We live in a pro-natalist society where reproduction is strongly encouraged. To refuse to have children is first of all to expose oneself to social pressure which can be incredibly virulent, in particular for women, the 4% of them who declare that they do not want children being judged misander, selfish or hateful towards children. The objective of feminism is however to offer women their full autonomy, and not to prescribe a certain narrow vision of femininity (like a supposed anti-Islam "feminism"):it has therefore a few more taboos to break.
After all, all organisms seek to reproduce. For Henri Laborit, for example, ideal concepts such as love, or by extension what we would call the maternal or paternal instinct, would only result from the tendency deeply inscribed in our nervous system to perpetuate itself by reproducing and perpetuating thus its genetic code. A well functional vision of these concepts which is transcended or exceeded by the properly human faculty of imaginary creation, which allows our brain to make these reproductive instincts more romantic abstract concepts. However, if we push this reasoning, this abstraction even makes it possible to oppose the instincts that animate our nervous system:to “imagine” a life without reproduction, a life without children. Simone de Beauvoir thus affirmed "[to fulfill her] natural condition" by having made the choice to remain childless.
It is a choice that more and more people are making these days, whether it is an individual or political decision, in particular because of the ecological impact that a child will have during his lifetime. It is estimated that in 2030, two million people over the age of 65 will age without children in France. However, in addition to the social imperative that surrounds parenthood, there is also an economic issue in this regard. It is indeed the reproduction of the labor force that is supposed to perpetuate the system of pension funds, already seriously damaged. It is also the children who take care of part of their parents when they find themselves losing their autonomy, whether by taking them in part or entirely, or by at least managing their placement in an EHPAD.
However, if people who choose to refuse parenthood are sometimes described as selfish, what is ultimately more selfish than giving birth to a person for fear of being alone at home? retirement , with no other distraction than the common TV and its neighbors in the room?
The choice of a partner or a child should in no way be perceived as a return on investment for his old age. It should also be kept in mind that between the loss of a spouse and children who are often well occupied with their own family and professional lives, loneliness affects the elderly who themselves have had children. Don't we say that friends are the family we choose? It is on all these other relationships maintained throughout a well-lived life that we can count on avoiding loneliness as we age. But once again, if loneliness is indeed a scourge for the third age, it does not only affect these "orphan" seniors. There is therefore no reason to see the decision to have children as a solution in this regard.
It is ultimately healthier to see this absence of children as a horizon that emerges, and frees up time and energy for other activities, other types of relationships. There is no prescriptive model to follow — they are simply two different paths, which naturally lead to two different conclusions. It is up to each person to decide which one will benefit them the most. And of course, that doesn't mean regrets can't be felt in the time of reckoning that accompanies old age — but it goes both ways!
Not having children implies not having grandchildren no more. This is the case for one in five people over the age of 75 in France. But once again, if this relationship with the younger generations has a facilitating effect on the emotional and mental life of the elderly, it is not essential. What often animates in old age is the possibility of transmitting, which makes useful and creates a bond of solidarity between generations. However, this intergenerational exchange is of course possible without having had children yourself. It's all the relationships you've built in your lifetime, other people's children, nephews and nieces, neighbors, friends, and so on. No need for genetic filiation to fulfill the role of "grandpa" or "granny" (if indeed one wants to slip into this role, which is obviously not imperative!).
In addition to the personal circle, associations and nursing homes also organize activities to strengthen this intergenerational link. It must be kept in mind that a person without children or grandchildren has not created the same dependency on them. She undoubtedly made this choice for the benefit of a more fulfilled interior and friendly life, more autonomous too. The people who have made this choice are ultimately generally more open to the outside world, the founding of a family (we are talking about a cocoon!) necessarily implying a certain withdrawal...
The other return on investment that is expected when having children, both on an individual and societal scale, is that of maintaining the elderly , when they are losing their autonomy or cannot meet their needs. The children will finance the pensions of the previous generation thanks to social contributions and, for some, also contribute individually to soften the living conditions of their direct ancestors (the duty of intergenerational solidarity is moreover reciprocal and also involves the grandchildren and grandparents).
This is indeed a more worrying issue, although it seems deeply cynical to have children in the hope of using them as a piggy bank. Society is supposed to take care of all its elders to some extent, no matter what they have brought to it. There are therefore social aids intended for elderly people in a precarious situation, but these do not ensure the most dignified living conditions... It is also anticipation and organization that makes it possible to guard against a decline with aging, and here again, this is just as valid for people who have had children:you can take out long-term care insurance, adapt your home to prepare it for your potential loss of autonomy or move into a more suitable habitat, write advance directives to allow those around you to play the role usually assigned to the family, or quite simply communicate with them about their wishes so as not to plunge them into the unknown at the appropriate time.
The point raised should not, however, be seen as a personal failure, but rather a societal one. And the demographic change that accompanies it, with an aging population and a relative trivialization of non-parenthood which will swell the ranks of these childless seniors, makes this phenomenon a public health issue . It makes no sense to place the responsibility for this decision on the elderly without children, as if they should be punished for not having contributed to renewing the work force supposed to finance their pensions and their care in the face of the loss autonomy.
It is therefore necessary to finish lifting the taboo around this subject, in order to be able to make it a social debate and initiate a government response. While the younger generations seem resigned to having to give up their own pensions, the age of its accession only going back in the name of the sustainability of the pensions of our current retirees and an increase in life expectancy - while neither social class (the working classes live on average 6 to 7 years less than the wealthy classes) nor the arduous nature of the work are taken into account in these calculations, nor the fact that some people live very old by being completely senile — and while the aging of the population is an inevitable demographic reality, it seems imperative to rethink the distribution of wealth, so as not to let the elderly sink into precariousness or force them to rest on their possible descendants, without sacrificing the future of the youngest. This is a very difficult debate to resolve and for which we certainly do not have a ready solution, but it is obviously increasingly urgent to tackle it.
