This is an interesting book which makes some good, though general, points. I am "childfree by choice" myself, and a lot of the points she makes had been revolving in my own mind for some time. It is chatty and anecdotal, and I agree with her on most of the points she makes. I also liked the afterword by her husband! But it doesn't fully live up to the promise of the subtitle. I would have appreciated something more like a "how-to" book for those contemplating the childfree lifestyle, or at least

This is an interesting book which makes some good, though general, points. I am "childfree by choice" myself, and a lot of the points she makes had been revolving in my own mind for some time. It is chatty and anecdotal, and I agree with her on most of the points she makes. I also liked the afterword by her husband! But it doesn't fully live up to the promise of the subtitle. I would have appreciated something more like a "how-to" book for those contemplating the childfree lifestyle, or at least an inventory of how people outside of traditional families have responded in the past, and some possible pitfalls and rewards of such endeavors.



The author answers some misconceptions about the kinds of people who choose to be without children; it's not about selfishness, it's not destroying the nation, and there's no "maternal instinct" in women driving them to want children. She then sets out to show that being childfree does have some advantages and involves a somewhat different approach to family. Being childfree is "redefining family" because now a family consists of people that you choose to be in your family, rather than just those you are blood relatives with. The environmental crisis is worsened by overpopulation, so going childfree may actually benefit both the nation and the planet.



All right, these are good general points, but where are we going with this? She does cite some science to illustrate her points, but a lot of it seems a bit rhetorical. It seems a bit paradoxical to say that being childfree has advantages, but that it isn't being selfish to want to adopt this lifestyle. It is paradoxical to then argue (though it is probably true!) that being childfree actually helps the planet. It is also paradoxical to say that women have no maternal instinct, yet we all have a need to live in close family groups, and that therefore those who are childfree are "redefining" family.



I would have appreciated a bit more detail about the practical difficulties of dealing with old age --- or, in general, doing things without the benefit of a family other than the one you're born into. For example: who would you get to take care of your financial and health affairs in old age? Like, your medical and financial power of attorney, if your spouse is gone or incapacitated in some way? This is my main worry as a childfree person; that I may be alone in my old age if I outlive my spouse. She correctly points out that these problems often already exist even for people who have families --- the kids turn out to live far away or be ungrateful wretches. This is all very true, but still I would have appreciated a refresher course on how to manage these kinds of problems. So, in either case, what do you do?



The discussion of motivations also leaves me a bit unsettled. You could argue that it is either selfish, or altruistic, either to have, or not to have children.



If I had been writing this book, I would have presented a straight forward anti- natalist argument. In my view the moral pendulum is swinging in the direction of not having children. We have over 7 billion humans; "sustainable" is probably in the range of half a billion to 2 billion, and that's assuming we all go vegan. So many of us, probably most, have to consider the morality of overpopulation and not have any kids. Clearly, someone needs to have kids if humans are to continue, but so far, finding volunteers to reproduce themselves hasn't been a significant problem, so the default position --- for those motivated by morality at all in such decisions --- should be not to have children.



Whether or not having children satisfies your needs as a human being is a bit muddled. The truth is, I think, that we all want to live in small personal groups akin to families, even though these groups can be a hassle. Whether we would prefer to satisfy this need by having children, depends on your personal inclinations and your attitude towards being in a family. So perhaps we should discuss how this need can be filled if you don't have children, with reference to the "normal" case of having children. While she is right to raise this question, it is only addressed in a rather vague and rhetorical way. Yes, we certainly COULD create alternative "families" --- now, perhaps we could get some practical advice on how to do this, or at least how these needs have been filled in the past? I would like to have seen a discussion of co-housing or communal living as alternatives to the "traditional" family.