The question will be resolved as 'yes' if, before 2030, multiple authoritative sources report the existence of a city where the presence of children under 5 years old (or a stricter restriction up to 18 years old) is fully prohibited and subject to fines.
For the context of this question, specialized areas like military bases, laboratories, medical institutions, casinos, sex industry facilities and correctional facilities aren't considered 'child-free cities. We're referring to a typical city that forbidden children by law. If you'd like to live in such a place, vote YES! ))
1,000
3.00The share of people without children is rising in such other developed economies as the U.S. and Europe. This has been attributed to a shift in values as more people focus on self-fulfillment rather than having kids.
In these countries, around 10% to 20% of women born in 1970 never had children. The share in Japan is significantly higher at 27% and could end up at more than double Western levels if American and European rates stay around their current levels. -Nikkei
Why should these people pay for children's infrastructure, endure noise, give away the best land for useless kindergartens and primary schools? There will be such cities, whether you like it or not! ))) I swear you!
@Penultimate that is a great question! A related question is why anyone should pay so much for the healthcare of economically useless old people. I'm sure they could pay for it themselves, but really, why should they keep their pensions, savings, retirement benefits, etc.? What's in it for us? Their net consumption of goods and services necessarily takes away a lot of the economic output of more productive people who might put it to more fun uses. In the absence of some social obligation here, it's hard to justify allocating any resources to the old, disabled, or both.
So if such a city exists, it will probably exist in Canada, where as soon as people reach the point where they're a net burden, and they have no ties to anyone who is interested in them continuing to live, they can off themselves. At which point we should probably clarify the question: does the childfree city count as a city if it's mostly a cemetary?
@ByrneHobart It's very good that you noticed it. The attitude towards the elderly is entirely indifferent compared to children. And you are unlikely to find any good infrastructure for them, and you will not even find content for them (websites, or computer games)! Because they are no longer needed by the state. In addition, most older people pay taxes all their lives, including their own pension, and the fact that the state destroys these savings with inflation is another matter. Everyone will be old and useless, but not everyone chooses to have children, so your argument seems strange.
By the way, living near a cemetery is much more pleasant than living near a kindergarten or school! This is a great neighbourhood!
Without a limit on a minimum population and minimum area, the question seem too loose to bet on.
Even a single house where the owner imposes this rule seems to qualify.
@rpominov the question implies that legislation and an executive branch will enforce the laws in such a city. But this does not exclude the fact that the city may be private. The question invites open discussion: what should the minimum population be? I think the term city can not be applied to one house! I indicated that this is a typical city - that is, it has shops, general infrastructure, a legislative body, etc ...
@dsh most regional governments define requirements for the incorporation of new cities. Cities are legal entities, there's really no use in debating what "city" means.
@marnet In my view, the population should be at least 5,000 people. But I won't set that as a criterion just yet.
The question invites open discussion: what should the minimum population be?
Got it. I don't have an opinion on a specific number, but I think having a number would be good.
I indicated that this is a typical city - that is, it has shops, general infrastructure, a legislative body, etc ...
This sounds good, I'd probably add some checklist based on some selected points from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
@marnet to contrast the question, let's assume that children under five years old cannot be in the city except in an emergency.
I'm betting "No" because implementing this means one of:
Sterilizing everyone
If you don't take choice #1, deporting everyone who gets pregnant, or
Playing games with the definition so a retirement community counts as a "city" but the homes of employees don't. (And I think that also fits the exclusion criterion covering military bases, etc.)
Even prisons aren't this aggressive, as demonstrated by this story about the world's suavest felon: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/four-female-prison-guards-impregnated-by-same-inmate/
@ByrneHobart First, no sterilization is implied. If someone wants to have a child, he can freely move to the nearest non-child-free city. Secondly, such specialization allows you to build a city and manage it in a slightly different way. Children's infrastructure is a costly story, and this money can be directed to improvement and other exciting projects. It seems to me that the monotony with which we approach the creation of cities is rather strange. Why don't we dream up? There is no aggressiveness in this matter! Anyway, thank you for your opinion. I haven't expected people to perceive it like that! ))
I'm not trying to agitate you, I want to reply to your comment, which paints the question in some kind of gloomy scenario! ))
@dsh sterilization is one of a few ways to handle this; you mention the other option (deportation). In your comment that sounds voluntary ("he can freely move...") but of course if having children "is fully prohibited" per the premise, then the alternative to them freely moving is them not-so-freely being-moved. In general, coercive measures against fertility are extremely unpopular.
This is just a standard libertarian point. If you're going to forbid something, you can use whatever terminology you want, but ultimately the prohibition is backed by the threat of violence (I'd argue that exile and imprisonment count—if a woman gets pregnant and says "but I like it here, so I'm not leaving," either you don't have a rule against kids or your rule at some point involves somebody physically compelling her to leave. I think the optics there will not look good.)
@ByrneHobart If you buy property in a town which is pronounced openly child-free, it is your choice. We are probably talking about different things since you assume that suddenly some city will declare itself child-free and will expel people with children, but I am telling you about a specialized city right away, which is created and built as such ... and I am far from liberals. ..))
@dsh Right, I’m assuming that, too. People change their minds about things, or get pregnant by accident and decide they’d like to be parents but wouldn’t like to move. Assuming that away means assuming radical changes in compliance with birth control regimens and unusual stability in preferences.
@JimHays I don't want to establish such a criterion, but the question implies that there will be legislation and an executive branch to enforce the laws in such a city. But this does not exclude the fact that the city may be private.