I agree. He should state his preference for no children on his profile and leave it at that. I would also add that he not even bring up the subject in any initial e-mails, phone conversations or dates. This way, if the prospective mate asks if he really meant what he said about no children on-line, this would give him a clue that she may be angling to get him to eventually ease up on this restriction.

Wouldn't most women take "No kids" on a 35 year old man's profile to mean that he's not interested in dating women who already have kids? His stated reasons for not wanting them don't really apply to the preexisting ones.

"... this crowded, violent planet."

I'm very supportive of anyone who doesn't want kids. But this weird reasoning would make you sound like a real downer on a dating profile.

So you don't want kids so that they don't have to endure the agony of this miserable life? You sound like a blast to hang around with.

It would be wrong to waste the time of women who do want them. There's your moral answer.

'all seven billion earthlings could fit comfortably in Texas'

No, they couldn't. At least not for long. Far too many Texans would 'correct' the jackasses and then you would have no where near 7 billion. Ditto if you sent us all to France, but at least the French would be very charming about the whole thing.

He's 35, so he doesn't have to wait long for all this nonsense to go away on its own.

He'll hear less and less of the 'You'll change your mind someday,' and by the time he's 45 he won't hear it at all.

Plenty of women never get baby-rabies, and when the tide rolls out, there they will be, sparkling on the beach like gems.

I'm very supportive of anyone who doesn't want kids. But this weird reasoning would make you sound like a real downer on a dating profile.

And obnoxious. My favorite game, when someone says, "I'm against having children cuz it's bad fur da earthz," is to ask them if they'd refuse to see a doctor/nurse who is younger than they are -- and how that's going to work out when they're 80.

Anyway, LW can always say on his profile, "I don't want kids of my own but am open to dating women who already have kids." Sure, plenty may ignore/not read that, but weeding out the dummies is just part of dating. Just ask anyone who has put "not interested in smokers" or "not interested in men over the age of 35" or "looking for SERIOUS commitment only" on their profile.

Yes, he should disclose his preference for "no kids" on his profile. He should try to sound a little less self-righteous and annoying about it, though.

Ah, this takes me back. Our violent, overcrowded world, indeed. Just add some "Who's Garden Was This?" rhetoric about the planet(how could he skip that part?) and he could be in my high school, over forty years ago.

"Don't want to have kids but want to date women with kids" sounds like a pedo.

... so I don't agree with that bit of advice, NOT I'm saying I think LW is a pedo

One day I watched this video how the parasites (worm) control the behavior of the host (ants) for the benefit of the parasites at the expense of the hosts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSUU3E9ZoM

I think the way most women want to get pregnant is because they were infected by the parasites (DNA). They will go through all that uncomfortable 9 months because they were controlled by the parasites.

In another words, they are like walking zombies.

If he's on Match.com, that will be taken care of. There are buttons to check for those have kids, want kids, or those who don't want kids but will consider dating those who have them.

Not sure who he thinks is going to wipe his butt for him when he's in a nursing home.
"for the Earth" is an elastic ethical concept which could justify anything as long as you understand that logic and facts both make the baby Jesus cry.
See Ira Einhorn.
Thing is, this guy has announced he's the opposite of a prize on practically any area you could name.
And, no doubt, tedious

I'm never going into a nursing home.

Um, somebody on staff there?

...who is, presumably, younger than he is. Probably a good 20-30 years younger. And, unless a robot, definitely birthed by someone.

At least I think that's what Richard Aubrey was getting at upthread.

Not wanting kids yourself is cool -- just say you don't want them. But the LW seems to have invented a motivation that makes him morally superior and accuses those who breed of not being "forward-thinking." Which seems a tad obnoxious if he intends to rely on those selfishly-birthed humans for his care down the road.

Not all of us plan on someone caring for us down the road. Personally I can't imagine anything worse.

But I also don't think he has "invented a motivation" just to make himself feel morally superior. You may argue that he is "wrong" but I think he is sincere in his beliefs and that they are not merely self-serving.

I hear so many parents, in real life and online, say they worry about the future their kids are going to have. It seems like a legitimate concern to me.

I was born in 1970 and it doesn't seem like it was until after that, with Paul Ehrlich, that people started getting concerned about population. Most people think Ehrlich was wrong, because of the Green Revolution. Pesticides increased crop yields, genetic modification made them drought-resistant and disease-resistant, and you can use fossil-fuel-based synthetics to make things grow in poor soil. But at what cost? Norman Borlaug himself said his advances had only bought us time and that the population issue would have to be addressed eventually. There certainly have been unintended consequences. Maybe those advances are like Quantitative Easing - they will just make the fall that much harder when it comes.

We point at poor people in Haiti having seven or eight kids and say they should stop, and we're right. They point right back at us and say one of our (Western) kids consumes as many resources as seven of their kids, so maybe WE should stop, and they are right, too.

Population growth in the USA might have dropped to 1.9 per woman, but at the end of the day we're 5% of the earth's population and consume 20%-25% of its resources. It has just been within my lifetime that the oceans have been filled with plastic crap, and during that same amount of time the human population of earth has doubled. I doubt it's Haitian people doing all that polluting - they don't have access to so much plastic.

I'm not a misanthrope - I don't fantasize about a world with no people. Because then who would take care of the pugs? I fantasize about a world where everyone can have a comfortable life that includes a variety of food, abundant clean water, climate-controlled housing, transportation, modern medicine and dental care, full literacy, and all the other First World comforts I appreciate every time I take a hot shower in water clean enough to drink. And I want it all without us junking up the place and killing off everything else that lives. It's possible, but not with the huge population we have now.

And birth rates may be slowing, but that doesn't mean the population is shrinking. More people are born than die on the planet every day.

Am I supposed to strap on my rose-colored glasses just so people at parties think I'm a "blast to hang around with?" Sooner or later, what sounded like optimism 40 years ago starts to sound like delusion today. I know, math is hard.

It's the science and math stuff that makes people special and unique - no other species invented the microwave. Which makes it especially annoying, because we should know better!

Anyway I'm not going around saying no one should have kids, but it's a different world now than it was even when I was born 45 years ago. Everyone's piling on this LW as if he's just a jerk who hates people. If he hated people, maybe he'd be telling EVERYONE to have seven kids.

Anyway I'm not going around saying no one should have kids, but it's a different world now than it was even when I was born 45 years ago.

Point taken. I just always wonder about the people who think like the LW ... say you're 75, in great health and then fall and break a hip rock-climbing or whatever. Are you going to turn away the 25-year-old paramedic? Or the 35-year-old doctor?

I don't think the LW is a bad person, but his thoughts out of context might turn potential dates off. Unless he is an off-the-grid recluse looking exclusively for the same.

I don't plan on having kids myself, but if some guy I was on a date with said, "I don't think we should have any more people on this crowded planet" or "It's irresponsible to bring more children into the world," I'd put him in the same category as the guy who once told me, "I think it is selfish to earn any more money or possessions than what you need to survive. Hey btw, can you give me a ride home? I know it's 40 minutes out of your way, but I don't have a car, and it's 2 bus transfers..."

"Am I supposed to strap on my rose-colored glasses just so people at parties think I'm a "blast to hang around with?" "

Overpopulation is most definitely a real problem. I didn't take the letter writer's statement as so much of a candle in the dark against overpopulation. I took it to mean that any child that is brought up in the world would be treated to a miserable existence, surrounded by unbearable violence and ugliness, that it would be cruel to expose anyone to the pain of life itself.

I count myself as very lucky to be alive and very much enjoy being alive. I don't feel like my parents played some cruel joke on me by bringing me into the world. I like to hang out with people who also see beauty and joy in life. That's all.

"say you're 75, in great health and then fall and break a hip rock-climbing or whatever. Are you going to turn away the 25-year-old paramedic? Or the 35-year-old doctor?

You probably like to wear "rose-colored glasses" and are "blast to hang around with."

The way things are going, you will most likely to turn away the 25-year-old giant hissing cockroaches, which just found out the human flesh are edible as much as plastic wastes.

Stephen Hawking says we have about 1,000 years before we abandon the earth we trashed. He is saying this is the question of "when" not "if". He might be a few years off.
http://www.inquisitr.com/615245/stephen-hawking-humans-will-die-out-in-1000-years-unless-they-escape-earth/

And it is going to be the slow decent into hell reaching that 1,000 years. My guess is that life will start to be very uncomfortable in your life time.

By not bringing another child to this over staffed planet, you will dramatically increase your chance of seeing 25 year old paramedic instead of 25 year old flesh eating cockroaches.

I am hoping that Chinese will become only Superpower on the planet pretty soon and enforce one child policy worldwide. Of course, there will be resistance from the main source of population problems, various religious groups (mainly Muslims and Catholics). But I think the Chinese know how to take care of the problems cost efficiently. They usually charge the surviving family members for the cost of the bullets.

And if that is what it takes to make 1,000 years to 2,000 years or even reverse the trend to prove Hawking wrong, I will accept it. If you got a better idea, I would like to hear it.

"I don't plan on having kids myself, but if some guy I was on a date with said, "I don't think we should have any more people on this crowded planet" or "It's irresponsible to bring more children into the world," I'd put him in the same category as the guy who once told me,"

If some women I was on a date with said "I don't plan on having kids myself, but I think other people should have as many children as possible", I'd put her on the same category as the woman who once told me, "I am very glad the bankers made a lot of money before and after the market crash in 2008. You know, they sure knew what they were doing while the rest of world lost all the money. But I think we all will be better off eventually, trickle down effect, you know. Rising tide lift up all the boats, did you hear?"

I told her, I don't own a boat.

And if that is what it takes to make 1,000 years to 2,000 years or even reverse the trend to prove Hawking wrong, I will accept it. If you got a better idea, I would like to hear it.

Chang, I think it would take that. But I say, if everyone has to live that way to keep humanity going, it's not worth preserving.

Let the fucker burn.

women. . .who were sure they didn't want children sometimes found themselves suddenly experiencing "baby fever,"

My experience confirms this. Before I married my first wife I made it clear that I never wanted kids, and she agreed. She was 22, but at 29 she got baby rabies and spent the next six years begging me to change my mind before we finally divorced.

say in your profile that you don't want to create new earthlings but love kids and are open to a woman who already has some. To describe the likely spike in your popularity after hanging the "Welcome, Single Moms!" sign, well, ever watch a pack of wild dingoes descend on a downed cow?

My experience also confirms this. After my divorce I had two relationships (including my second marriage) with divorced moms who were way hotter than I could have landed if I'd had to compete with all the guys who won't date women with kids.

As a bonus, I'm still good friends with the (now grown) kids, after both moms are gone from my life. My stepson would be taking my side in the separation from his mom, if there were sides to be taken.

Overpopulation seems like a problem, but really it's just a technological/engineering challenge, and inability to support a good quality of life at current or higher population levels really just boils down to a lack of imagination. There is no shortage of 'resources' .. our solar system can can support over 100 billion people given the right technology.

There is nothing "immoral" about having kids.

@"against having kids for moral reasons"

It's not clear from the letter what he means by this but generally when people say this they mean one of two things - either that it's "immoral" because the child will encounter suffering, or that it's "immoral" because the child will consume resources. Neither argument really holds up to rational scrutiny.

There are many great commments here, in addition to Amy's usual excellent reply. The one take-away that really resonates for me is this: I have always tended to be judgmental in this regard. And that is DEFINITELY wrong. Just because I decided not to bear children of my own, does NOT entitle me to cast judgment on those who arrived at a different conclusion.