Nature-based solutions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature-based_solutions

Example for a nature-based solution in the area of water resource management: this riparian buffer protects a creek in Iowa, United States from the impact of adjacent land uses

Nature-based solutions (NBS or NbS) is the sustainable management and use of natural features and processes to tackle socio-environmental issues. These issues include for example climate change (mitigation and adaptation), water security, food security, preservation of biodiversity, and disaster risk reduction. Through the use of NBS healthy, resilient, and diverse ecosystems (whether natural, managed, or newly created) can provide solutions for the benefit of both societies and overall biodiversity. The 2019 UN Climate Action Summit highlighted nature-based solutions as an effective method to combat climate change. For example, NBS in the context of climate action can include natural flood management, restoring natural coastal defences, providing local cooling, restoring natural fire regimes.

For instance, the restoration and/or protection of mangroves along coastlines utilises a nature-based solution to accomplish several goals. Mangroves moderate the impact of waves and wind on coastal settlements or cities and sequester CO₂. They also provide nursery zones for marine life that can be the basis for sustaining fisheries on which local populations may depend. Additionally, mangrove forests can help to control coastal erosion resulting from sea level rise. Similarly, green roofs or walls are Nature-based solutions that can be implemented in cities to moderate the impact of high temperatures, capture storm water, abate pollution, and act as carbon sinks, while simultaneously enhancing biodiversity.

NBS are increasingly being incorporated into mainstream national and international policies and programmes (e.g. climate change policy, law, infrastructure investment, and financing mechanisms), with increasing attention being given to NBS by the European Commission since 2013. However, NBS still face many implementation barriers and challenges.

Definition

Mangroves protect coastlines against erosion (Cape Coral, Florida, United States)

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines NBS as "actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits". Societal challenges of relevance here include climate change, food security, disaster risk reduction, water security.

In other words: "Nature-based solutions are interventions that use the natural functions of healthy ecosystems to protect the environment but also provide numerous economic and social benefits." They are used both in the context of climate change mitigation as well as adaptation.

The European Commission's definition of NBS states that these solutions are "inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes, and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions". In 2020, the EC definition was updated to further emphasise that "Nature-based solutions must benefit biodiversity and support the delivery of a range of ecosystem services."

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report pointed out that the term nature-based solutions is "widely but not universally used in the scientific literature". As of 2017, the term NBS was still regarded as "poorly defined and vague".

The term ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is a subset of nature-based solutions and "aims to maintain and increase the resilience and reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems and people in the face of the adverse effects of climate change".

History of the term

The term nature-based solutions was put forward by practitioners in the late 2000s. At that time it was used by international organisations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Bank in the context of finding new solutions to mitigate and adapt to climate change effects by working with natural ecosystems rather than relying purely on engineering interventions.

Many indigenous peoples have recognised the natural environment as playing an important role in human well-being as part of their traditional knowledge systems, but this idea did not enter into modern scientific literature until the 1970's with the concept of ecosystem services.

The IUCN referred to NBS in a position paper for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The term was also adopted by European policymakers, in particular by the European Commission, in a report stressing that NBS can offer innovative means to create jobs and growth as part of a green economy. The term started to make appearances in the mainstream media around the time of the Global Climate Action Summit in California in September 2018.

Objectives and framing

Coastal habitat protection at Morro Strand State Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California

Nature-bases solutions stress the sustainable use of nature in solving coupled environmental-social-economic challenges. NBS go beyond traditional biodiversity conservation and management principles by "re-focusing" the debate on humans and specifically integrating societal factors such as human well-being and poverty reduction, socio-economic development, and governance principles.

The general objective of NBS is clear, namely the sustainable management and use of Nature for tackling societal challenges. However, different stakeholders view NBS from a variety of perspectives. For instance, the IUCN puts the need for well-managed and restored ecosystems at the heart of NBS, with the overarching goal of "Supporting the achievement of society's development goals and safeguard human well-being in ways that reflect cultural and societal values and enhance the resilience of ecosystems, their capacity for renewal and the provision of services".

The European Commission underlines that NBS can transform environmental and societal challenges into innovation opportunities, by turning natural capital into a source for green growth and sustainable development.^[19] Within this viewpoint, nature-based solutions to societal challenges "bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions".

Categories

The IUCN proposes to consider NBS as an umbrella concept. Categories and examples of NBS approaches according to the IUCN include:

Category of NBS approaches	Examples
Ecosystem restoration approaches	Ecological restoration, ecological engineering, forest landscape restoration
Issue-specific ecosystem-related approaches	Ecosystem-based adaptation, ecosystem-based mitigation, climate adaptation services, ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction
Infrastructure-related approaches	Natural infrastructure, green infrastructure
Ecosystem-based management approaches	Integrated coastal zone management, integrated water resources management
Ecosystem protection approaches	Area-based conservation approaches including protected area management

Types

Schematic presentation of the NBS typology.

Scientists have proposed a typology to characterise NBS along two gradients:

1. "How much engineering of biodiversity and ecosystems is involved in NBS", and
2. "How many ecosystem services and stakeholder groups are targeted by a given NBS".

The typology highlights that NBS can involve very different actions on ecosystems (from protection, to management, or even the creation of new ecosystems) and is based on the assumption that the higher the number of services and stakeholder groups targeted, the lower the capacity to maximise the delivery of each service and simultaneously fulfil the specific needs of all stakeholder groups.

As such, three types of NBS are distinguished (hybrid solutions exist along this gradient both in space and time. For instance, at a landscape scale, mixing protected and managed areas could be required to fulfill multi-functionality and sustainability goals):

Type 1 – Minimal intervention in ecosystems

Type 1 consists of no or minimal intervention in ecosystems, with the objectives of maintaining or improving the delivery of a range of ecosystem services both inside and outside of these conserved ecosystems. Examples include the protection of mangroves in coastal areas to limit risks associated with extreme weather conditions; and the establishment of marine protected areas to conserve biodiversity within these areas while exporting fish and other biomass into fishing grounds. This type of NBS is connected to, for example, the concept of biosphere reserves.

Type 2 – Some interventions in ecosystems and landscapes

Type 2 corresponds to management approaches that develop sustainable and multifunctional ecosystems and landscapes (extensively or intensively managed). These types improve the delivery of selected ecosystem services compared to what would be obtained through a more conventional intervention. Examples include innovative planning of agricultural landscapes to increase their multi-functionality; using existing agrobiodiversity to increase biodiversity, connectivity, and resilience in landscapes; and approaches for enhancing tree species and genetic diversity to increase forest resilience to extreme events. This type of NBS is strongly connected to concepts like agroforestry.

Type 3 – Managing ecosystems in extensive ways

Type 3 consists of managing ecosystems in very extensive ways or even creating new ecosystems (e.g., artificial ecosystems with new assemblages of organisms for green roofs and walls to mitigate city warming and clean polluted air). Type 3 is linked to concepts like green and blue infrastructures and objectives like restoration of heavily degraded or polluted areas and greening cities. Constructed wetlands are one example for a Type 3 NBS.

Applications

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

The 2019 UN Climate Action Summit highlighted nature-based solutions as an effective method to combat climate change. For example, NBS in the context of climate action can include natural flood management, restoring natural coastal defences, providing local cooling, restoring natural fire regimes.

The Paris Agreement calls on all Parties to recognise the role of natural ecosystems in providing services such as that of carbon sinks. Article 5.2 encourages Parties to adopt conservation and management as a tool for increasing carbon stocks and Article 7.1 encourages Parties to build the resilience of socioeconomic and ecological systems through economic diversification and sustainable management of natural resources. The Agreement refers to nature (ecosystems, natural resources, forests) in 13 distinct places. An in-depth analysis of all Nationally Determined Contributions submitted to UNFCCC, revealed that around 130 NDCs or 65% of signatories commit to nature-based solutions in their climate pledges. This suggests a broad consensus for the role of nature in helping to meet climate change goals. However, high-level commitments rarely translate into robust, measurable actions on-the-ground.

A global systemic map of evidence was produced to determine and illustrate the effectiveness of NBS for climate change adaptation. After sorting through 386 case studies with computer programs, the study found that NBS were just as, if not more, effective than traditional or alternative flood management strategies. 66% of cases evaluated reported positive ecological outcomes, 24% did not identify a change in ecological conditions and less than 1% reported negative impacts. Furthermore, NBS always had better social and climate change mitigation impacts.

In the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, nature-based solutions were one of the main topics covered, and were discussed as an effective method to combat climate change. A "Nature-Based Solution Coalition" was created, including dozens of countries, led by China and New Zealand.

Urban areas

Example of nature-based solution for an urban area: Chicago City Hall green roof. One of the benefits is that it mitigates the urban heat island effect,

Since around 2017, many studies have proposed ways of planning and implementing nature-based solutions in urban areas.

It is crucial that grey infrastructures continue to be used with green infrastructure. Multiple studies recognise that while NBS is very effective and improves flood resilience, it is unable to act alone and must be in coordination with grey infrastructure. Using green infrastructure alone or grey infrastructure alone are less effective than when the two are used together. When NBS is used alongside grey infrastructure the benefits transcend flood management and improve social conditions, increase carbon sequestration and prepare cities for planning for resilience.

In the 1970s a popular approach in the U.S. was that of Best Management Practices (BMP) for using nature as a model for infrastructure and development while the UK had a model for flood management called "sustainable drainage systems". Another framework called "Water Sensitive Urban Design" (WSUD) came out of Australia in the 1990s while Low Impact Development (LID) came out of the U.S.  Eventually New Zealand reframed LID to create "Low Impact Urban Design and Development" (LIUDD) with a focus on using diverse stakeholders as a foundation. Then in the 2000s the western hemisphere largely adopted "Green Infrastructure" for stormwater management as well as enhancing social, economic and environmental conditions for sustainability.

In a Chinese National Government program, the Sponge Cities Program, planners are using green grey infrastructure in 30 Chinese cities as a way to manage pluvial flooding and climate change risk after rapid urbanization.

Water management aspects

Example of a Type 3 nature-based solution: Constructed wetland for wastewater treatment at an ecological housing estate in Flintenbreite, Germany

With respect to water issues, NBS can achieve the following:

• Use natural processes to enhance water availability (e.g., soil moisture retention, groundwater recharge),
• Improve water quality (e.g., natural wetlands and constructed wetlands to treat wastewater; riparian buffer strips), and
• Reduce risks associated with water‐related disasters and climate change (e.g., floodplain restoration, green roofs).

The UN has also tried to promote a shift in perspective towards NBS: the theme for World Water Day 2018 was "Nature for Water", while UN-Water's accompanying UN World Water Development Report was titled "Nature-based Solutions for Water".

For example, the Lancaster Environment Centre has implemented catchments at different scales on flood basins in conjunction with modelling software that allows observers to calculate the factor by which the floodplain expanded during two storm events. The idea is to divert higher floods flows into expandable areas of storage in the landscape.

Forest restoration for multiple benefits

Forest restoration can benefit both biodiversity and human livelihoods (eg. providing food, timber and medicinal products). Diverse, native tree species are also more likely to be resilient to climate change than plantation forests. Agricultural expansion has been the main driver of deforestation globally. Forest loss has been estimated at around 4.7 million ha per year in 2010–2020. Over the same period, Asia had the highest net gain of forest area followed by Oceania and Europe. Forest restoration, as part of national development strategies, can help countries achieve sustainable development goals. For example, in Rwanda, the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority, World Resources Institute and IUCN have began a program in 2015 for forest landscape restoration as a national priority. NBS approaches used were ecological restoration and ecosystem-based mitigation and the program was meant to address the following societal issues: food security, water security, disaster risk reduction. The Great Green Wall, a joint campaign among African countries to combat desertification launched in 2007.

Implementation

Example of a city that uses nature-based solutions: Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, has been designated as the European Green Capital 2023 in recognition of its efforts to promote sustainable transport, green economy and environmental conservation.

A number of studies and reports have proposed principles and frameworks to guide effective and appropriate implementation. One primary principle, for example, is that NBS seek to embrace, rather than replace, nature conservation norms. NBS can be implemented alone or in an integrated manner along with other solutions to societal challenges (e.g. technological and engineering solutions) and are applied at the landscape scale.

Researchers have pointed out that "instead of framing NBS as an alternative to engineered approaches, we should focus on finding synergies among different solutions".

The concept of NBS is gaining acceptance outside the conservation community (e.g. urban planning) and is now on its way to be mainstreamed into policies and programmes (climate change policy, law, infrastructure investment, and financing mechanisms), although NBS still face many implementation barriers and challenges.

Multiple case studies have demonstrated that NBS can be more economically viable than traditional technological infrastructures.

Implementation of NBS requires measures like adaptation of economic subsidy schemes, and the creation of opportunities for conservation finance, to name a few.

Using geographic information systems (GIS)

NBS are also determined by site-specific natural and cultural contexts that include traditional, local and scientific knowledge. Geographic information systems (GIS) can be used as an analysis tool to determine sites that may succeed as NBS. GIS can function in such a way that site conditions including slope gradients, water bodies, land use and soils are taken into account in analyzing for suitability. The resulting maps are often used in conjunction with historic flood maps to determine the potential of floodwater storage capacity on specific sites using 3D modeling tools.

Projects supported by the European Union

Since 2016, the EU has supported a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform (ThinkNature) to promote the co-design, testing, and deployment of improved and innovative NBS in an integrated way. The creation of such science-policy-business-society interfaces could promote market uptake of NBS. The project was part of the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme, and ran for 3 years.

In 2017, as part of the Presidency of the Estonian Republic of the Council of the European Union, a conference called "Nature-based Solutions: From Innovation to Common-use" was organised by the Ministry of the Environment of Estonia and the University of Tallinn. This conference aimed to strengthen synergies among various recent initiatives and programs related to NBS, focusing on policy and governance of NBS, research, and innovation.

Concerns

The Indigenous Environmental Network has stated that "Nature-based solutions (NBS) is a greenwashing tool that does not address the root causes of climate change." and "The legacy of colonial power continues through nature-based solutions." For example, NBS activities can involve converting non-forest land into forest plantations (for climate change mitigation) but this carries risks of climate injustice through taking land away from smallholders and pastoralists.

However, the IPCC pointed out that the term is "the subject of ongoing debate, with concerns that it may lead to the misunderstanding that NbS on its own can provide a global solution to climate change". To clarify this point further, the IPCC also stated that "nature-based systems cannot be regarded as an alternative to, or a reason to delay, deep cuts in GHG emissions".

The majority of case studies and examples of NBS are from the Global North, resulting in a lack of data for many medium- and low-income nations. Consequently, many ecosystems and climates are excluded from existing studies as well as cost analyses in these locations. Further research needs to be conducted in the Global South to determine the efficacy of NBS on climate, social and ecological standards.

Related concepts

NBS is closely related to concepts like ecosystem approaches and ecological engineering. This includes concepts such as ecosystem-based adaptation and green infrastructure.

For instance, ecosystem-based approaches are increasingly promoted for climate change adaptation and mitigation by organisations like the United Nations Environment Programme and non-governmental organisations such as The Nature Conservancy. These organisations refer to "policies and measures that take into account the role of ecosystem services in reducing the vulnerability of society to climate change, in a multi-sectoral and multi-scale approach".

Decay theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_theory

The Decay theory is a theory that proposes that memory fades due to the mere passage of time. Information is therefore less available for later retrieval as time passes and memory, as well as memory strength, wears away. When an individual learns something new, a neurochemical "memory trace" is created. However, over time this trace slowly disintegrates. Actively rehearsing information is believed to be a major factor counteracting this temporal decline. It is widely believed that neurons die off gradually as we age, yet some older memories can be stronger than most recent memories. Thus, decay theory mostly affects the short-term memory system, meaning that older memories (in long-term memory) are often more resistant to shocks or physical attacks on the brain. It is also thought that the passage of time alone cannot cause forgetting, and that decay theory must also take into account some processes that occur as more time passes.

History

The term "decay theory" was first coined by Edward Thorndike in his book The Psychology of Learning in 1914. This simply states that if a person does not access and use the memory representation they have formed the memory trace will fade or decay over time. This theory was based on the early memory work by Hermann Ebbinghaus in the late 19th century. The decay theory proposed by Thorndike was heavily criticized by McGeoch and his interference theory. This led to the abandoning of the decay theory, until the late 1950s when studies by John Brown and the Petersons showed evidence of time based decay by filling the retention period by counting backwards in threes from a given number. This led to what is known as the Brown–Peterson paradigm. The theory was again challenged, this time a paper by Keppel and Underwood who attributed the findings to proactive interference. Studies in the 1970s by Reitman tried reviving the decay theory by accounting for certain confounds criticized by Keppel and Underwood. Roediger quickly found problems with these studies and their methods. Harris made an attempt to make a case for decay theory by using tones instead of word lists and his results are congruent making a case for decay theory. In addition, McKone used implicit memory tasks as opposed to explicit tasks to address the confound problems. They provided evidence for decay theory, however, the results also interacted with interference effects. One of the biggest criticisms of decay theory is that it cannot be explained as a mechanism and that is the direction that the research is headed.

Inconsistencies

Researchers disagree about whether memories fade as a function of the mere passage of time (as in decay theory) or as a function of interfering succeeding events (as in interference theory). Evidence tends to favor interference-related decay over temporal decay, yet this varies depending on the specific memory system taken into account.

Short-term memory

Within the short-term memory system, evidence favours an interference theory of forgetting, based on various researchers' manipulation of the amount of time between a participant's retention and recall stages finding little to no effect on how many items they are able to remember. Looking solely at verbal short-term memory within studies that control against participants' use of rehearsal processes, a very small temporal decay effect coupled with a much larger interference decay effect can be found. No evidence for temporal decay in verbal short-term memory has been found in recent studies of serial recall tasks. Regarding the word-length effect in short-term memory, which states that lists of longer word are harder to recall than lists of short words, researchers argue that interference plays a larger role due to articulation duration being confounded with other word characteristics.

Working memory

Both theories are equally argued in working memory. One situation in which this shows considerable debate is within the complex-span task of working memory, where a complex task is alternated with the encoding of to-be-remembered items. It is either argued that the amount of time taken to perform this task or the amount of interference this task involves cause decay. A time-based resource-sharing model has also been proposed, stating that temporal decay occurs once attention is switched away from whatever information is to be remembered, and occupied by processing of the information. This theory gives more credit to the active rehearsal of information, as refreshing items to be remembered focuses attention back on the information to be remembered in order for it to be better processed and stored in memory. As processing and maintenance are both crucial components of working memory, both of these processes need to be taken into account when determining which theory of forgetting is most valid. Research also suggests that information or an event's salience, or importance, may play a key role. Working memory may decay in proportion to information or an event's salience. This means that if something is more meaningful to an individual, that individual may be less likely to forget it quickly.

System interaction

These inconsistencies may be found due to the difficulty with conducting experiments that focus solely on the passage of time as a cause of decay, ruling out alternative explanations. However, a close look at the literature regarding decay theory will reveal inconsistencies across several studies and researchers, making it difficult to pinpoint precisely which indeed plays the larger role within the various systems of memory. It could be argued that both temporal decay and interference play an equally important role in forgetting, along with motivated forgetting and retrieval failure theory.

Future directions

Revisions in decay theory are being made in research today. The theory is simple and intuitive, but also problematic. Decay theory has long been rejected as a mechanism of long term forgetting. Now, its place in short term forgetting is being questioned. The simplicity of the theory works against it in that supporting evidence always leaves room for alternative explanations. Researchers have had much difficulty creating experiments that can pinpoint decay as a definitive mechanism of forgetting. Current studies have always been limited in their abilities to establish decay due to confounding evidence such as attention effects or the operation of interference.

Hybrid theories

The future of decay theory, according to Nairne (2002), should be the development of hybrid theories that incorporate elements of the standard model while also assuming that retrieval cues play an important role in short term memory. By broadening the view of this theory, it will become possible to account for the inconsistencies and problems that have been found with decay to date.

Neuronal evidence

Another direction of future research is to tie decay theory to sound neurological evidence. As most current evidence for decay leaves room for alternate explanations, studies indicating a neural basis for the idea of decay will give the theory new solid support. Jonides et al. (2008) found neural evidence for decay in tests demonstrating a general decline in activation in posterior regions over a delay period. Though this decline was not found to be strongly related to performance, this evidence is a starting point in making these connections between decay and neural imaging. A model proposed to support decay with neurological evidence places importance on the firing patterns of neurons over time. The neuronal firing patterns that make up the target representation fall out of synchrony over time unless they are reset. The process of resetting the firing patterns can be looked at as rehearsal, and in absence of rehearsal, forgetting occurs. This proposed model needs to be tested further to gain support, and bring firm neurological evidence to the decay theory.

Voluntary childlessness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness

Voluntary childlessness, childfreeness, or being childfree, describes the voluntary choice not to have children.

In most societies and for most of human history, choosing not to have children was both difficult and undesirable (except for celibate individuals). The availability of reliable contraception along with support provided in old age by one's government or by one's savings rather than one's family has made childlessness an option for some people, though they may be looked down upon in certain communities.

The word childfree first appeared sometime before 1901 and entered common usage among feminists during the 1970s, The suffix -free denotes the freedom and personal choice of those to pick this lifestyle. The meaning of the term childfree extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to one's own children), and this distinguishes it further from the more usual term childless, which is traditionally used to express the idea of having no children, whether by choice or by circumstance. The term child-free has been cited in Australian literature to refer to parents who are without children at the current time. This may be due to them living elsewhere on a permanent basis or a short-term solution such as childcare.

Reasons cited for being voluntarily childless

Supporters of this lifestyle cite various reasons for their view. These reasons can be personal, social, philosophical, moral, economic, or a complex, nuanced combination of such reasons.

Psychosocial and personal

Woman jogging with a dog at Carcavelos beach, Portugal. Some people prefer pets to children. Many single childfree women are quite happy.

• Reluctance to replicate the genes of one's own parents in cases of child abuse.
• Parents can become less empathetic towards non-family members.
• Preference of pursuing personal development to raising children
• Lack of desire to perpetuate one's family line or pass on one's genes.
• Unwillingness to sacrifice freedom and independence to rearing children.
• Preference of having a pet over a child.
• Celibacy or a fear and/or revulsion towards sexual activity and intimacy or being an asexual
• Various fears for oneself or child
  • fear of a long-term stressful responsibility and performance anxiety
  • fear of not being able to love one's child
  • fear that one will give birth to a disabled child and taking care of whom is challenging
  • fear and/or revulsion towards children
• Perceived or actual incapacity to be a responsible and patient parent The view that spending time with one's nephews, nieces or stepchildren is sufficient for one's own happiness or otherwise already providing childcare as part of an extended family or godparent. Or situations where one's partner already has children from a previous relationship and one does not have a need or justification to bear or parent additional children.
• The view that one's friendships and relationships with adults are sufficient for one's own happiness
• Possible deterioration of interpersonal relationships.
• Dislike of (young) children's behavior, language, and/or biological processes.
• Uncertainty over the stability of the parenting relationship, and the damage to relationships or difficulties with them getting children may cause.
  • Partner does not want children.
  • Fear that sexual activity may decline. A long-term relationship or marriage might be in danger due to the stress created by children.
• Drop in the level of happiness after having a baby, though the level depends on a variety of factors, including sex, age, and nationality
• Gap in happiness between parents and the childfree in favour of the latter, even in places with generous social welfare programs
• The view that the wish to reproduce oneself is a form of narcissism

Cultural and demographic

Early twentieth-century postcard of a woman fighting a stork bringing her a child. As women's opportunities increase, they are less interested in having children.

• Lack of a suitable partner or difficulty getting married.
  • These trends are important in countries where having children out of wedlock is highly unusual.
• Disapproval of perfectionist attitudes towards child-rearing in modern societies
  • As a society becomes better developed, it is generally true that expectations of parental investment per child goes up, depressing fertility rates.
• Dislike of dedicated parents. In North American English, the (pejorative) term for this is 'soccer moms'.
• Changing cultural attitude towards children (known as the second demographic transition)
  • A result of women's liberation, education, and rising workforce participation
    • Women no longer need to marry and bear children in order to be economically secure
  • Transition from traditional and communal values towards expressive individualism
    • In the West, adherents of the countercultural or feminist movements in the 1960s and 1970s typically had no children
  • Growing awareness that childbearing is a choice
  • Declining support for traditional gender roles, and that people need to have children in order to be complete or successful
• Disapproval of the treatment and expectations of men and women
• Unwillingness to burden one's children with such care, or preventing a situation in which one's premature death will orphan one's children (at too young an age), or cause them too much sorrow at one's deathbed.

• Preventing long-term disruption of sleep.
• Availability of effective contraception, birth control, or sterilization, which makes the choice to remain voluntarily childless easier 
• Concerns over the effects and possible complications pregnancy has on the woman's body (weight gain, stretch marks, drooping breasts, hyperpigmentation on the face, looser pelvic muscles leading to reduced sexual pleasure for both the woman and her partner, hemorrhoids, urinary incontinence, death, among others)
• Pregnancy and childbirth can bring about undesirable changes:
  • Substantial neurobiological changes leading to postpartum depression, and feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, among other things. Men can also suffer from postpartum depression.
  • Lasting effects on women's health. In particular, research suggests a causal link between gravidity and accelerated cellular aging, because energy is diverted from somatic maintenance to reproductive efforts.
• The health of one's partner does not allow for children
• Personal well-being, health and happiness
• One's health does not allow for children, who are vector of infectious diseases.
• Existing or possible health problems, including genetic disorders that one does not want potential children to inherit and mental health issues
• Not feeling the 'biological clock' ticking and having no maternal or paternal instincts or drives
• Fear and/or revulsion towards the physical condition of pregnancy (tokophobia), the childbirth experience, and recovery (for example the erosion of physical desirability)
• One is too old or too young to have children

Economic

Modern welfare programs negate the need for children, some argue.

• Rejection of the claim that the country's economy is at risk if some people do not procreate
• Belief that very few parents actually have children in order to support the country's economy
• Lack of support for working women
• Burden of taxes and debt
  • Some use the term "wage slaves" when referring to having to pay taxes to support welfare programs such as pensions.
  • Student debts, a serious problem among Millennials and Generation Z in the U.S., discourage many from having children.
• Stagnant or falling wages at the same time as high cost of living
• Rising cost of raising a child as a society industrializes and urbanizes
  • In an agrarian society, children are a source of labour and thus income for the family. But as it shifts towards industries other than agriculture and as more people relocate to the cities, children become a net sink of parental resources. This is known as the (first) demographic transition.
  • "When we advise clients about having children, we honestly don’t even give them the full real details and the real numbers, It’s one of those things if you see the math of it all, it might make you decide to not have children." Shannon McLay, founder of The Financial Gym, told CNBC.
• Being busy with work
• Loss of income and savings
• Possibility of early retirement
• Unwillingness to pay the cost of raising a child. For example, according to Statistics Netherlands and the National Institute for Budgetary Information (Nibud), raising a child cost an average of €120,000 from birth to age 18, or about 17% of one's disposable income as of 2019.
  • Inability to pay the cost of raising a child
  • Hard to arrange, or pay for, child care
  • Parental leaves are non-existent or too short
  • Expensive (higher) education
  • Not having a support network, especially when one is or risks becoming a single parent
• Living in a time of pestilence or economic recession
• Reduction in the quality of life.
• Hard to arrange, or pay for, child care
• Ability to invest some of the time and money saved by not raising children to other socially meaningful purposes
• Other possibilities in life opening up due to the lack of children, such as pursuing a career, retiring early, making charitable donations, having more leisure, being more active in the community, or other interests.
• No need for care by one's own children when one is old or close to dying
  • One can be cared for by the modern welfare state (including the establishment of retirement homes)
  • Having no children allows one to save more money for retirement.
  • Having children is not a guaranteed safety net for parent-child relations might be strained

Philosophical

Antinatalists such as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that having children is inherently wrong because life is full of suffering.

• Simply not wanting to have children. Supporters of this lifestyle argue that they should not have to justify why they do not want children. Any specific activity requires motivation or justification, not inaction.
• Various ethical reasons
  • Belief that one can make an even greater contribution to humanity through one's work than through having children (for example by working for or donating to charities)
  • Antinatalism, the philosophy asserting that it is inherently immoral to bring people into the world.
    • Antinatalists argue in favor of the asymmetry of pleasure and pain. The absence of pleasure is neutral whereas the absence of pain is positive. Hence, one may generally wish to spare a potential child from the suffering of life. This way, avoiding having a child can be thought of as a form of compassion for the unborn.
    • Moreover, the parent can never get the consent of the unborn child, therefore a decision to procreate would be an imposition of life. However, some childfree people explicitly reject antinatalism; they may even like the children of others, but just do not want any themselves.
  • Chance that one's child may grow up to become an immoral person
  • Belief that it is wrong to intentionally have a child when there are so many children available for adoption
  • Belief that one can still contribute to 'the education of children to become happy and empathic beings' that a society needs (for example, by being a teacher or babysitter) without being a parent oneself
• General existential angst.
  • Distress over politics or the state of the world.
• The opinion that not having children is less selfish than having them
  • Some argue that not having children is an unselfish act
• Questioning of the need for the next generation and refusal to be 'slaves' to the genes
• Belief in a negative, declining condition of the world and culture and in the need to avoid subjecting a child to those negative conditions
  • This includes concerns that calamitous events—effects of global warming, war, or famine—might be likely to occur within the lifetime of one's children and cause their suffering and/or death
• Belief that one is not 'missing out' on any of the alleged benefits of parenthood as long as one does not know what parenthood is like
• View that people tend to have children for the wrong reasons (e.g. fear, social pressures from cultural norms) Adherence to the principles of a religious organization which rejects having children or the rejection of procreative religious beliefs imposed by one's family and/or community
• Belief that it is irresponsible to 'just try' what parenthood is like when one is still in doubt, as it burdens one with a responsibility to raise a child to adulthood once it's born, with no turning back when one is disappointed and regrets the decision
• Opposition to capitalism, believed to necessitate procreation
• Opinion held by some radical feminists that the traditional family is "a decadent, energy-absorbing, destructive, wasteful institution"
• General discontent with modern society
  • Perception of the lack of mutual respect, human dignity, and privacy among individuals and institutions in modern societies; loss of faith in humanity
  • Perception of the inescapable, invasive use of modern technology and global surveillance; anticipation of a technological dystopian future
  • Social Darwinism and political polarization; general cynicism and existential nihilism

Environmental

Reduction of one's carbon footprint for various actions

• Rejection of the claim that the survival of the entire human species is at risk if some people do not procreate, especially in times of human overpopulation
  • Belief that very few parents actually have children in order to prevent human extinction
• View that human existence inflicts suffering upon other species just like the way they cause harm among themselves via predatory practices
• Countering human overpopulation and its effects by not reproducing
  • Concern regarding environmental impacts of human activities including population growth such as climate change, global warming, pollution, resource scarcity and famines, humanitarian crises such as refugee crises and resulting ethnic conflicts, loss of biodiversity or mass extinction (see the Holocene Extinction)
  • The belief that having one fewer child reduces one's carbon dioxide emissions significantly compared to, for instance, owning a car with improved fuel efficiency, replacing incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient models, avoiding air travel, practicing comprehensive recycling, or adopting a vegetarian diet
  • Worries over the breakdown of civilization
• Opposition to anthropocentrism and belief in deep ecology, or putting non-human lives first
• Support for the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens
  • Opinion that the voluntary extinction of humanity will not be entirely a tragedy but an act of empathy and nobility

Statistics and research

General

Psychologist Ellen Walker argued in Psychology Today that the childfree lifestyle had become a trend in 2014. The Internet has enabled people who pursue this lifestyle to connect, thereby making it more visible. Worldwide, higher educated women are statistically more often choosing to remain childless. Research into both voluntary and involuntary childlessness and parenthood has long focused on women's experiences, and men's perspectives are often overlooked.

Asia

China

See also: Aging of China

In China, the cost of living, especially the cost of housing in the big cities, is a serious obstacle to marriage. In the 1990s, the Chinese government reformed higher education in order to increase access, whereupon significantly more young people, a slight majority of whom being women, have received a university degree. Consequently, many young women are now gainfully employed and financially secure. Traditional views on gender roles dictate that women be responsible for housework and childcare, regardless of their employment status. Workplace discrimination against women (with families) is commonplace; for example, an employer might be more skeptical towards a married woman with one child, fearing she might have another (as the one-child policy was rescinded in 2016) and take more maternity leave. Altogether, there is less incentive for young women to marry. In addition, Chinese Millennials are less keen on tying the knots than their predecessors as a result of cultural change. Because this is a country where having children out of wedlock is quite rare, this means that many young people are foregoing children.

The "lying flat" movement, popular among Chinese youths, also extends to the domain of marriage and child-rearing. Over half of Chinese youths aged 18 to 26 said they were uninterested in having children because of the high cost of child-rearing, according to a 2021 poll by the Communist Youth League. While the Chinese economy is steeply rising, explosive bloom of the real-estate market post-2008 has triggered an increase in house prices disproportionate to income and this is the commonly cited reason for childlessness and "lying flat" among the Chinese youth. A normal apartment unit in Beijing (with an average area of 112 square meters), for instance, costs on average ¥7.31 million ($1.15 million) and one would need to work non-stop for at least 88.2 years at Beijing's average monthly income of ¥6906 ($1083.7) without any expenditures.

Taiwan

In Taiwan, it has become much more affordable for young couples to own pets instead of having children. In addition, those who want children face obstacles such as short maternity leaves and low wages. By 2020, Taiwan has become home to more pets than children.

Vietnam

As Vietnam continues to industrialize and urbanize, many couples have chosen to have fewer children, or none at all, especially in better developed and more densely populated places, such as Ho Chi Minh City, where the fertility rate fell to 1.45 in 2015, well below replacement. Rising cost of living and tiredness from work are among the reasons why. By 2023, polls show that significant numbers of married Vietnamese are choosing to not have children in order to focus on their lives and careers, or because they are wary of the demands of parenthood.

Europe

See also: Aging of Europe

In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40–44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010–2011). Among surveyed countries, childlessness was least common across Eastern European countries, although one child families are very common there.

Belgium

In March 2020, Quest reported that research had shown that, in Belgium, 11% of women and 16% of men between the ages of 25 and 35 did not want children.

Netherlands

Children infringe on freedom			54%
Raising children takes too much time and energy			35%
Partner did not want children			28%
Hard to combine work and children			26%
No compelling need/unfit			23%
Health does not allow for children			18%
Children cost too much			7%
Hard to get child care			5%
Reasons why Dutch women chose not to have children, 2004

According to research by Statistics Netherlands from 2004, 6 in 10 childless women are voluntarily childless. It showed a correlation between higher levels of education of women and the choice to be childfree, and the fact that women had been receiving better education in the preceding decades was a factor why an increasing number of women chose childfreedom. The two most important reasons for choosing not to have children were that it would infringe on their freedom and that raising children takes too much time and energy; many women who gave the second reason also gave the first. A 2016 report from Statistics Netherlands confirmed those numbers: 20% of Dutch women were childless, of whom 60% voluntarily, so that 12% of all Dutch women could be considered childfree.

In March 2017, Trouw reported that a new Statistics Netherlands report showed that 22% of higher educated 45-year-old men were childless and 33% of lower educated 45-year-old men were childless. Childlessness amongst the latter was increasing, even though most of them were involuntarily childless. The number of voluntarily childless people amongst higher educated men had been increasing since the 1960s, whilst voluntary childlessness amongst lower educated men (who tended to have been raised more traditionally) did not become a rising trend until the 2010s.

In March 2020, Quest reported that research from Trouw and Statistics Netherlands had shown that 10% of 30-year-old Dutch women questioned had not had children out of her own choice, and did not expect to have any children anymore either; furthermore, 8.5% of 45-year-old women questioned and 5.5% of 60-year-old women questioned stated that they had consciously remained childless.

Russia

In October 2020, NAFI reported that 7% of population between the ages of 18 and 45 did not want children, this figure reached 20% within Moscow population. Most often, educated, wealthy and ambitious people refuse to have children. They are unwilling to sacrifice their comfort and career for the sake of their children. At the same time, the spread of ideology is prohibited in the country, and the founder of the movement Childfree Russia, Edward Lisovskii, is being persecuted by the government. 

Sweden

According to a 2019 study amongst 191 Swedish men aged 20 to 50, 39 were not fathers and did not want to have children in the future either (20.4%). Desire to have (more) children was not related to level of education, country of birth, sexual orientation or relationship status.

Some Swedish men 'passively' choose not to have children as they feel their life is already good as it is, adding children is not necessary, and they do not have to counter the same amount of social pressure to have children as childfree women do.

United Kingdom

A YouGov poll released in January 2020 revealed that among Britons who were not already parents, 37% told pollsters they did not want any children ever. 19% said they did not want children but might change their minds in the future and 26% were interested in having children. Those who did not want to be parents included 13% of people aged 18 to 24, 20% of those aged 25 to 34, and 51% aged 35 to 44. Besides age (23%), the most popular reasons for not having children were the potential impact on lifestyles (10%), high costs of living and raising children (10%), human overpopulation (9%), dislike of children (8%), and lack of parental instincts (6%).

North America

Canada

In 2010, around half of Canadian women without children in their 40s had decided to not have any from an early age. A 2023 report from Statistics Canada states that over a third of Canadians aged 18 to 49 do not want to have children. Many are also delaying having children or want to have fewer children than their predecessors. Among Canadian women aged 50 and over, about 17.2% had no biological children, as of 2022. Pursuit of higher education, unaffordable housing, economic precariousness, and the rising cost of living are among the reasons why. These trends have accelerated in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like the case in other countries, there is a generational gap in attitudes towards reproduction. Baby Boomers are more likely to consider raising (grand) children to be a source of fulfillment or the glue that holds a marriage together. But not that many young Canadians share this view. Moreover, while Canadians today are more tolerant towards the idea of not having children, many seniors still struggle with this decision coming from their own family members.

United States

See also: Aging of the United States

Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s. However, the proportion of childfree adults in the population has increased significantly since then. A 2006 study by Abma and Martinez found that American women aged 35 to 44 who were voluntarily childless constituted 5% of all U.S. women in 1982, 8% in 1988, 9% in 1995 and 7% in 2002. These women had the highest income, prior work experience and the lowest religiosity compared to other women. Research by sociologist Kristin Park revealed that childfree people tended to be better educated, to be professionals, to live in urban areas, to be less religious, and to have less conventional life choices.

From 2007 to 2011 the fertility rate in the U.S. declined 9%, the Pew Research Center reporting in 2010 that the birth rate was the lowest in U.S. history and that childlessness rose across all racial and ethnic groups to about 1 in 5 versus 1 in 10 in the 1970s; it did not say which percentage of childless Americans were so voluntarily, but Time claimed that, despite persisting discrimination against especially women who chose to remain childless, acceptance of being childfree was gradually increasing.

A growing share of American adults does not want to have children.

Over all, the importance of having children has declined across all age groups in the United States, especially the young. A cross-generational study comparing Millennials (graduating class of 2012) to Generation X (graduating class of 1992) conducted at Wharton School of Business revealed that among both genders the proportion of undergraduates who reported they eventually planned to have children had dropped in half over the course of a generation. In 1992, 78% of women planned to eventually have children. But by 2021, that number fell to 42%. The results were similar for male students. However, voluntary childlessness in the United States was more common among higher educated women but not higher educated men. A 2021 survey by Pew found that the number of non-parents aged 18 to 49 who said they were not too likely or not at all likely to have children was 44%, up seven points compared to 2018. Among these people, 56% said they simply did not want to have children. A 2023 poll by The Wall Street Journal and NORC at the University of Chicago found that about 23% of people adults below the age of 30 thought that having children was important, 9 percentage points below those aged 65 and above.

Psychologist Paul Dolan made the case that women who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States by analyzing American Time Use Survey. 2019 data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve shows that among single people, women without children made more money than men without children or men and women with children.

In the U.S., although being voluntarily childless or childfree is not without its disadvantages, such as higher taxes, less affordable housing options, and concern of old age, parenthood continues to lose its appeal. After the Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which returned the right to regulate aspects of abortion not covered by federal law to the individual states, the number of young and childfree adults seeking sterilization went up. Previously, it was usually middle-aged fathers who obtained vasectomies.

Oceania

New Zealand

Statistics New Zealand estimated that the share of childfree women grew from under 10% in 1996 to around 15% in 2013. Professional women were the most likely to be without children, at 16%, compared with 12% for manual workers. At least 5% of women were childfree by choice.

Social attitudes to remaining childfree

Most societies place a high value on parenthood in adult life, so that people who remain childfree are sometimes stereotyped as being "individualistic" people who avoid social responsibility and are less prepared to commit themselves to helping others. However, certain groups believe that being childfree is beneficial. With the advent of environmentalism and concerns for stewardship, those choosing to not have children are also sometimes recognized as helping reduce our impact. Some childfree are sometimes lauded on moral grounds, such as members of philosophical or religious groups, like the Shakers.

There are three broad areas of criticism regarding childfreeness, based upon socio-political, feminist or religious reasons. There are also considerations relating to personal philosophy and social roles.

Feminism

Feminist author Daphne DeMarneffe links larger feminist issues to both the devaluation of motherhood in contemporary society, as well as the delegitimization of "maternal desire" and pleasure in motherhood. In third-wave handbook Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future, authors Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards explore the concept of third-wave feminists reclaiming "girlie" culture, along with reasons why women of Baby Boomer and Generation X ages may reject motherhood because, at a young and impressionable age, they witnessed their own mothers being devalued by society and family.

On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order" and in Utne Reader magazine, third-wave feminist writer Tiffany Lee Brown described the joys and freedoms of childfree living, freedoms such as travel previously associated with males in Western culture. In "Motherhood Lite", she celebrates being an aunt, co-parent, or family friend over the idea of being a mother.

Overpopulation

Main article: Human overpopulation

The human population has grown significantly since the start of industrialization, leading many to believe that overpopulation is a serious problem and some to question the fairness of what they feel amounts to subsidies for having children, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (US), free K–12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs. Others, however, do not believe overpopulation to be a problem in itself, regarding such problems as overcrowding, global warming, and straining food supplies to be problems of public policy and/or technology.

Some have argued that this sort of conscientiousness is self-eliminating (assuming it is heritable), so by avoiding reproduction for ethical reasons the childfree will only aid in the deterioration of concern for the environment and future generations.

Government and taxes

See also: Tax on childlessness

Some regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parents—such as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilities—as intrinsically discriminatory, arguing for their removal, reduction, or the formation of a corresponding system of matching incentives for other categories of social relationships. Childfree advocates argue that other forms of caregiving have historically not been considered equal—that "only babies count"—and that this is an outdated idea that is in need of revision. Caring for sick, disabled, or elderly dependents entails significant financial and emotional costs but is not currently subsidized in the same manner. This commitment has traditionally and increasingly fallen largely on women, contributing to the feminization of poverty in the U.S.

The focus on personal acceptance is mirrored in much of the literature surrounding choosing not to reproduce. Many early books were grounded in feminist theory and largely sought to dispel the idea that womanhood and motherhood were necessarily the same thing, arguing, for example, that childfree people face not only social discrimination but political discrimination as well.

Religion

Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam place a high value on children and their central place in marriage. In numerous works, including an Apostolic letter written in 1988, Pope John Paul II has set forth the Roman Catholic emphasis on the role of children in family life. However, the Catholic Church also stresses the value of chastity.

There are, however, some debates within religious groups about whether a childfree lifestyle is acceptable. Another view, for example, is that the biblical verse "Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28, is really not a command but an expression of blessing. Alternatively, some Christians believe that Genesis 1:28 is a moral command but nonetheless believe that voluntary childlessness is ethical if a higher ethical principle intervenes to make child bearing imprudent in comparison. Health concerns, a calling to serve orphans, serving as missionaries in a dangerous location, etc., are all examples that would make childbearing imprudent for a Christian. A small activist group, the Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree, defends this view, saying "Jesus loved children but chose to never have any, so that he could devote his life to telling the Good News."

Ethical reasons

Main article: Antinatalism

See also: Population ethics

Essayist Brian Tomasik cites ethical reasons for people to remain childfree. Also, they will have more time to focus on themselves, which will allow for greater creativity and the exploration of personal ambitions. In this way, they may benefit themselves and society more than if they had a child.

The "selfish" issue

Main article: Asymmetry (population ethics)

Some opponents of the childfree choice consider such a choice to be selfish. The rationale of this position is the assertion that raising children is a very important activity and so not engaging in this activity must therefore mean living one's life in service to one's self. The value judgment behind this idea is that individuals should endeavor to make some kind of meaningful contribution to the world, but also that the best way to make such a contribution is to have children. For some people, one or both of these assumptions may be true, but others prefer to direct their time, energy, and talents elsewhere, in many cases toward improving the world that today's children occupy (and that future generations will inherit).

Proponents of childfreedom posit that choosing not to have children is no more or less selfish than choosing to have children. Choosing to have children may be the more selfish choice, especially when poor parenting risks creating many long-term problems for both the children themselves and society at large. As philosopher David Benatar explains, at the heart of the decision to bring a child into the world often lies the parents' own desires (to enjoy child-rearing or perpetuate one's legacy/genes), rather than the potential person's interests. At the very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent.

There is also the question as to whether having children really is such a positive contribution to the world in an age when there are many concerns about overpopulation, pollution and depletion of non-renewable resources. This is especially true for the wealthy 1% of global population who consume disproportionate amounts of resources and who are responsible for 15% of global carbon emissions. Some critics counter that such analyses of having children may understate its potential benefits to society (e.g. a greater labour force, which may provide greater opportunity to solve social problems) and overstate the costs. That is, there is often a need for a non-zero birth rate.

Stigma

Main article: Infertility and childlessness stigmas

People who express the fact that they have voluntarily chosen to remain childfree are frequently subjected to several forms of discrimination. The decision not to have children has been attributed to insanity or derided as "unnatural", and frequently childfree people are subjected to unsolicited questioning by friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances and even strangers who attempt to force them to justify and change their decision. Some British childfree women have compared their experiences of coming out as childfree to coming out as gay in the mid-20th century. Some Canadian women preferred not to express their decision to remain childfree for fear of encountering social pressure to change their decision. Some women are told to first have a child before being able to properly decide that they do not want one. Some parents try to pressure their children into producing grandchildren and threaten to or actually disown them if they do not. Some childfree women are told they would make good mothers, or just "haven't met the right man yet", are assumed to be infertile rather than having made a conscious decision not to make use of their fertility (whether applicable or not). Some childfree people are accused of hating all children instead of just not wanting any themselves and still being able to help people who do have children with things like babysitting.

It has also been claimed that there is a taboo on discussing the negative aspects of pregnancy, and a taboo on parents to express regret that they chose to have children, which makes it harder for childfree people to defend their decision not to have them.

Social attitudes about voluntary childlessness have been slowly changing from condemnation and pathologisation in the 1970s towards more acceptance by the 2010s.

Organizations and political activism

Childfree individuals do not necessarily share a unified political or economic philosophy, and most prominent childfree organizations tend to be social in nature. Childfree social groups first emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, most notable among them the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood and No Kidding! in North America where numerous books have been written about childfree people and where a range of social positions related to childfree interests have developed along with political and social activism in support of these interests. The term "childfree" was used in a July 3, 1972 Time article on the creation of the National Organization for Non-Parents. It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT, pronounced 'vehement') is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. Despite its name, the movement also includes those who do not necessarily desire human extinction but do want to curb or reverse human population growth in the name of environmentalism.^[42] VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an American activist who became involved in the American environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because, in the movement's view, it would prevent environmental degradation. The movement states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the movement as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation.

The movement has been equated with extremism in Russia, and its founder, Edward Lisovskii, is under persecution.