In earlier eras, before the development of organized medicine, agriculture and sanitation, humans struggled to survive; many children died before they grew up, and children were needed to help the family with hard labor, such as farming. Today the world’s population is at 6.7 billion and growing rapidly, but people are bigger consumers than ever. In his or her lifetime, the average American pumps 627,000 gallons of gas and takes more than 28,000 showers, according to National Geographic’s Human Footprint project. Infancy alone requires 3,796 diapers, comprised of 4.5 trees, 715 pounds of plastic, and 1,898 pints of crude oil.

Despite the compulsory congratulations we bestow on expecting moms and dads, parents aren’t as happy as we make them out to be. Couples who have children tend to suffer a drop in their happiness level after having children, writes Daniel Gilbert, Harvard professor of psychology and author of the book “Stumbling on Happiness.” The studies showed that childless couples are happier than those with kids, and that the happiness of parents only increases again after the last child has left the home. The study found that many parents were happier buying groceries or even sleeping than spending time with their prized possessions.

I say possessions because that’s how many parents, in one way or another, see their offspring. In the same Newsweek article mentioning parental happiness (or lack thereof), parents said they have children because it gives them a sense of purpose and other emotional reasons. Are these people really so empty that they have to bring yet another child into this world — who surely deserves better than to be a therapeutic tool — in order to validate themselves?

A sense of purpose can be achieved in a lot of ways, most of them less costly and more helpful to planet Earth than getting preggers. For example, taking an active role in your community or some other social movement. Many people find a sense of purpose through their job, if it provides them with more than a big paycheck.

Besides, one could find the same satisfaction in adoption. Many children have lost their parents through war and disease throughout the globe. For example, the AIDS epidemic in particular will increase the number of orphans in sub-Saharan Africa to 42 million by 2010 according to a study by the United States Agency for International Development. If you’re not into doing the Angelina Jolie thing, many children are without parents in the United States. A friend told me he finds a great sense of purpose in his adopted dog, whose most expensive hobby involves destroying cardboard boxes.

Of course, some people are hell-bent on spreading their genetics. It’s “natural” or “the cycle of life” they say. Apparently, some ordinary people see it as their cosmic evolutionary duty to pass along their genetic code at any cost. Dismissing consideration for society by citing what we’re “meant to do” is a frequent justification for selfish motives, but such arguments are merely hot air. Humans are not “meant” to do anything; we do what we choose to do.

At the very least, potential parents can argue that they have a right to procreate (although I find this term unnecessarily positive). According to law, yes. But it’s a matter of fact that a right to do something is not an encouragement, nor carved eternally in some sacred stone. What we can do and what we ought to do are seldom identical. At least one country — China — recognizes that children aren’t necessarily a blessing.

Children, apart from their horrific contributions to airplane flights, checkout counters, and waiting rooms everywhere, are an added burden to society. Perhaps we would be less fanatical about having children if we spent more time trying to better ourselves.

Drew Robert Winter is a State News columnist. Reach him at winterdr@msu.edu.