In measurement of a surety it can be - what we are discussing here is relative levels of impact. Raising a child typically produces a public good (a productive citizen). Provision of a public good compared solely to its' lack is a relatively higher level of social beneficence.But all things are not equal.
Naturally, children tend to grab the focus and purpose of parents for 18-24 years or so. However I don't see much evidence for your claim that the focus of effort for the childfree has any particular reason to be devoting their lives to the good of others. (shrug) It may be some do, but there is no incentive structure or social/economic/legal demands that they do so, such as parents face. Those childfree who do devote their lives in some measure to serving others, it should be noted, are merely replicating the focus of parents (others vice self), not surpassing it.Childfree people have an entirely different focus and purpose in life.
Which must have been ridiculously easy for you to do, given that I never made that argument.I have already countered your claim that they haven't contributed enough
Citing from earlier book (I know Redress apparently believes that nobody these days would be so neanderthalish as to put information in a book, but it is surprising what you can find when you read), and quickly pulling out the first stat that comes to my skipping-through-the-pages finger, for example, when one separates out the bottom 30% of the populace for productivity, we find that approximately one out of three males there have failed to form families (not "got married had kids then divorced", never got married and had kids in the first place). When we separate out the top 20% of the populace for productivity, we find that the comparative number is around 10% of the total. Chapter 8.Where is your evidence that the childfree are less productive? Especially since they are the ones pulling the shifts that parents have to miss.