The entire problem could be solved by us encouraging "our young generations to feel positive about the future," he suggests, as if financial hardship is merely a state of mind. Life is expensive. Life with children even more so. People have the right to opt out. And unsurprisingly, many are. But the way population growth or "fertility rate" (icky) is measured – number of children per woman – means the gloomy-looking economic fate of our country is yet another excuse to wag our fingers at women. "Have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country," former Treasurer Peter Costello infamously said, as if the bodies of women were the property of the entire country and procreation was a patriotic duty. This intrusion on the bodies of women is made even worse given society and the government seem uninterested in actually easing the burden of having children. Just last week Labor's Kate Ellis announced her resignation from federal parliament because she could not "bear the thought of spending at least 20 weeks of every year in Canberra away from (her) son."

If a woman in Ellis' position found it impossible to achieve that elusive work-life balance, what hope for us with far fewer resources at our disposal? The social isolation that often comes with being the primary caregiver, something many of my female friends experienced after having children, is no small thing. Not that these women complained or expressed regret, but in the era of the nuclear family, the responsibilities fell largely to them. As one told me, it left her feeling as though they "exist in separate spheres" to their own partners, and the fathers of their children. As a woman who has decided to apparently let down her country – if not entire species – by remaining childfree, I find measuring the value of children in terms of what they can do for the economy more than a little distasteful. Have more kids – we need to commodify them! When my former partner and I decided against children, we did so partly out of fear for the harm humans do to the planet, and fear of the harm that could come to our children on a planet struggling to cope with ever-increasing human activities. That alone is enough to make be rebel. Nonetheless, there is also another very compelling factor driving my decision.

Writing for Fairfax, climate scientist Dr Sophie Lewis said despite her own wish to have children, doing so would be "irreconcilable with my professional dedication to remedying our global challenges." For lay people, the knowledge that one child born today will add 9,441 metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere is enough to turn them off procreation. "You can never take it back," said one American woman. "That stopped me in my tracks." And yet, here we are, with women still informed by the Pope himself of our alleged selfishness. When my former partner and I decided against children, we did so partly out of fear for the harm humans do to the planet, and fear of the harm that could come to our children on a planet struggling to cope with ever-increasing human activities. As with my veganism, the devastating effect on the environment wasn't the only factor driving my decision, but it sure made it feel like the right one. That didn't stop me from wistfully watching my partner, knowing what a great dad he would make, and wondering what our children would look like, would be like. But for us, to have children just so we could meet them would have been the more selfish decision. No, I am not saying that people who choose to have children are selfish. Reproduction is a personal matter and I'm aware of how strong the drive to have children is. Everyone has the intrinsic right to weigh up the costs and benefits and go with what they think is best; we didn't start the fire and all that.