• Benj96
    Basic biology would suggest we have the natural functional right and imperative to reproduce. Limited resources and environmental conservation on the other hand would suggest that no there is a very clear limit to the earths capacity to support a population of any given species.

    It seems that if we are to regard population explosion as a outright freedom/liberty to our species then global pressures will accumulate to a degree effective enough to whittle down and control our population whether we like it or not; drought, famine, war, climate change, disease etc..

    As a current example of such natural mechanisms... a pandemic is less severe on a population that is less dense. That is to say the transmission rate of fatal infection between people is proportional to the proximity of one individual to another and thus population in a finite area.

    But the problem arises that no individual human is any less accountable or responsible for reproduction than the next. No human can be told in place of another that they are not allowed to reproduce. So how do we control populations without such draconian preventative measures?

    The only natural phenomena which could ever control our populations without legal/human rights interventions would be an increase in the prevalence if either infertility, or homosexuality/lesbianism and culturally; the rate if adoption instead of procreation. Thoughts?
  • Outlander
    Sure. Obviously if that involves another person you should probably get their consent first.

    Now, if you are unable to provide for your haphazard creation you have a right to be imprisoned and hand the kid over to someone who's not a wreck. And in this country jail is sometimes better than normal life in others. So unfortunately that's not such a discouragement.

    I think adults need to start being accountable, financially and legally for lack of proper parenthood. It's pretty much abuse. Creating something that would only fail and suffer. A burden too. Crimes especially violent crimes which youth commit the majority of hurts society financially. It sets everyone back. I think once that happens things will start shaping up as far as society.
  • schopenhauer1
    Sure. Obviously if that involves another person you should probably get their consent first.Outlander

    Ironic as the child cannot by mere fact of its non-existence be asked consent, but it is assumed that it is ok to have it. Tsk.Tsk. As an ardent antinatalist, of course I think almost anything in this universe and its variations of actual and possible sufferings is not worth starting a life on someone else's behalf.

    It's interesting that we use the non-identity argument for doing anything to someone else. Since that person is not here now it must be okay to do something which will affect someone (almost inevitabley negatively) in some future state, one which they indeed will exist. Of course the tune changes if we think of something, like on immediate birth into the world, the child will 99% likely to befall something terrible.. Now, be a bit more creative and extend that to a lifetime of known and unknown sufferings... Subtract romantic notions of how the "goods of life are just so worth it", "technology justifies life", "parent's pain of not getting to decide if someone else's life should be started", and "civilization needs to continue just because!" and other drivel.. and you see the argument clearly.

    Oh and add in that we are so attached to the procedures and processes of a way of life, people simply want to "force convert" or force "missionize" people into the ideology of any given society's habits, norms, and institutions by way of birthing them, literally into it.
  • Victoria Nova
    The one condition under which any multitude of species exist, is great level of reproduction and providing sustenance and upbringing to the next generation. Some species have it easier, the sustenance is provided by nature, sya in the ocean, the upbringing is replaced by the set of instincts. Yet reproduction is a key.
  • fishfry
    You need a license to braid hair but not to bring a new human being into the world. Go figure.
  • Isaac
    You need a license to braid hair but not to bring a new human being into the world. Go figure.fishfry

    It's not that complicated. There's an agreed on set of incorrect/harmful actions with regards to hair braiding, there's no such agreement (beyond what is already illegal) with regards to parental character; hence there's a licencing requirement for hair braiding and not for becoming a parent. What's to figure?
  • paganarcher
    This is the million dollar question. Human kind has broken the cycle of natural causes, the biggest of these being the eradication (mostly) of TB which was the biggest killer by far. We are now super locusts which have no effective predators or biological control (even covid only kills 1 in several hundred, in the UK less than 1/1000.) We are the victims of our own resilience. As to our right to breed, even economic barriers seem unable to control us so we must reduce birth rate, although how is something we will never be able to agree on. Religion, economic imperialism and straight forward selfishness will confound any efforts to control us. Bottom line I dont think we have a right to breed; however I see no practical way of controlling us.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.