> Are most people single in their 50s by choice, as in they would prefer that to being in a relationship with children?
Firstly, There have always been — though I dislike the term — leftover men and women recluses and spinsters. People don't exist as sperm donors and incubators whose only purpose to form a family unit. They have rich lives as individuals.
Secondly, the question to ask would be a choice at what cost? I'm sure any naif would answer affirmatively to having a relationship with children. But those who are aware of what the question implies — the surrender of opportunity and free time, the fiduciary duty to spouse and child, the peer pressure and stress from society from without and one's SO from within, the potential for everything to fall apart at one's expense even when doing everything right — will rightfully be more uncertain about whether such a relationship is worth pursuing. No one in this universe has a choice as to someone else's behaviors, and, as a result, the only "reliable" metrics are semi-controllable tradeoffs (i.e. freedom vs loneliness, financial security vs fiduciary obligation) and an ability to judge character.
> I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing.
What's the difference? Most people on Earth don't become their parents' geriatric specialists. You'll be depending on outsiders whether or not you have children. In fact, kids especially rely on outsiders to comfort of them, feed them, medicate them, make cheap products for them, teach them, and transport them, for about two decades. And by that point they'll have their own lives with their own demands.
The biggest difference is that a lot of the tasks you mentioned (feeding, medicating, teaching, transporting) can be outsourced to other random young people. But it is hard to get love and caring from someone who interacts with you on a purely transactional basis. I haven't yet seen any effective replacement to the joy grandkids can bring to grandparents. Or a warm Thanksgiving meal with family around the table.
TBF, friends can replace some of the roles families used to play. But intergenerational friendship is still rare and as you get old, your friends are also getting old and cannot care for you the way a younger family member would do.
Firstly, There have always been — though I dislike the term — leftover men and women recluses and spinsters. People don't exist as sperm donors and incubators whose only purpose to form a family unit. They have rich lives as individuals.
Secondly, the question to ask would be a choice at what cost? I'm sure any naif would answer affirmatively to having a relationship with children. But those who are aware of what the question implies — the surrender of opportunity and free time, the fiduciary duty to spouse and child, the peer pressure and stress from society from without and one's SO from within, the potential for everything to fall apart at one's expense even when doing everything right — will rightfully be more uncertain about whether such a relationship is worth pursuing. No one in this universe has a choice as to someone else's behaviors, and, as a result, the only "reliable" metrics are semi-controllable tradeoffs (i.e. freedom vs loneliness, financial security vs fiduciary obligation) and an ability to judge character.
> I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing.
What's the difference? Most people on Earth don't become their parents' geriatric specialists. You'll be depending on outsiders whether or not you have children. In fact, kids especially rely on outsiders to comfort of them, feed them, medicate them, make cheap products for them, teach them, and transport them, for about two decades. And by that point they'll have their own lives with their own demands.