grace and virtue.
Pro-natalists would be wise to consider whether and how they are accepting their opponents’ worldview while reflexively rejecting the debate that is taking place on the surface. Build a screened porch while swatting at mosquitoes.
