I'd call it hedonism if a couple wants to be able to go out on a date on a whim, easily take a vacation, watch adult-appropriate movies on a big TV in the living room, maintain healthy sleep/health habits, keep a flexible schedule unconstrained by school pickups/staying home with a sick kid, etc.

These are all real examples of why people I know delayed having kids, curtailed the number they had, or never had them altogether.

It's unclear what you're saying. Obviously it's not hedonistic to "want" those things, as you say. You might use the term if they try to have their cake and eat it too, irresponsibly.

Hedonism has negative connotations, colloquially (and colloquially is how we are speaking).

As I wrote in another reply, I meant “hedonism” in its non-colloquial, neutral sense, i.e. the pursuit of individual pleasure and happiness above all else, which was a mistake on my part. My general point is that all the activities I listed (which only become abundantly available in rich, industrialized societies) yield more individual pleasure than having children.

I've heard a lot of vox pops in recent years on the subject of why young couples where I live are not starting families, and by far the most common reason given is that the cost of living has risen to such an extent that they feel that rearing children has become unaffordable. It's not a yearning for hedonism that's dissuading them, it's the fact that they can't even afford to buy somewhere to live.

I won't comment on your assertion that the freedom to watch "adult-appropriate movies on a big TV in the living room" is a more fulfilling state of being than parenthood, except to say that I'm very grateful that I'm not that shallow.

>[B]y far the most common reason given is that the cost of living has risen to such an extent that they feel that rearing children has become unaffordable.

That's certainly a factor, though very aggressive financial incentives for parents don't seem to work very well [0, 1, 2]. Not to mention that in rich countries, educational attainment and income are negatively correlated with fertility [3]. My theory there is that people's high-powered careers provide them more self-satisfaction than having kids.

>it's the fact that they can't even afford to buy somewhere to live.

It's funny you mention this. Some friends said they weren't having a second kid because they couldn't afford a three bedroom house, not realizing that kids sharing bedrooms was the norm for middle class families until very recently. Having one bedroom per kid was a luxury just 30-40 years ago.

>I won't comment on your assertion that the freedom to watch "adult-appropriate movies on a big TV in the living room" is a more fulfilling state of being than parenthood

It's not my assertion, it's something a couple deciding to not have another kid literally told me. They missed being able to have substantial amounts of adult time, and were actively counting down the days until their only child was old enough to amuse himself for long periods of time. Having another kid would reset that clock.

[0] https://www.economist.com/europe/2026/03/19/viktor-orbans-pr...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/28/south-korea-fe...

[2] https://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/boosting-birth-rates...

[3] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-202...

How aggressive are those incentives really, compared to cost of childcare? Do they fully cover the cost of daycare and education for the kids for 18 years, alongside paying for a larger home?

> But financial and other inducements are failing to convince couples who cite skyrocketing child-rearing costs and property prices, a lack of well-paid jobs and the country’s cut-throat education system as obstacles to having bigger families.

I know South Korea has both expensive cram schools and a difficult housing market. If the incentives aren't as large as the additional costs from child raising, does it really tell us anything? Ideally you'd want it to exceed those costs.

Of course, that might be impractical or impossible for a government to fund, which is something.

The incentives you mentioned are meek, the opposite of aggressive.

Here is a list of aggressive incentives that will never happen in the US: 1. Fully paid daycare for every week with more than 30 hours worked by any parent

2. Fully paid healthcare until 18 years old

3. Fully paid after elementary school care for every week with more than 30 hours worked by any parent.

And do you think this is bad?

I never made any value judgment on whether it’s bad or good. “Hedonism” is simply the focus of individual pleasure and happiness above all else, and everything I listed is an example of things that lead to individual happiness that are antithetical to having many children.

Having children is profoundly more fulfilling and pleasurable than the surface-level pleasures you listed. "hedonism" doesn't create a lack of children, if anything people are not hedonistic enough, but for economic reasons pursue cheap low-quality pleasure over high-quality pleasure.

Not to mention that everyone finds unprotected sex pretty darn hedonistic.

Why do you think people have children then? Is that not (perhaps a bad) attempt at hedonism? I've heard (esp women) say "I can't be happy unless I have children". Then they have children, and... it often turns into "why isn't the father helping more".

Hedonism is bad because:

- hedonic pleasures are adaptive. The first time you experience them is incredible. The 1000th time, much less so. - chasing hedonic pleasures is counter-productive. Studies show that people who actively seek out hedonic pleasure are less happy than those that don't.

OTOH, eudaimonic pleasure (aka fulfilment, satisfaction) is much more durable.

Work, hobbies, charity work, and children are avenues towards fulfilment. Far too many rely on work to provide it for them, but that's counter-productive for most.

Happiness is the emotional reward for eudaimonia. Since I mostly reject eudaimonia as people and genes offering you carrots for doing what they want, not what you want, I naturally don't feel happiness like someone who's like "I'm winning, life is meaningful, others think well of me". I seek out hedonic pleasure because I think it's more real than happiness.

I wonder how those who have experienced the pleasure of having 1000 children experience that compared to the first one.

It's a shame we can't ask Genghis Khan for his thoughts on the matter.

> OTOH, eudaimonic pleasure (aka fulfilment, satisfaction) is much more durable.

I am not actually sure that this is consistent across most people who have had children.

Certainly not. It's much more likely to be successful than getting it from work, though.

The degeneracy of these millennials who want to maintain healthy sleep habits...

Funny enough I know lots of millennials without children with horrible sleep patterns and habits.

But you might be up to something: people are too stressed/anxious/depressed (without children) that adding children seems to them like an impossible burden. Now, I am not sure children would not sometimes actually improve their state (biology kicking in), but definitely is a gamble.

Children surely help you get your shit together. Otoh if you don't have your shit together, adding children into the mix is a little unfair to the children.

I don't think most child-free adults are forgoing children to perform works of mercy. Perhaps some do, but it's not the majority.

The term "child-free" implies relieving oneself of a disease, the way one describes himself as "cancer-free" or "drug-free". As in caring for children is on par with imprisonment.

Now I don't mind mind people opting out of having children to live a hedonistic life, my only issue is describing it as a noble cause.

>The term "child-free" implies relieving oneself of a disease, the way one describes himself as "cancer-free" or "drug-free".

Wow, this is an eyebrow-raising degree of uncharitability. There's no reason to attack straightforward words like this.

Also, the parent did not make this implication. They implied it's irresponsible to have children unintentionally or flippantly.

> Also, the parent did not make this implication

You're arguing a straw man, I didn't mention that the parent made the implication.

I simply refuted a portion of parent's claim that people are forgoing children to foster a care of their community or performing acts of service as they implied here:

"a child-free adult gets fulfillment out of nurturing and caring for others, mentoring, caring for themselves and their community"

> There's no reason to attack straightforward words like this.

If you feel like my interpretation of the term is an attack, that's on you. I simply voiced what the term communicates to me.

As an example, there's a reason Anti Abortionists rebranded the term to "Pro Life" because of the connotation.

Terms do have an intention behind them.

> refuted a portion of parent's claim that people are forgoing children to foster a care of their community or performing acts of service

You didn't refute, you just said you didn't think that's what people are doing. In any case it doesn't matter what they do with their time, because it's theirs.

> If you feel like my interpretation of the term is an attack, that's on you.

> Terms do have an intention behind them.

I don't know how you square that circle. You made some claims about the term child-free which are strictly your interpretation and then used it to describe their choice as ignoble.

In both cases you're just ascribing a nobility and morality to having children which just isn't there.

I’m not the one claiming having children is noble, parent was claiming that people are forgoing having children as a noble act.

Secondly, I’m allowed to express my opinion about a term. You can disagree and think the term child-free doesn’t have negative connotation but in my read it does. So im not sure what you’re trying to argue.

My impression was that the term arose out of a desire to communicate it as more of a chosen state of being, where "childless" may imply or at least allow some sense of undesired absence.

Using your own logic, didn't you just equate LSD and Ibuprofen to cancer?

> Is it hedonism if a child-free adult gets fulfillment out of nurturing...

How many people in the developed world are really doing that? My social circle is largely child-free into our thirties and forties, and the big motivation is so that we have time for our hobbies and for travel. Almost no one is dedicating their time to altruism. Especially considering that I live in a long-running welfare state, where helping people in need is generally left to the state and private charity is rare (and often has dodgy religious-sect connotations).