Kathy Shaidle and Dr. Helen both weigh in on the question of whether childless adults are better or worse for society.

I’ve expressed my differences with Shaidle in the past, regarding cultural topics like gaming and sci-fi. No need to go over that ground again.

It should be beyond obvious that having kids is good for society. For one thing, no kids pretty much means no society at all before too long. Additionally, if you have a set of values and there’s a competing set of values out there, the group that has the most kids is probably going to win over time because they’re going to transmit their values to their children. If you’re not having kids, to whom are you transmitting your values? Your blog readers?

But I just have one real question to toss into the debate: What sort of government policies do aging childless adults end up needing, and therefore voting for when they’re old?

If you don’t have kids and grandkids to help you when you’re old, who will take care of you when your health is failing?

Culturally, we’re dismantling the social structures that once provided us with the means to help the poor and aging outside government. The church and family are both under massive, sustained assault from the broader culture.

If they’re destroyed by our generation or the next one, as seems increasingly likely, what’s left to fill in the gaps?

You can try “going Galt” when you’re young and haven’t taken on the adult and forward-looking responsibility of raising the next generation to understand what individual liberty means, but it’s tough to stay Galt when you can barely walk or feed yourself, and you have no one but the helping hand of government around to help you.