I think the question that needs to be answered first before we can even tackle your specific question is: what ethical standing do future humans have?

There are various approaches to establish the ethical standing of current humans, but how well do these apply to future humans? It seems that the question can further be divided into the standing of humans which are already born and those which might be born in the future. For the former, protection of their future well being might be seamlessly derived from protection of their current well-being. But for people who have not yet been born, that avenue is closed and we'd need an entirely separate justification.

I believe it is wrong to make babies. — darthbarracuda

Why? Because of climate change? Or because you put someone into a world that is doomed? Or do you think that human life is bound to be full of miseries and suffering so that it would be a privilege not to be born?

yes

Do you really expect newbies to scroll through thousands of thread titles to check if the this topic has already been discussed? — Matias

No, not thousands. The search function narrows it down considerably, and in this case, you only have to scroll down to the end of the homepage to find a discussion on anti-natalism.

Also, section d) under "Starting new discussions" in the Site Guidelines states:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.

you only have to scroll down to the end of the homepage to find a discussion on anti-natalism. — S

If you had read my post (not only the title) you would have seen that the content and the arguments are different from those made in the context of "antinatalism"
If my post violates forum rules: signal it to the admins and have it deleted. I would not cry

If you had read my post (not only the title) you would have seen that the content and the arguments are different from those made in the context of "antinatalism". — Matias

It's not drastically different. Anyone with extreme enough views about climate change will agree, and anyone who is already an anti-natalist for different reasons already expressed umpteen times will agree with the conclusion, and the rest of us will have the exact same opinion on the matter which has also been expressed umpteen times before, and can easily be looked up.

I would not cry. — Matias

That's a shame. I wanted to lick the tears from your face to see what misery tastes like.

I think it's perfectly fine for physically and mentally healthy persons to have children, though a high standard should be maintained as to what is considered healthy in these regards.

Furthermore, I don't see having children as a strictly personal matter. The wellness of the child should be at the front of all things to consider before having children. If the wellness of the child is somehow (within reason) at odds, it is unethical to let one's own desires make one decide to have children anyway.

Lastly, I believe the climate-change narrative is way overblown. People have been predicting the end of days for thousands of years. They have always been wrong. Apparently some individuals just like to play pretend that the world is coming to an end. Very well, I say, let them not have children then, because they do not qualify for the 'mentally healthy' part anyway.

This whole "I don't have children because I care about the environment"-spiel is rather idiotic. One is living in the most prosperous time (materially speaking) in history, living in debaucherous luxury every day, but one will not have children because one cares about the environment? Puh-lease.

Yes it is ethical to have children. Unless you want the human race to die out.

Only having children can be either ethical or unethical; the opposite is void.

The ethics of childbirth likewise do not fall down to conception, but discipline - the discipline of the parents and the discipline the child may inherit from the parents.

Not having children is far more harmful to humanity than having children as it is entirely self destructive, whereas having children is progressive and offers benefits.

What do you think: Is it ethical to have children? — Matias

Well, people who feel that it is unethical to have children should obviously not have any. As you can imagine, this idea may then very well die out with the ones who believe in it.

Does this decision - if it is a decision- have political implications? Or is this a private and personal decision that is nobody's business (except those individuals who combine their genes to make a new human being ; and maybe their families)? — Matias

So, then the question becomes:

Are laws against making children viable? Can you send law enforcement officers to people who break the law? What do you do with the illegally-born children?

First of all, ethical questions are about self-discipline and therefore about you think you, yourself should be doing or not doing. They are not a question about what you believe other people should be doing or not doing. "Other people should be doing this or that ..." indeed represents a horrible but quite prevalent attitude.

Furthermore, I think that this would represent a rather counter-trend increase in government intrusion in people's lives, exactly at a time when existing intrusions are being questioned very openly, and have become less and less viable. It certainly goes against the current trend in which people generally consider government to be clueless, as well as the resulting desire to reduce government intervention.

For example, the bitcoin -and wider cryptocurrency community wants to expel government out of the business of printing and controlling money. Approximately everybody who knows what they are talking about, certainly believes that on the long run, the cryptostrategy will work.

In France, a slight increase in taxes on gasoline led to that notorious yellow-vest protest. I don't know if it is still ongoing, but I think that the glass is now full in many countries. So, no, such new birth-control policy would be very unrealistic, because governments would not even be able to find the legitimacy to implement a thing like that. It would be used as an opportunity to do something much rasher than the yellow-vest mini-insurgency.

It's not drastically different. Anyone with extreme enough views about climate change will agree, and anyone who is already an anti-natalist for different reasons already expressed umpteen times will agree with the conclusion, and the rest of us will have the exact same opinion on the matter which has also been expressed umpteen times before, and can easily be looked up. — S

I agree with @Matias, this is very different from the anti-natalism discussions. His approach is from a different direction and is more human and humane. And since when doesn't "already expressed umpteen times" apply to 84.23% of the threads on the forum. There are 473 threads on free will active right now, all started by The Mad Fool. I counted them. See, my scientific, quantitative approach to philosophy is much more valid than yours. "Umpteenth" indeed.

What do you think: Is it ethical to have children? Does this decision - if it is a decision- have political implications?
Or is this a private and personal decision that is nobody's business (except those individuals who combine their genes to make a new human being ; and maybe their families)? — Matias

This is a very thoughtful and even-handed presentation of our choices. Yes, and well-written. I have three children and I am happy with the decision my wife and I made to have them. My brother, on the other hand, is more like you. He and his wife decided from the very beginning not to have children and he has lead a more adventurous life than I have. That's not an argument for not having children. It's as you say, I was meant to live life in one place. I've lived in the same house with the same woman for 40 years. That is part of who I am as is having children. My brother is not like that. His not having children is a reflection of who he is, not really an instrumental choice.

At times when I think maybe I need a justification for having children I think of it this way - having children is an act of community, an act of faith in my neighbors and fellow women and men. It brings people together. And, although this is not in any way a valid justification for ignoring whatever ethical issues there are with having children, I have a strong conviction that the universe is a better place for having my children in it.

Here is evidence that this is different than other threads about the ethics of having children - I have been willing to lay out my feelings and understanding of the issues. I would be reluctant to do that on an anti-natalism thread because I know it would hit a brick wall.

And since when doesn't "already expressed umpteen times" apply to 84.23% of the threads on the forum. — T Clark

It's 84.25%, actually.

Hi,
I have not read everything above and this is my very first post. The question that I ask myself: What guarantees can you still give a child? For example: Are they still going to find a job? Job security? Health? The prices of a property? The new self-centered syndrome? The loss of physical communication? The shortage of drinking water? The future prices of drinking water? The generalized use of preservatives in food and all cancers that come with this? Is the loss of collateral increasing? The list is so long ... As a parent it is impossible to continue to protect your child and you have no guarantees anymore. It is exposed to a hard social environment. Are the elements ideal? Are they going to improve in the nearby future? To want to have a children and to be sure they will have a normal life... These are two different things. For me. It depends very much how a persons vision towards society and our environment is... If you think everything is fine and believe the government is going to solve all above problems, get a child... If you have doubts... Think twice...

It's 84.25%, actually. — S

Let me recheck. I have a computer program that searches the forum and does data analysis ................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................Yeah, I guess you're right. Thanks for the correction.

No for me. I refer you to the "On Antinatalism" post but if you don't want to scroll through 40 pages for me, here is the gist of it:

1: Creating happy people is not good
I'll just start with the most controvertial bit, creating happy people is not good and is different from making people happy. To demonstrate: (I've typed this so many times) You have 3 starving people and 2 solutions which do you employ

A: feed them
B: create 100 satiated people such that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A

I think most people would pick A, because B doesn't actually help anyone. That means that creating happy people is not a good in and of itself or at least is considered negligably good by most (100 vs 3) when compared to the good of actually helping someone

2: Having kids risks harming someone in the future (pretty self explanatory)
3: Having kids also risks making someone happy in the future but as shown in (1) no one actually thinks this is a good thing.

So don't have kids, because if your kid is perfectly happy, you haven't actually done anything good and if your kid is miserable you have harmed someone for no reason, whereas you could have just avoided taking the risk for someone else in the first place and not risked harming anyone.

No for me. I refer you to the "On Antinatalism" post but if you don't want to scroll through 40 pages for me, here is the gist of it: — khaled

I hope this isn't just going to turn into just another anti-natalism thread. I like the way @Matias has framed the question and I'm hoping people will spend some time with that. Obviously, anti-natalism is part of the mix, so I'm not suggesting it be excluded.

It is no one’s business. It seems like rationalizing avoiding birth and growing old and alone. But if you get worried, just plant ten trees every year of your child’s life and you can offset any carbon footprint.

I'm glad you brought this up, Matias. It's a subject we normally avoid.







And if you believe that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

I'm glad you brought this up, Matias. It's a subject we normally avoid. — Terrapin Station

Did you know that Jerry Garcia had four children? I'll bet you did.

Did you know that Jerry Garcia had four children? I'll bet you did. — T Clark

Yes, I did know that. :up:

First there is the issue of what each child will contribute towards global warming. Then there is the issue of what a child born today will suffer on account of global warming. If someone really wants a child then they could adopt a child from an underprivileged region. At least then you will not be bringing a new life into what will arguably be a world of pain, much greater pain than we (in the oh so priveleged West) currently have to contend with

I don't recall this topic being discussed from just this angle before. As presented here by @Matias it's not antinatalism per se

People have been predicting the end of days for thousands of years. They have always been wrong. — Tzeentch

Ever heard of "Crying "wolf""?

It's 84.25%, actually. — S

"T"'s was a zinger; this is just sour grapes.

Did you know that Jerry Garcia had four children? I'll bet you did. — T Clark

Who gives a shit about Jerry Garcia's procreative proclivities, though?

I think it is seriously wrong to have children.

Most of those who have kids have them either for no reason whatsoever (which is incredibly irresponsible and foolish) or for bad reasons (such as a desire to be unconditionally loved).

Plus, having children involves forcing someone to live in a dangerous world without first getting their permission.

If you find yourself living in a prison, surrounded by dangerous people, is it good to make some innocent children join you? No, that's a despicable thing to do. I mean, just terrible - so spoilt, so self-centred.

You're living in a dangerous world full of dangerous and evil people - if you want to be loved do your best to cultivate loving relationships with those who are already around, but don't summon into being vulnerable, innocent people so that you can be the centre of their attention.

Who gives a shit about Jerry Garcia's procreative proclivities, though? — Janus

@Terrapin Station understands.

You mean "gives a shit"? Or understands.....what?

Why can't people respond to the topic as specifically framed: not antinatalism per se, but whether it is ethically justifiable to have children in view of global warming?

You're living in a dangerous world full of dangerous and evil people - if you want to be loved do your best to cultivate loving relationships with those who are already around, but don't summon into being vulnerable, innocent people so that you can be the centre of their attention. — Bartricks

This is the anti-natalist argument, one that I find contemptible. Full of anger and bitter hatred for the world and people in it. Nothing is more mean-spirited, graceless than this. It makes me feel sick to my stomach.

It makes me feel sick to my stomach. — T Clark

OMG, we can't have that! You might give birth to something.....odious.