Antinatalism

[SilentLoner]

LOL, that's curious, where did I mention abortion? Or are you just itching to pick a fight over the old subject?

lulz. It was obvious. You didn't have to mention it.

 

You see what you want to see, I guess.

 

Btw, how's your reading comprehension? Did you catch the part where I acknowledged that the planet has dwindling resources? Apparently not...

 

Better than your sense of logic at the very least. You made the wierd ass claim that it wasn't that there were too many people, but that there is not enough resources to go around. Gee, its not feasible that the two could be connected?

 

I'd rather not go anywhere near your mouth, so why don't you just expressly say what you mean regarding how overpopulation relates to whether having kids is moral or immoral?

Always feel free to not respond, of course. I don't mind either way.

 

Don't pretend that overpopulation doesn't factor in to the argument. Its pretty obvious, I know even you aren't that dense. And your attempts at juvenile snark aren't doing you any favors.

[hereticzero]

I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children?

 

Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world.

 

I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect.

Didn't you post this question on Yahoo!Answers?

[Yrth]

Btw, how's your reading comprehension? Did you catch the part where I acknowledged that the planet has dwindling resources? Apparently not...

 

Better than your sense of logic at the very least. You made the wierd ass claim that it wasn't that there were too many people, but that there is not enough resources to go around. Gee, its not feasible that the two could be connected?

il save clarification for when you state a claim.

I'd rather not go anywhere near your mouth, so why don't you just expressly say what you mean regarding how overpopulation relates to whether having kids is moral or immoral?

Always feel free to not respond, of course. I don't mind either way.

 

Don't pretend that overpopulation doesn't factor in to the argument. Its pretty obvious, I know even you aren't that dense. And your attempts at juvenile snark aren't doing you any favors.

so obvious that you cant expressly state how it factors in? i have ideas and iv expressed them. you accused me of putting words in your mouth. i invited u to clarify what you meant. your response? «its obvious.»ty. so articulate. i am blown away.

 

my juvenile snark is a direct and natural response to your parentally condescending tone. failure to see this makes u a deluded idiot imnsho.

 

typed from kindle

[DeGaul]

I take the point about morality, but my thought process runs like this: Morality is a human behavior, evolved for the purpose of helping human beings live together and further the reproduction of our species in an efficient and optimal way. Likely morality is rooted in some basic empathic feature of our emotional system that has evolved with us over time. In early pre-humans the capacity for empathy was probably present and we certainly see rudimentary empathy and even what we would call morals in other primate species. But humans have something very unique and special in all the evolved world of nature, we have self-consciousness. We are capable of learning about the true nature of life and reflecting upon it. No other animal is able to do this in the way that we do, and it allows us to ask some very peculiar questions and seek answers to those questions, despite the fact that our quest may very much go against nature itself. Life has always been the meaningless and mindless reproduction of life, but now man comes along and is capable of questioning the whole process. This is an amazing and counter-intuitive thing, that a creature could evolve capable of rejecting the very processes which brought him into being. In this sense, the question is still moral in that it is definitely formulated in the standard way that we formulate moral questions---Should we reproduce or shouldn't we? This certainly has the form of a moral question, but it definitely seems moral in a new way, a way that we have not seen before. The whole discussion is hard to frame because so far morality has served the process of human evolution and reproduction, but in this case it seems we can ask a question in the moral form that goes against the very evolution morality first evolved to serve. Man seems to be the true ouroboros. Man is the creature whose consciousness allows him to turn against himself and devour himself.

 

Addressing my statement that all beings who are born suffer harm, I suppose I must have a much looser definition of harm than most people here. I would say that harm is any kind of personally significant pain, and we all suffer that. No exceptions. Whether the suffering of such harm is or is not enough to make you happy or unhappy with your life is not something that I'm interested in. That is a psychological question, not a philosophical one. One could imagine a person living in absolute poverty and destitution and still find themselves psychologically happy with it. I guess I'm really interested in the idea that life may be a total tragedy, and yet we still find ways to be happy with it. And yes, generally speaking I would say that animals all suffer harm too, but the significant fact that animal are not self-conscious in the way that we are greatly reduces the interest I have in the question of animal suffering. (Although it is still a question that has plagued me off and on throughout my life.)

[Ouroboros]

I take the point about morality, but my thought process runs like this: Morality is a human behavior, evolved for the purpose of helping human beings live together and further the reproduction of our species in an efficient and optimal way. Likely morality is rooted in some basic empathic feature of our emotional system that has evolved with us over time. In early pre-humans the capacity for empathy was probably present and we certainly see rudimentary empathy and even what we would call morals in other primate species. But humans have something very unique and special in all the evolved world of nature, we have self-consciousness. We are capable of learning about the true nature of life and reflecting upon it. No other animal is able to do this in the way that we do, and it allows us to ask some very peculiar questions and seek answers to those questions, despite the fact that our quest may very much go against nature itself. Life has always been the meaningless and mindless reproduction of life, but now man comes along and is capable of questioning the whole process. This is an amazing and counter-intuitive thing, that a creature could evolve capable of rejecting the very processes which brought him into being. In this sense, the question is still moral in that it is definitely formulated in the standard way that we formulate moral questions---Should we reproduce or shouldn't we? This certainly has the form of a moral question, but it definitely seems moral in a new way, a way that we have not seen before. The whole discussion is hard to frame because so far morality has served the process of human evolution and reproduction, but in this case it seems we can ask a question in the moral form that goes against the very evolution morality first evolved to serve. Man seems to be the true ouroboros. Man is the creature whose consciousness allows him to turn against himself and devour himself.

I see your point, and I did suspect that this was where you were going.

 

One point you make here is that morality has some roots in empathy, i.e. emotional states, and I agree. It also has roots in values, which in turn probably could be said are rooted in emotions. So the question is more about what we feel about having children being born into a cruel world. Does that make sense?

 

Secondly, I think it's important to realize that there might be children who are born and never experience anything drastically harmful or bad in their lives. And there are examples of people dying in their sleep without pain. So it is possible that some kids are born and live a good life. Do we have the right to deny them that?

 

Perhaps it all really comes down to this: the harm is real and will affect a large part of children (and through adulthood), but maybe the solution is not to remove the sufferer (child), but to remove the suffering from this world?

 

Addressing my statement that all beings who are born suffer harm, I suppose I must have a much looser definition of harm than most people here. I would say that harm is any kind of personally significant pain, and we all suffer that. No exceptions. Whether the suffering of such harm is or is not enough to make you happy or unhappy with your life is not something that I'm interested in. That is a psychological question, not a philosophical one. One could imagine a person living in absolute poverty and destitution and still find themselves psychologically happy with it.

Well, the baby that is born probably struggles with breathing and the "pain" of the next experience.

 

I believe that some level of pain and suffering is necessary. You can't grow muscles unless you train and break down tissue. You can't fight of a virus (naturally) without the body increasing it's temperature (with subsequent risks). Everything is a balance between pain and relief. You can't have one without the other. But of course, that doesn't mean that extreme (or extraneous) pain and suffering is necessary to increase the following relief or happiness.

 

I guess I'm really interested in the idea that life may be a total tragedy, and yet we still find ways to be happy with it.

Yes. I can see that point.

 

And yes, generally speaking I would say that animals all suffer harm too, but the significant fact that animal are not self-conscious in the way that we are greatly reduces the interest I have in the question of animal suffering. (Although it is still a question that has plagued me off and on throughout my life.)

I get you.

 

In conclusion, to have kids is more a matter of the hope that the happiness of having them (selfish desire) will overcome any kind of pain they could potentially suffer.

 

I have several kids. One of them is in a wheelchair because of a terrible accident many years ago. Three of my kids had a broken spine. Two of them healed up, but one did not. Personally, I have had very few incidents or harms happening directly to me. But the pain of seeing my kids suffer is the worst hell you can go through, even worse, when it keeps on coming year out and year in. There have been times when I felt and thought what you describe above, but at the same time, the few moments of joy being with the kids outweigh a lot of the bad times. I wish it was different, but life isn't fair. The only hope we can have is that our children could turn things around and create a better world...

[Guest Valk0010]

I would say in the extreme chance of say starving in africa or some place along those lines it would be selfish if not a bit immoral.

 

Western countries, ehhh I wouldn't call it immoral.

[Noumena]

DeGaul~~~You Rock! I'm glad you were born. You've made my suffering a little more bearable. =)

[Ro-bear]

This life is a carnival of horrors, we deal as best we can, and then we die. I'm just curious what others think.

 

 

I think carnivals are cool. I eat bad food, stare at ugly people, get ripped off by the carnies, stay out too late, and spend too much money. And the next year I can't wait to do it again. If, at death, someone gave me a reset button, I would hit it without a second thought.

[lunaticheathen]

I've thought about antinatalism. I'm a bit more ambivalent on the subject, but, honestly, I'm not sure if it's hormones or a change of real views.

I used to be very antinatalist. Environmentally, more people are NOT what we need, and the people I saw making babies were so damn stupid, it seemed they were out to disprove evolution personally. Like VC said, LOTS of fundies. Blech.

However, when one of my best college friends told me she was having a child, I was delighted. She's the type of person I can see needing another of in this world. She's kind, compassionate, lovely, and I have no doubt she and her wife will do the very best to raise a lovely and intelligent child. They're also not dirt poor like me, so good for them.

My rational brain definitely finds problems with *me* reproducing. Mainly, my chronic migraines seem to be hereditary. I personally know how much they suck. They suck hard. Would I willingly put another human through that? Sometimes I and my hormones seem to argue about this, but I know, in my brain and heart, I'd feel like shit about it, unless someone suddenly found a one-shot cure for the damn things. Then it's "Bomb's away!" Though I wouldn't have more than 3, very likely. More is just fucking silly in this world, IMO.

If I was in a better financial situation, I would strongly consider adoption. Those kids already exist and need love, and if one is suited to give a life to a child, children already alive would have a better shot at a "happy life" with an adoptive parent (or parents) than any of the alternatives. I wouldn't say I'm strictly antinatalist, but I'm VERY pro-adoption.

[Tabula Rasa]

As a childfree person, I'll take a crack at the topic..

 

Is it wrong to have children? No. What is wrong, is when people have children, when they know there's little to no chance they can afford to, or they won't be able to raise them properly. And then there's the people who have no business reproducing. Take a look, at the website Bad Breeders for examples of people who ought to be forcibly sterilized. To sum up, people should only have children, if they are willing to try to do the absolute best they can to raise their child so it has a good shot of having a decent life.

 

I'm never going to become a father, because I don't want to have children, and even if if I did, I know that I could never provide a child the chance it deserves to have a happy life.

 

 

Tabula Rasa

[Vigile]

Whether the suffering of such harm is or is not enough to make you happy or unhappy with your life is not something that I'm interested in.

 

I think this is why we are confused with your position. If you factor out happiness, this all just seems like a futile exercise to me. Happiness is the meaning we give an otherwise meaningless life.

 

That is a psychological question, not a philosophical one.

 

It seems to fit into both camps as far as I can tell. In order to determine if harm is a factor you can base a determination on, you must assign a value to it. You can't measure the value of harm unless you compare it against other values, much like you can't determine the value of a country's currency unless you know what people with other currencies are willing to pay for it with their own money.

 

If you don't assign a value to harm, you end up with the argument "Harm is bad, m'kay?"

 

[DeGaul]

First off, thank you Noumena. You are my greatest comfort in this life....despite the horror of it all, I have you.

 

Vigile, I get what you are saying. I admit, I need to develop what I mean by saying that I think there is something more important that psychology going on here. I'll think about it and hopefully I'll come to some clarity on what I mean. For now, I fully admit that in that area of what I've been discussing my thoughts are still confused.

 

Ouroboros, you got what I'm talking about so fully on the head that I almost want to just pack this thread up and feel satisfied that I at least got someone to get me.

 

In fact, I feel pretty satisfied with the direction this thread has taken, and I certainly have new issues to consider.

[SilentLoner]

 

my juvenile snark is a direct and natural response to your parentally condescending tone. failure to see this makes u a deluded idiot imnsho.

 

So much for not having ruffled feathers.

[Yrth]

 

my juvenile snark is a direct and natural response to your parentally condescending tone. failure to see this makes u a deluded idiot imnsho.

 

So much for not having ruffled feathers.

just keeping it real ;]

[DesertBob]

First off, thank you Noumena. You are my greatest comfort in this life....despite the horror of it all, I have you.

 

Vigile, I get what you are saying. I admit, I need to develop what I mean by saying that I think there is something more important that psychology going on here. I'll think about it and hopefully I'll come to some clarity on what I mean. For now, I fully admit that in that area of what I've been discussing my thoughts are still confused.

 

Ouroboros, you got what I'm talking about so fully on the head that I almost want to just pack this thread up and feel satisfied that I at least got someone to get me.

 

In fact, I feel pretty satisfied with the direction this thread has taken, and I certainly have new issues to consider.

Now that I'm on to how life actually works, I absolutely regret inflicting it on my children. In any event, much about parenting is so much pissing into the wind. Nature always trumps nurture. The best you can hope as a parent is to do no harm, and you certainly can't have any expectations -- not for particular outcomes, not for appreciation, not for respect. Not a good deal any way you look at it.

 

This world is full of children who already exist and people with maternal / paternal urges can satisfy them via adoption or fostering. It seems to me that if you have an issue with that and it's just not floating your boat if you're not creating your OWN babies, this speaks volumes to the self-absorption of your true motivations.

 

As to whether existence is always on balance a significant harm, I personally would say yes, but I acknowledge that this isn't everyone's experience and it's a subjective experience in any case. However, to me there's a more fundamental impertinence to having children: there's no way to consult your (as yet nonexistent) children about the matter. Someone else in this thread said they are glad they had a chance to decide for themselves whether life rocks -- well, they are only glad because things happen to have worked out well enough for them.

 

Imagine if it were possible to sort of pre-create your consciousness prenatally and put this proposition to you:

 

You are about to be born into a random family, randome socio-political-economic scenario, in a random location. You might be rich, poor, healthy, unhealthy, perky, melancholy, beautiful or ugly, long or short-lived. You may or may hot have a moldy uncle who will creep into your room at night to traumatize you for life. Your parents may or may not be able to do a workmanlike job of mentoring and providing for you. You might be deliriously happy or inconsolably sad, angry, frustrated or disappointed. You will not have life explained to you except that you will receive contradictory and often insane explanations from different people along the way. You will operate in an indifferent universe which has no particular purpose or meaning except whatever purpose and meaning you can cobble together for yourself. You will cast the die of much of your life in the crucible of a hormone-crazed, inexperienced phase of your life known as "early adulthood" in which the potential for foolish decisions and mistakes are high. So what do you say ... would you like to have a go at it?

 

What, honestly, would be your answer? Is that actually a rational proposition? Then why do you want to reproduce and subject others to an irrational non-proposition?

 

Like DeGaul, I consider my desire (or lack thereof) to live, even my capacity for enjoyment, to be entirely irrelevant to such questions. I agree with him that since I'm here anyway, I'll make the best of it so long as I am able to tolerate it well enough. Besides, like it or not, I have certain responsibilities to others. This is all beside the point of whether I should find myself here dealing with all this nonsense in the first place -- even if in my particular case I happen to have been relatively fortunate so far.

[Guest wester]

I'm not having kids until my christian-crazed mother, or my hate-filled republican father are either indigent or dead because I won't have them filling my kids' heads with horrific bile.

[DesertBob]

I'm not having kids until my christian-crazed mother, or my hate-filled republican father are either indigent or dead because I won't have them filling my kids' heads with horrific bile.

Coincidentally, yesterday I had a haircut and the gal who did the deed turned out to have escaped from a hyper-fundie family who were in the orbit of the late Jack Hyles of Hammond, Indiana. She told me that not only was premarital sex forbidden, but so was any form of canoodling, including merely holding hands. She told me that her sis and her husband-to-be, one month before the wedding, were sitting for wedding portraits and the photographer was prevailing upon them to do a kissing pose. She said she could not, it was against her religion. The photog persisted and finally they humored him. Her Dad found out about it and tried to get the wedding called off because they had this carnal knowledge of each other outside marriage!

 

Is THAT the kind of "Christian-crazed" you're talking about? Because I'm here to tell you, nothing says you have to allow "horrific bile" into your life or your children's merely because your parents are alive and kicking. My barber simply walked away from it all and she seems incredibly normal and well adjusted and has a two year old who, I suspect, never has to listen to "horrific bile".

 

Not that I am encouraging you to have kids in general, but your parents being assholes would not really be a good reason. If you're of age, and that's an issue ,it's because you're allowing it and that's a boundary issue, not a "not-having-kids" issue.

[Ro-bear]

I'm glad to exist. I am glad I had children. They seem glad too. I just can't relate to antinatalism at all.

[Thackerie]

I'm glad to exist. I am glad I had children. They seem glad too. I just can't relate to antinatalism at all.

 

I never had children. I never wanted them. I'm glad I didn't have any. But, you know what?

 

I can't relate to antinatalism at all, either.

 

Maybe it's because I'm also glad to exist ... even though I'm crippled now by MS and housebound for months on end and drowning in debt. If it gets really bad, I can always "off" myself, but for now, I still enjoy my life, and it doesn't take a lot to make me happy ... even a little thing, like a kind word from a friend, or a funny joke on a TV show, or a tasty cookie can be enough. And, whenever I learn something new (even if it's just trivia), that makes my day and justifies my continued existence, at least in my own mind.

 

Sometimes I think there are a lot of whiny people in Internet forum world. If, given my physical and financial limitations, I am more happy than not, why can't they be? Oh well, not my problem, and I don't have time to think about it in-depth right now — too much life to get on with.

[DesertBob]

I'm glad to exist. I am glad I had children. They seem glad too. I just can't relate to antinatalism at all.

Ro-bear, I'd be the last to disabuse you of your gladness. And certainly the last to disabuse your children of it.

 

I was dumb enough in my youth to have children by a woman with serious diagnosed mental problems, then Christianity kept me in an essentially abusive relationship for 15 years, which was roughly 14 years and 11 months longer than I would have remained if I had known myself and been free to use my own common sense. My children therefore had a childhood that can be most charitably described as "strange". My daughter feels cheated of the childhood she deserved, and I can't really argue with that. My son is afflicted with mild Asperger's and basically knew how to render himself invisible and emotionless which is a practical coping strategy but leaves him with pretty limited range. He's also morbidly obese -- another poor adaptation. That is only half the story at best but you get the general drift. Not everyone is lucky, that's all. My life hasn't been on balance worth my trouble. My kids will have to make that assessment for themselves but let's just say in many important ways their existence isn't the vision and hope I had for them.

 

Meanwhile my fiancee came out of her own childhood clusterfuck which included a mother who died of Hodgkin's disease when my fiancee was nine. Her mother, due to illness, chemo, painkillers and possibly some native / genetic issues, was functionally insane as well and did things that were grossly negligent and physically abusive to her children, stuff like locking my fiancee out of the house with no clothes on as punishment for some imagined offense. Her Dad dealt with all this by losing himself in his work and was not there to protect the kids. I could go on, but let's just say even though she's by nature a positive and energetic person she has not found life easy or worthwhile either.

 

This is the kind of stuff that other people deal with and thus have to work overtime to rationalize life. You're just plain lucky, and more power to you.

 

Not everyone becomes anti-natalist because of this. My fiancee is not. Most people probably aren't. It's a minority position that's highly unlikely to result in an overtly anti-natalist agenda being realized in the world, and one has to admit -- even if it did, the successful implementation of such a meme would result in the extinction of the human race anyway. I'd be satisfied if people would just bring much more awareness and consideration for their potential children to the question of whether and when to have kids, how many, etc. That's all. I doubt anyone here would disagree with me that people should not have kids they don't have some reasonable objective chance of adequately providing for, financially and emotionally. Too many have children because it's what you do or because they have an oceanic, nonspecific craving to do so. This may be how we are wired but it's morally superior in my view to transcend that wiring and quit being so frigging casual about it, and quit regarding parenthood as an inalienable right with no consideration given to the amount of work, the amount of risk, the uncertainty of the outcomes. If you soberly consider all that and still want kids, then have at it, but I'm not at all convinced that most people give it that consideration. I know I didn't. I just wanted to get my first wife and her ticking biological clock off my frigging back. That was about as much thinking as I did. It's about as much thinking as most men do, I'll wager.

[DesertBob]

I never had children. I never wanted them. I'm glad I didn't have any. But, you know what?

 

I can't relate to antinatalism at all, either.

 

Maybe it's because I'm also glad to exist ... even though I'm crippled now by MS and housebound for months on end and drowning in debt. If it gets really bad, I can always "off" myself, but for now, I still enjoy my life, and it doesn't take a lot to make me happy ... even a little thing, like a kind word from a friend, or a funny joke on a TV show, or a tasty cookie can be enough. And, whenever I learn something new (even if it's just trivia), that makes my day and justifies my continued existence, at least in my own mind.

 

Sometimes I think there are a lot of whiny people in Internet forum world. If, given my physical and financial limitations, I am more happy than not, why can't they be? Oh well, not my problem, and I don't have time to think about it in-depth right now — too much life to get on with.

We could play a pointless game of one-upsmanship as to whose life is shittier and who is more grateful for it. But I think that assessments of "shittiness" or feelings of "gratitude" are entirely subjective. You and I both know that beautiful, joyful human beings come out of horrific childhoods and sociopaths also come out of idyllic childhoods. It seems that you can draw a couple of different conclusions from this fact.

 

One possible conclusion is that circumstances, pain, and suffering are irrelevant because all can be overcome or discounted through gratitude, positive attitude, hope, or [pick your favorite warm fuzzy]. Therefore, everyone who judges their life to be unpleasant is a weak, whiny, self-entitled douchebag. Also, by implication, if I have life challenges and am happy anyway, I am a strong, noble, selfless specimen of all that's right with humanity. The more dramatic my woes and the firmer my resolve, the better a representative I am of the best and brightest of what humanity is all about. I call this the "suffering is ennobling" point of view.

 

Another way to look at it is that everyone has the right to decide what works or not for them, what's worth it or not for them, and to order their lives accordingly. If you have had an easy life and love it, you're lucky. If you are a street beggar starving on the streets of Calcutta and still love it, you are arguably even luckier, in the sense that you're just as happy as someone with an objectively easy existence, which means you've got nothing to lose and are already happy. But the corollary is that if you have been relatively lucky and life is still not floating your boat -- it is what it is. No one has a right to judge that. It's your life and you get to decide what's meaningful and worthwhile to you. I call this the "suffering is degrading" point of view. Misery and want and pain are never good things, although if you are saddled with them, it's very useful if you have a very efficient Rationalizer™ patched into your brain.

 

But the point of anti-natalism has nothing really to do with all that. The point is that bearing children inherently brings innocents into existence that have absolutely no say in it -- and who are completely helpless and vulnerable in a world that is guaranteed in some ways not be kind to them -- quite possibly in huge ways. The least I feel we can conclude from that is that bringing children into existence is a solemn responsibility to be considered carefully and soberly, to be approached even with fear and trembling, and not with the casual "let's play grown-up!" sort of carnival atmosphere many seem to bring to the decision. I see insufficient consideration for children ... this is all I'm advocating for.

 

I would further argue that I have no right to bring children into the world -- that I can not think of a justification for it. But that's just me.

[Foxy Methoxy]

I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children?

 

Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world.

 

I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect.

 

If you bring your child joy and your child brings you joy, and both you and your child find ways to bring others joy in this life, it lessens the amount of pain and suffering in the world. If you teach your child to feel hopeless and joyless, then yes, procreating was a selfish action. As with anything in this life, it can enhance the greater good or it can bring those around you down. It's all what you make of it.

[Ro-bear]

I'd be satisfied if people would just bring much more awareness and consideration for their potential children to the question of whether and when to have kids, how many, etc. That's all. I doubt anyone here would disagree with me that people should not have kids they don't have some reasonable objective chance of adequately providing for, financially and emotionally. Too many have children because it's what you do or because they have an oceanic, nonspecific craving to do so. This may be how we are wired but it's morally superior in my view to transcend that wiring and quit being so frigging casual about it, and quit regarding parenthood as an inalienable right with no consideration given to the amount of work, the amount of risk, the uncertainty of the outcomes. If you soberly consider all that and still want kids, then have at it, but I'm not at all convinced that most people give it that consideration.

 

 

I'm all for people being reflective and being informed and making sound decisions, particularly where others are concerned. No doubt some people should not have children. But if someone claims it is immoral per se to bring children into the world, I can't go along with that.

[DesertBob]

If you bring your child joy and your child brings you joy, and both you and your child find ways to bring others joy in this life, it lessens the amount of pain and suffering in the world. If you teach your child to feel hopeless and joyless, then yes, procreating was a selfish action. As with anything in this life, it can enhance the greater good or it can bring those around you down. It's all what you make of it.

I doubt you are actually suggesting that if someone is hopeless or joyless it's because their parents taught them to be that way. That's a pretty tall order. The other way one loses hope is to hope in reasonable things and then to not have them or to lose them, and to feel they are unobtanium. Sometimes that is just a feeling or is at least exaggerated by subjective ideation; sometimes however it's actually true.

 

Why must we always blame the victim? Isn't a hopeless, joyless existence generally the result of bad luck and honest mistakes coupled with the cruelty and exploitation of others? Why do you have to make it the fault of unhappy people? Talk about kicking folks when they're down.

 

What you are propagating is the fallacy that we are basically in complete control of our lives and if anything goes awry we have no one to blame but ourselves. Would that life were that simple!

 

In any case, most folks who have responded to this thread confuse the issue in the same way I feel you are doing. The question before us is whether you can ethically bring new consciousness to the world when that consciousness is sure to experience unknown but potentially huge amounts of pain but cannot agree to in advance to bear it -- over against the absolute guarantee that a non-existent being has zero risk of same. It isn't a question of how fortunate or pleased you or I are with our lives, but whether the uncertainty and risk of harm is ethical to impose on others without their consent.

 

What you seem to me to be doing is trying to rationalize away that very real risk of harm based on your own hindsight and good luck.

 

This is a question that many people struggle with -- do I want to bring children into a world like this? But they struggle only briefly because literally everyone tells them they shouldn't think that way, that it's somehow bad or unworthy of them to have the slightest doubt that their life and that of their children is guaranteed to be worthwhile if not downright peachy-keen.

[DesertBob]

I'm all for people being reflective and being informed and making sound decisions, particularly where others are concerned. No doubt some people should not have children. But if someone claims it is immoral per se to bring children into the world, I can't go along with that.

Other than the fact you and your children are happy, and that such happiness is possible, can you tell my why you can't go along with that? I'm not baiting you, honestly -- I'm simply curious. Is it just that you feel the positive life you and your children experience is generally a do-able, have-able thing for most people? Do you think that life is worthwhile for most people and that therefore the odds of it being worthwhile for the children of any given responsible, well-meaning prospective parent is good enough to be worth whatever risk there is?

 

Is there any chance that your calculus is influenced by your fortunate personal experience?

 

I would be curious to know if anyone has actual facts and figures that reflect the honest feelings of people in the real world. The closest I can come is that I read an assessment some years back (and I dearly wish I could lay hands on it; perhaps I can dig it out of my EverNote database someplace) of marital happiness. What it came down to is that what most people consider the brass ring so to speak of marital happiness -- a mostly conflict-free relationship in which both parties consider their marriage to be the greatest joys of their lives and where the marriage is stable and lifelong -- is exceedingly rare, perhaps 1 to 2% of all marriages. If you're willing to accept false starts and remarriages you can goose that up to maybe 20%. This does not augur well for long term intimate relationships being a reliable source of joy. Yet hope continues to triumph over experience. If other aspects of life -- parenting, professional life, hobbies, socializing, casual friendships -- prove equally dicey, it doesn't seem like a rosy picture to me.

 

On the other hand, if most people honestly feel their life is worthwhile then perhaps one can rationalize that on average for any given newborn N, the odds of them finding life worthwhile are high enough (51%? 75%? 99%?) that the risk of an existence they will find disappointing (1%? 25%? 49%?) is acceptable. If the people who are happy are quite enthusiastic, one could even coldly rationalize that a certain amount of collateral damage in the form of people who would have been better off not to have bothered, is completely acceptable.

 

One would still have to make a personal judgment call on what constitutes "acceptable" but at least you'd have something to go by.