How much would a childfree or childless couple need to provide to the other in life insurance if one of us was to die?

I notice you talk a lot about a well funded emergency fund (up to 6 months.) I am wondering if you think that you would need that much if you had a really stable job (ie teacher with tenure and a lot of experience) and good life insurance? We have several months of income saved but I kind of feel like any more would be better diverted to our ROTH IRAS or something like that. What do you think?

When I drive from the nearest large city to my home about 200 miles away, there is wilderness as far as the eye can see for hundreds of miles, and this is in the NE US. I have also heard that the census methods in the most seemingly overpopulated countries are wildly inaccurate, and in some countries like Japan, the birth rate is actually negative, and under population is a problem.

Overpopulation is indeed a problem in some cities, and certainly some 3rd world countries, but the solution is to disperse (in the case of cities) and better birth control and resource distribution (in the case of countries with horrid conditions).

Also, more population means more mouths to feed but it also mean more work gets done, more technology gets invented, more art gets created, more retirements are supplemented by SS, and plenty of other positive things.

At any rate, the Malthusian solution is what will likely happen anyway: at some point, if the overpopulation people are right, people in the third world will simply start starving to death. While this will be unfortunate for them, the solution does not lie in us having less children, as we in the 1st world will always have all the space and food we need regardless of what happens in the third world. Not having kids because you worry about overpopulation is simply illogical. The real solution is in fixing the distribution methods and political situations in those countries.

If the overpopulation people are wrong, then there is no problem. Either way, I see nothing wrong with having kids if you can afford to.

Thought it was somewhat relavant.

Just a side note on the kids/population/just adopt issue, anyone else ever run into the anti-adoption community online? Never heard of such a thing? I hadn’t either. Not saying I agree with what they say (or that my opinion as an uninvolved web-surfer matters anyway), but WOW was that a lesson in smacking around some common (privileged?) middle-class assumptions – starting with “everyone is in total agreement that adoption is good.” I think of those people and what they would say whenever the adoption-as-environmental- act meme comes up.

Trent, your response was exactly what mine would have been so I couldn’t agree more! As a mother of eight children (all mine, ages range between 18 years and almost 5 months), I too feel like I am helping the world by raising such strong individuals who I truly feel will have such positive impacts on the world in which we live. They will add to, not overburden.

…and my sister and a few other relatives only had one or none so I figure I’m helping to stimulate population growth here in Canada :o)

Love your blog Trent (and I’m happy you are returning to the old book review format)

I think you are spot on about this segment of your audience. I do send links to articles to people that I think will enjoy them (so I am helping to increase your readership). I would not be opposed to you including an ad or two in your emails. I think a banner ad before each article in the email would not be inappropriate since it would help you. I benefit from what you are doing and what you to benefit from it too.

I’m saddened by your comments about feeling an obligation to bear and raise many children to carry on traditions of thinking and respect for the environment. What happens if they decide not to? There are many parents in the world whose children did not wind up as they intended – children who were raised religious but converted, raised liberal and then turned conservative, raised to take over the family business and then didn’t, raised to take care of their parents when they grew old but instead moved away, raised to be exactly like their parents and just wound up different. What will happen if your kids rebel against their upbringing with frivolous spending or ecologically awful habits?

You can perpetuate your great ideas among many others (like you do through this blog) without having to make brand new people. If you’d like to have a big family, it’s your choice and I support it; I just find it a bit weird to justify it by framing it like an ideological effort.

How could anybody consider the social and environmental cost of adding to overpopulation in the consideration of having or not children? We, in Canada, have approximately one third of square mile each. I can’t imagine it being overpopulated! To me, life’s principal point is to have kids and share with them the beauties of life through experience and balance. For anybody with that kind of concern, I would recommend adoption, as if this option is out of the question, the problem is not the society or environment! A friend of mine didn’t want any kids when I met him. He couldn’t take of himself, forget about kids. Now, he’s happy and fulfilled with his life and is strongly considering giving back to life through parenthood.

Regarding the question of JLiz, compound interest in a retirement account is nothing compared to any interest charged on consumer debt. You can always pay down your consumer debt at the same time, dividing up the amount you want to put on one and the other, or simply clearing debt first, by snowballing and then contributing to your retirement account with similar amounts.