In the culture I grew up in, children were seen as blessings, not burdens. My grandmother would often remark that a full house—however chaotic—was a happy house. It’s a mindset that feels increasingly foreign in today’s world, where we trade the fullness of life for the sterile comforts of control. Among the social circles in which I find myself, a new fad has caught on with surprising fervour — the DINK lifestyle. Dual Income, No Kids. The acronym alone carries an air of smugness, a badge of honour that suggests its practitioners have outwitted the drudgery of parenthood. These are typically people employed in white collar professions that, while demanding are not unreasonably so, granting them both a respectable income and a lifestyle of conspicuous ease within India's most developed and cosmopolitan enclaves. In an era that genuflects at the altar of self-fulfillment, this trend is seen by its acolytes as a mark of contemporary enlightenment and a rebellion against the tyranny of tradition and biology. Two incomes, unfettered by the grubby demands of infants, represent freedom, self-actualization, and an unencumbered pursuit of personal pleasure. To me, however, it represents a hollow triumph, a short-sighted pursuit of comfort at the expense of meaning and legacy. Of course, the appeal of the DINK arrangement is obvious. The modern DINK couple, unburdened by the inconvenient cries of an infant or the looming spectre of college tuition fees, can indulge in what marketers euphemistically call “experiences.” They can tour the vineyards of Bordeaux or lounge on the beaches of Bali — all without interruption from a toddler tugging at their sleeves. But at what cost does this freedom come? To dismiss children as mere impediments to personal pleasure is to misunderstand the very nature of fulfillment. True satisfaction does not lie in the accumulation of experiences or possessions; it lies in the assumption of responsibility, and in the knowledge that one’s life contributes to something greater than oneself. DINK adherents often frame their choice as a rational decision, the product of self-awareness and a refusal to conform to outdated societal expectations. But beneath this veneer of sophistication lies a deeper malaise—one that reflects not just a rejection of parenthood but a rejection of responsibility itself. The modern ethos insists that individuals owe nothing to anyone beyond themselves. At its core, the DINK philosophy sees life not as a duty but as a buffet, from which one is entitled to take only the choicest morsels. In this worldview, children are not a continuation of the human story, nor a source of joy, growth, and meaning, but rather obstacles to a lifestyle of comfort. This hedonistic calculus — where the value of an action is determined solely by the inconvenience it might impose — betrays an impoverished understanding of what it means to live a fulfilling life. The Infantilization of Adulthood Among the more disquieting consequences of the DINK lifestyle is its perpetuation of what might be called the infantilization of adulthood. In eschewing parenthood, many DINKs remain arrested in adolescence, their lives revolving around self-indulgence and immediate gratification. Parenthood, whatever its tribulations, compels one to reckon with the unrelenting reality of sacrifice. In avoiding parenthood, the DINK couple often avoids the moral and emotional growth that comes with it. They may delight in their freedom to flit between exotic locales or attend late-night concerts, but this freedom comes at the cost of an engagement with life’s most pressing questions: What do we owe to the future? How do we find meaning in the face of inevitable mortality? In renouncing parenthood, DINK followers leave behind not just the cries of infants but the echoes of posterity. As someone raised in the frugality of a middle-class household, the DINK philosophy appears to me not only shallow, but impoverished in its understanding of fulfillment. I think of my father, who wore shoes so worn that their soles were patched with glue, yet ensured that I had the indulgence of choosing footwear to match my outfits. My mother would recount the 'hard years' with a mixture of nostalgia and pride, describing how they saved up to acquire one luxury at a time: first a refrigerator, then a washing machine, then a television, piece by piece transforming their modest house into a home. I remember my father’s old scooter, its rattling engine carrying him to work through the sweltering summers and biting winters. On Saturdays, he would stop by a kebab shop near his office, the aroma of grilled meat marking his early return home to share lunch with us. Yes, for all their sacrifices, my parents’ lives were well-lived and my childhood, happy. A False Sense of Virtue What makes the DINK phenomenon particularly galling is the self-righteousness with which it is often promoted. Its adherents frame their choice not merely as a personal preference but as an ethical stance. They claim, for example, that forgoing children is an altruistic act, reducing their carbon footprint in an overpopulated world. This argument, while superficially appealing, collapses under scrutiny. First, it assumes that the world is better off without their hypothetical offspring, a curiously self-loathing position. Second, it ignores the reality that the most sustainable societies are often those with stable populations, not declining ones. A world filled with DINKs would soon face the grim consequences of demographic collapse: aging populations, economic stagnation, and a cultural void where once there was vitality. Moreover, the notion that one’s contribution to humanity ends with paying taxes and living a "low-impact" life is a starkly reductive view of human potential. Human beings are not merely economic units or environmental burdens; they are creators, thinkers, and contributors to a collective legacy. The childless DINK may plant a tree or adopt a dog, but these acts, however admirable, cannot replace the immense, intangible contribution of raising a child who might grow to cure diseases, compose symphonies, or simply bring joy to others. In rejecting parenthood, the DINK couple unwittingly undermines the very social structures that allow their own lifestyle to exist. Who will care for them in their old age if not the children of others? Who will sustain the institutions, economies, and communities they now take for granted? The irony is stark: DINKs depend on the sacrifices of parents who choose to raise the next generation even as they disavow the necessity of such sacrifices themselves. The Meaning of Life A few months ago, I attended a wedding where many of the guests were DINKs. The event was luxurious—an open bar, gourmet food, a live band. But what struck me was the absence of the familiar chaos that comes with bringing children to Indian weddings: no running around, no whiny voices, no spilled juice. In criticizing the DINK phenomenon, I do not mean to suggest that all couples must have children or that parenthood is the only path to a meaningful life. There are, of course, many ways to contribute to the human story. Yet the celebration of the DINK lifestyle as an aspirational ideal reveals a troubling impoverishment of our collective imagination. It reveals a society that has lost sight of what it means to live well, mistaking convenience for contentment and individualism for fulfillment. The issue is not simply one of demographics or economics but of existential significance. To live for oneself alone is to live a diminished existence, one that denies the richness and complexity of the human experience. Parenthood, for all its challenges, offers a glimpse of transcendence—a chance to participate in something greater than oneself, to leave a legacy that endures beyond one’s brief time on Earth. A society of DINKs may be rich in comfort and leisure, but it will be poor in purpose, and eventually, it will be poor in people. Image source: Gilmore Girls (2000-2007)

The Crisis of Modern Secularism One of the primary reasons modern society has dismissed the Christian worldview is the perceived disconnect between what it teaches and the realities of contemporary life. The Church’s assertion of offering a transcendent, universal truth often seems irreconcilable with the secular narratives ingrained through personal experience, societal norms, and the pervasive influence of modern media. In previous generations, much of what an individual knew and understood was shaped by their local community and the shared religious framework that, in the West, was predominantly Christianity. This close-knit environment provided a sense of stability and assurance, as people’s beliefs and values were largely aligned with those of their neighbors. However, advancements in technology — especially in communication, travel, and information — have fundamentally reshaped this dynamic. The modern individual is now inundated with an overwhelming influx of ideas and perspectives from across the globe, creating a kind of information overload. This unprecedented exposure has profoundly challenged the shared certainties of the past. As modern individuals encounter competing ideologies and gain direct knowledge of people once considered enemies, they discover that these individuals, their beliefs, and their practices are not as foreign or unreasonable as previous generations may have assumed. Confronted with this complexity, a modern person often feels compelled to choose between two equally troubling paths: either accept all perspectives as equally valid, leading to relativism and a rejection of absolute truth, or dismiss all perspectives entirely, turning instead to secularism and scientific materialism. The latter path is particularly alluring in an age where scientific advancements offer tangible and consistent results, making them appear as the only stable and reliable source of truth. In contrast, religious practices — once central to human life — are increasingly viewed as psychological crutches for those unable to adapt to modernity. With no immediate or measurable outcomes, these spiritual acts are often dismissed as relics of a superstitious past, tools designed to comfort the fearful and uncertain rather than genuine connections to a transcendent reality. The Church is frequently regarded as an archaic institution, steadfastly adhering to rituals and doctrines that many deem irrelevant in an age of rapid progress and innovation. Whether immersed in material abundance — manicured lawns, pristine homes, technological conveniences, and curated lifestyles — or striving for the perceived attainability of these comforts, which are presented as normative in modern culture, people often question the Church’s focus on sin, grace, and redemption. The false promise of stability and fulfillment offered by modern life obscures the deeper existential struggles that Christian teachings aim to address, leading many to dismiss the Church as a relic of an unenlightened past, incapable of addressing the complexities of a progressive, globalized society.Desensitized and Disoriented In contemporary society, media plays a paradoxical role in shaping our perceptions of suffering, negativity, and normalcy. Its relentless portrayals of violence and tragedy desensitize us, leaving many emotionally unmoved by real suffering. At the same time, it inundates us with advertisements and entertainment programs that depict idyllic lifestyles and curated images of happiness, fostering false expectations of what is normal and achievable. Together, these extremes distort our understanding of life’s true nature, numbing us to its harsher realities and trivializing genuine struggles. These programs and cultural influences not only normalize destructive behaviors but also perpetuate the illusion that individuals are inherently entitled to material prosperity and unassailable self-esteem, irrespective of moral conduct. Additionally, they promulgate the erroneous belief that negative outcomes are aberrations and fictions rather than inherent aspects of the human condition. For decades, this distorted paradigm has led many to misdiagnose the root of their struggles, attributing them to flaws in their mindset rather than deficiencies in their actions. Society repeatedly advances the narrative that the remedy lies in cultivating greater self-love, heightened self-esteem, and unconditional self-forgiveness. In pursuit of such ideals, countless individuals have turned to modern self-help philosophies, aspiring to attain personal enlightenment and alleviate the existential dread that permeates their inner lives. Yet, no amount of positive affirmation or meditative practice can fully dispel the profound guilt, shame, and existential darkness that reside in the depths of the human soul. Upon deeper introspection, many individuals recognize that feelings of inadequacy and despair are not as unfounded as modern thought leaders often claim. Life’s inherent fragility reveals itself in the stark reality that failure and collapse often come far more easily than success. Countless variables beyond our control can unravel, leaving us powerless to alter their course, while moments of serendipity remain exceedingly rare. Achieving anything truly meaningful requires focus, determination, and a considerable amount of hard work. Failure, on the other hand, takes no effort — it happens simply by letting things fall apart. This dynamic extends to the moral and spiritual realm. Moral compromise often presents itself as the path of least resistance, offering immediate gratification, while sacrifice and the pursuit of holiness demand discipline and fortitude that can feel nearly impossible to sustain. Modern society has exacerbated this tension by promoting the belief that success is an entitlement, irrespective of one’s efforts. This entitlement mindset has led many to harbor resentment — toward life, toward others, and even toward whatever they perceive as their creator. For those who still cling to false hopes, this resentment often feeds into a cycle of compromise that unknowingly breeds greater failure, anxiety, and despair. Even for individuals striving to lead virtuous lives, small moral compromises or missteps often masquerade as moments of respite, offering temporary relief from the unrelenting struggles of life, both internal and external. Yet this reprieve is fleeting, ultimately compounding the weight of the burdens they seek to escape.The Gnostic and Modern Understanding of Suffering This dual crisis — of relativism on one hand and secular reductionism on the other — has parallels to challenges faced in early Christianity. Gnosticism arose among certain early Christians who, while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, struggled to reconcile His teachings with their understanding of the God of the Old Testament. Confronted with the undeniable suffering and brutality present in the world, Gnosticism proposed an alternative theological framework: the material world was intrinsically evil, the creation of a lesser or malevolent deity, and salvation could only be attained through esoteric, hidden knowledge accessible to a select few. For the Gnostics, the stark realities of the natural world — cycles of predation, decay, and suffering — were evidence of its inherent evil. A striking example can be found on Fernandina Island, part of the Galápagos archipelago, where thousands of racer snakes lie in wait each year to ambush newly hatched marine iguanas. The hatchlings, guided by instinct, attempt to make their way to the safety of the shore, but many do not survive the journey, relentlessly pursued by waves of snakes in a grim display of predatory efficiency. Such brutal scenes seem to reflect the disorder and cruelty Gnosticism associated with the material world. In contrast, Modern secularist’s tendency to romanticize creation often leads to a selective focus on its beauty and a purposeful ignorance of its brutality. This sentimentality obscures the harsher realities of nature’s unforgiving side, such as the raw spectacle on Fernandina Island, which disrupts idyllic views of the natural world. Yet this evasion of reality extends beyond how we perceive nature. Just as the modernist glosses over the violence of the wild, so too do they seek to deny or escape their own suffering. Pain, loss, and existential uncertainty are anesthetized through layers of distractions — endless entertainment, consumer comforts, and, most prominently, medications and therapies that promise relief. These means, while often necessary and beneficial, can also serve to mask the deeper, unavoidable struggles of human existence.The Christian Understanding of Suffering The Christian worldview, in contrast to both, provides a profound and cohesive understanding of creation’s suffering. While it acknowledges the fallenness of the world, it also proclaims that creation retains its inherent goodness and purpose. The suffering inherent in creation is not evidence of its inherent evil but a reflection of humanity’s sin and its far-reaching consequences. As stewards of creation, humanity’s rebellion against God introduced disorder into both the moral and natural orders, leading to the predation, decay, and death we observe today. Far from being a sign of divine cruelty, such suffering underscores the interconnectedness of humanity and creation. St. Paul speaks to this in his letter to the Romans: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God… in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–21). The suffering of the Cross stands at the heart of Christ’s redemptive work, revealing the depth of God’s love for a broken world. On the Cross, the full weight of cosmic disorder and estrangement from God was borne by Christ, embracing pain and rejection to bring about reconciliation and renewal. Far from being merely a symbol of human suffering, the Cross is the ultimate expression of divine love, where God confronted the brokenness of creation. Through this redemptive moment, suffering itself is can be transformed into a pathway for renewal.A Groaning Creation and the Hope of the Christian Worldview While Gnosticism saw creation as irredeemable and modern secularism often ignores or trivializes its harsher realities, the Christian worldview offers a more integrated and redemptive vision. Rather than retreating into sentimentality or denial, Christianity confronts creation’s suffering with honesty, affirming both its disorder through sin and its enduring goodness as God’s handiwork. The Christian worldview, when properly understood, addresses both the complexities of human experience and the profound truths of divine revelation — a reality that even many Christians struggle to fully comprehend. Within this framework, God’s omniscience encompasses the unfolding of events within His providential plan, yet humanity’s sinful nature profoundly shapes the outcomes of our reality. Sin’s effects extend beyond personal or societal consequences, reverberating throughout creation and introducing cosmic disorder. These outcomes are not arbitrary decrees of a wrathful Creator but the inevitable consequences of humanity’s departure from divine harmony. Modern cultural forces, however, obscure this truth. By minimizing the reality of sin and suffering or distorting them through narratives of self-sufficiency and superficial solutions, society prevents individuals from confronting their need for divine grace. This misunderstanding often leads to a view of God as either wrathful or irrelevant, driven by a lack of theological depth and engagement with tradition, Scripture, and Christological catechesis. Yet, the Christian worldview reveals a God who is neither indifferent nor cruel but profoundly merciful, actively guiding humanity and all creation toward ultimate redemption. Central to this redemptive vision is the Incarnation, where God, in His infinite love, entered the very fabric of the created reality. God, in a profound paradox, both offered His Son for our sake and simultaneously entered fully into human suffering, bearing the weight of sin and disorder not only for humanity but for all creation. Through His Passion, death, and resurrection, Christ affirmed the inherent goodness of the created world, transforming suffering into a means of redemption and renewal. This act of self-giving love reveals a divine mercy and compassion that transcend human understanding, offering hope and restoration to all of creation. Far from divine cruelty, creation’s groaning reminds us of humanity’s estrangement from God and the hope of restoration. This suffering reveals not the absence of God’s goodness but the consequences of humanity’s rejection of His love, disrupting both the moral and natural orders and creating dissonance across creation.Conclusion The Christian worldview calls humanity to confront these realities with honesty, recognizing the profound need for salvation and repentance of sins. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the path to reconciliation with God and the gift of eternal life are made available to all who respond in faith and seek to live according to His teachings. This message of hope transcends the illusions propagated by cultural forces, offering true transformation through the redemptive power of divine grace. Moreover, the Christian vision extends beyond humanity to encompass all of creation. The groaning of the natural world, visible in predation, decay, and natural disasters, is not meaningless but part of a larger story of renewal. Through Christ, creation itself is invited to share in the hope of redemption. This promise is not abstract but concrete, culminating in the ultimate restoration of all things, as foretold in Isaiah’s vision: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6) and the revelation that one day, all things will be made new (Revelation 21:5). Embracing the Christian worldview calls humanity to transcend modern distortions — denial, desensitization, or despair — through a transformative recognition of our brokenness and dependence on divine grace. In Christ, we discover the ultimate source of meaning, healing, and restoration — not only for humanity but for all of creation. Through Him, what was once broken will be made whole, and the groaning of the world will give way to the glory of a renewed cosmos united with its Creator.