Why it is wrong for humans to breed

[Sunflowers]

I think it is wrong - seriously wrong - for a human to make the voluntary decision to breed. This is for three main reasons.

The first of these is that we cause harm to others. Even if our own lives contain more happiness than misery - which is by no means guaranteed, of course - we cause considerable harm to other creatures. Perhaps you are managing to minimise the amount of harm you, as an individual, are contributing. But you can't exercise that kind of control over anyone you create. And, given that most people are not especially moral, much less saintly, you can reasonably expect that any offspring you have will create more harm than good overall.

The second of these is the fact that we cannot consent to be born and thus anyone you create has been forced to live. It is generally wrong to force things on people. There are exceptions. But the exceptional cases are nearly always ones in which it is quite obvious why they are exceptions - they are exceptions because forcing the person to do something was the only available way of preventing that person (or someone else) from coming to a very great harm. Clearly that kind of exceptional circumstance is not one that applies to the decision to procreate, at least not in the main.

The third reason we ought not to breed has to do with the kind of character traits one would be showing oneself to possess by doing so. As such it applies to the typical motivations behind the voluntary decision to breed. Take, for instance, the desire to be loved unconditionally. Many people (not all, obviously) have children because they want to be loved unconditionally. Well, that, I think, is a very unhealthy motive and someone who acts on it is not a virtuous person. For just to be clear - such a person wants to be loved 'no matter what'. That is, they want to be loved unreasonably. Furthermore, they are willing to contrive to create circumstances under which someone is likely to love them in that way involuntarily. So, someone who has a child in order to be the object of that child's unthinking, unconditional affection is, I think, a wrong-un. A decent person tries to persuade another to love him/her by force of his/her personality, not by biological manipulation.

Or take the desire to have someone who'll look after you in old age. Well, someone who has a child in order to have a servant is, again, not a good person. It is, after all, not the child's fault you face old age alone. Your parents created that situation for you. The blame is on them. They owe you, not the child. So having a child to look after you in old age is to do no better than perpetuate a crime committed by your parents. It is to do to others as you have been done by. It is not virtuous at all.

Or take the desire - this time less egotistical, admittedly - to provide workers for the economy. As well as being economically misguided (if we all stopped breeding tomorrow the economy would boom - breeding is bad for the economy, not good for it), it is to engage in forced labour. It is wrong to force people to work. So if you breed in order to provide workers for the economy you are engaging in forced labour. And that isn't virtuous.

So, it seems to me, then, that voluntary breeding is wrong and bad.

[Lay Vegan]

Interesting post, Sunflowers, but ultimately I’m not convinced…

The first of these is that we cause harm to others. Even if our own lives contain more happiness than misery - which is by no means guaranteed, of course - we cause considerable harm to other creatures.

I think you’re missing an important variable. That is, degree of negative impact. In having children (particularly vegan children) they can potentially reduce or negate their impact via social interaction and activism/outreach, thereby inspiring others to do less harm. What if there is evidence that human-induced woes are actually improving rather than worsening?

There’s good evidence that crime rates are actually declining globally. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-an ... sues_E.pdf Knowledge and awareness of human rights is also spreading in developing countries, while the field of medicine and diagnostics is also improving. I would counter-argue that forbidding adequate individuals from having children is immoral, since it may stop them from producing children who will later work toward improving the lives of others.

Perhaps you are managing to minimise the amount of harm you, as an individual, are contributing. But you can't exercise that kind of control over anyone you create. And, given that most people are not especially moral, much less saintly, you can reasonably expect that any offspring you have will create more harm than good overall.

So, we shouldn’t have children because we can’t subjugate them and they will inevitably turn out to be Hitler?

Even with regard to veganism, there’s no evidence that a record number of vegan children will grow up to become avid meat-eaters. The vast majority of children adopt the same moral principles they were raised with, and I don’t believe a vegan child who is fed a healthy, well-balanced vegan diet and raised with good moral principles is likely to stray very far from that heuristic. Also, the vast majority of people are not wholly “moral” or “immoral” but exist on a spectrum from mostly good to mostly bad. Mostly good people may do some bad things, but could offset that with good things.

The second of these is the fact that we cannot consent to be born and thus anyone you create has been forced to live. It is generally wrong to force things on people.

This argument is constantly used by anti-natalists and I don’t find it very convincing, mainly because the same argument can be made in reverse. One could argue that it’s morally acceptable to create people unless they refuse consent beforehand. Either way, the argument fails because an unborn fetus cannot give consent to brought into life, nor can it refuse consent to be given the opportunity to live. In addition, I’d argue that the vast majority of people who are brought into life are actually happy to live, (while those who aren’t will simply find ways to commit suicide). For the rest of us, we understand the value of living and recognize that we have our own interests and values we want to be respected. We also acknowledge that nonexistence is typically not a way to respect those interests. It’s why threatening another’s life is genuinely considered a massive harm rather than a good deed.

I think this is good reason to believe that most children who will be brought into the world by adequate parents, who can care financially and emotionally for their child, will likely enjoy their lives as well.

So, someone who has a child in order to be the object of that child's unthinking, unconditional affection is, I think, a wrong-un. A decent person tries to persuade another to love him/her by force of his/her personality, not by biological manipulation.

Or take the desire to have someone who'll look after you in old age.

This is absolutely hilarious. If there are any parents reading this thread I would love to hear their response to this. I can imagine that many people want children to pass their values along and make the world a better place when they're gone.

Or take the desire - this time less egotistical, admittedly - to provide workers for the economy.

This is a strong argument for "breeding" as well as immigration. Having children is only typically bad in some developing countries, where there is a limited number of resources provided for the seemingly unlimited number of people. But in rich developed countries, having children can actually reduce the burden of economic strain. Basically, an aging population who has exited the workforce needs an influx of young workers who can pay for their Social Security and other benefits.https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5 ... ls-economy We also need people working in richer countries to help support the economy in poorer countries.

It is wrong to force people to work. So if you breed in order to provide workers for the economy you are engaging in forced labour. And that isn't virtuous.

Why? Also, working is not required in free developed countries (neither is paying taxes for that matter). Many people get by on passive income or just choose to be poor and unemployed (and tax free).

I hear your arguments, and I personally do not want to have children. But I'm not convinced as of now that having children is necessarily a bad thing for all people.

[Jebus]

I think you’re missing an important variable. That is, degree of negative impact. In having children (particularly vegan children) they can potentially reduce or negate their impact via social interaction and activism/outreach, thereby inspiring others to do less harm.

This is true, but the OP didn't get into that. He wrote more in general terms, and as such, since vegans are a tiny minority, the negative impact of the population having more children would outweigh the benefits of vegans having more kids.

What if there is evidence that human-induced woes are actually improving rather than worsening?

That would be a game changer. However, we are likely generations away from that being the case.

I would counter-argue that forbidding adequate individuals from having children is immoral, since it may stop them from producing children who will later work toward improving the lives of others.

"Adequate" "Forbidding" !!!. I can think of a bunch of problems that would arise if certain groups were identified by the government as being "parent worthy" and if legislation were built around this.

One could however deal with the issue in less obvious ways: Poor people are generally less likely to become good parents. Hence one could:

Give free condoms in poor neighborhoods.
Remove economic incentives for parents.
Remove paid parental leave.
Make abortion free or less expensive.

Perhaps you are managing to minimise the amount of harm you, as an individual, are contributing. But you can't exercise that kind of control over anyone you create. And, given that most people are not especially moral, much less saintly, you can reasonably expect that any offspring you have will create more harm than good overall.

So, we shouldn’t have children because we can’t subjugate them and they will inevitably turn out to be Hitler?

That comment is so off the point. One of the reasons the world would be a better place with fewer people is that most people have a negative impact on the world. Reduce the number of people = less negative impact on the world. Get it?

The vast majority of children adopt the same moral principles they were raised with, and I don’t believe a vegan child who is fed a healthy, well-balanced vegan diet and raised with good moral principles is likely to stray very far from that heuristic.

True, but kind of strengthens the point you are trying to refute. Most parents are meat eaters and unlikely to have kids who grow up to be vegans.

the vast majority of people are not wholly “moral” or “immoral” but exist on a spectrum from mostly good to mostly bad. Mostly good people may do some bad things, but could offset that with good things.

Of course there is a spectrum. Where on this spectrum would you expect to find the overall positive-negative impact cut-off line? In the middle or perhaps somewhere around the 99th percentile?

I’d argue that the vast majority of people who are brought into life are actually happy to live,

Do you think a majority of all people on Earth have satisfying lives?

Perhaps one could argue that most Danes have satisfying lives and therefore Danes should have more children. I don't think one can make the same claim for Bangladeshis or even Argentinians.

(while those who aren’t will simply find ways to commit suicide).

"Simply" It is not that easy to commit suicide. Most people who live miserable lives continue to have miserable lives until they die of natural causes. Even those who commit suicide suffer greatly until their last day.

For the rest of us, we understand the value of living and recognize that we have our own interests and values we want to be respected. We also acknowledge that nonexistence is typically not a way to respect those interests. It’s why threatening another’s life is genuinely considered a massive harm rather than a good deed.

No, that's not actually the reason. Think about it a bit longer and let me know if you can't think of the main reason why threatening another's life is considered harmful.

I think this is good reason to believe that most children who will be brought into the world by adequate parents, who can care financially and emotionally for their child, will likely enjoy their lives as well.

They might although it is unlikely given the environmental forecasts. Anyway, the main point of discussion should be the impact the average potential child would have on the well-being of all other beings, not just the well-being of the individual child.

This is absolutely hilarious. If there are any parents reading this thread I would love to hear their response to this.

Why would you love to hear a response that has a large potential of being biased?

:Having children is only typically bad in some developing countries, where there is a limited number of resources provided for the seemingly unlimited number of people.

It is particularly bad in developed countries where the carbon footprint and animal consumption is way higher. Yes, one could argue that a particular country benefits (in the short term) from having more children, but then one should aim to make it easier to adopt children from developing nations and not produce more of their own.

But in rich developed countries, having children can actually reduce the burden of economic strain.

Yes, but this is short term thinking.

Basically, a larger world population is a bad thing although we want intelligent people to have more children. The problem is that intelligent people are more likely to understand and act on the antinatalist message. Hence, unless done in a very clever manner, the antinatalist message is more likely to cause harm than good.

More importantly, the antinatalist message should never be associated with veganism as it would only bring more perceived negativity to the vegan movement.

@Sunflowers We have had lots of excellent conversations about antinatalism in the past. I suggest you use the search function to check a few of them out.

[Red]

@Sunflowers We have had lots of excellent conversations about antinatalism in the past. I suggest you use the search function to check a few of them out.

Here are some to get started:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2215
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3574
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1407

And why not the thread on Overpopulation to boot:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2063&p=21295

My 2 cents; I think only intelligent, educated, ethically concerned, scientifically literate, and well off people should have children (I know, too much to ask). They don't need to be vegan necessarily, since if they meet the aforementioned criteria, their children will likely go vegan.

BTW Sunflowers, the first thread I linked talks about the concept of the immorality of creating life and such. Give it a read.

[Sunflowers]

I think you’re missing an important variable. That is, degree of negative impact. In having children (particularly vegan children) they can potentially reduce or negate their impact via social interaction and activism/outreach, thereby inspiring others to do less harm. What if there is evidence that human-induced woes are actually improving rather than worsening?

Your point seems to be simply that humans are doing less harm individually than they used to. A) I doubt very much that is true (it may be true of a minority who can afford to do less harm, but it seems unlikely to be true of the majority; b) even if it is true, we still do more harm than good overall.

So, we shouldn’t have children because we can’t subjugate them and they will inevitably turn out to be Hitler?

Er, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that among the reasons you shouldn't have children is that, odds are, they're not going to be a saint and as such it is reasonable to suppose that they will do more overall harm than good in their lifetime. (Note, even a moderately moral person who lives a moderately virtuous life will, most likely, do more harm than good overall).


In respect of the consent argument you say this:

This argument is constantly used by anti-natalists and I don’t find it very convincing, mainly because the same argument can be made in reverse. One could argue that it’s morally acceptable to create people unless they refuse consent beforehand. Either way, the argument fails because an unborn fetus cannot give consent to brought into life, nor can it refuse consent to be given the opportunity to live. In addition, I’d argue that the vast majority of people who are brought into life are actually happy to live, (while those who aren’t will simply find ways to commit suicide). For the rest of us, we understand the value of living and recognize that we have our own interests and values we want to be respected. We also acknowledge that nonexistence is typically not a way to respect those interests. It’s why threatening another’s life is genuinely considered a massive harm rather than a good deed.

That is not a good reply to the argument. First, it is appealed to by antinatalists all the time because it is a powerful argument. I mean, it 'is' the case that lack of prior consent nearly always makes an act that features it wrong or at least pushes it in that direction (for instance, even when we are justified in subjecting someone to something without their prior consent, it would almost invaribly have been better had we had it). And Kant made this the whole basis of his moral outlook. And your claim that 'the same argument can be made in reverse' is absurd. No, it can't. It is not default justified to significantly affect another unless they have explicity said not to. You can't go up to someone and thump them and then argue that you were default justified in doing this because they had not explicitly told you not to thump them! It is intuitively obvious to the reason of most people that the default is you 'don't' do something significant to another person without their prior consent.

You point out that most people are happy to be alive. Well, in other contexts that doesn't normally justify us subjecting someone to something without their consent. Your friend Jill doesn't drink alcohol. But you think if only she would, she'd have a great time. So you spike her drink. She has a great time and after you reveal that you spiked her drink, she says "thanks! Glad you did!". Well, still, isn't it obvious that you did something wrong in spiking her drink?

Someone can be happy they were wronged. That doesn't mean they weren't wronged.

This is absolutely hilarious. If there are any parents reading this thread I would love to hear their response to this. I can imagine that many people want children to pass their values along and make the world a better place when they're gone.

Well first, I was talking about particular motives, not attributing those motives to all parents. Wanting to be loved unconditionaly, and creating someone who - due to circumstances beyond their control - will almost certainly do so, is not moral. And yet many parents breed in part for that reason. I mean, they say so.

As for wanting to make the world a better place - well, see my first argument. Someone who really wants to make the world a better place and thinks breeding more of themselves into existence is the way to do it is, I think, seriously misguided!

And breeding in order to instill one's values in another is just brainwashing. It is to want to create your own little cult of 'you' worshippers. It is, again, not good. We don't think cult leaders are good people, do we? And what are they all about - why, instilling their values in others! Parents are even worse, as they do this to the most vulnerable: children.

Parents instantiate many vices. To want a little worshipper is bad. To want to subject someone to a life of work is bad (if the economy needs more workers - and it doesn't - work harder yourself!). To want to be loved unconditionally is bad, and it is especially bad to create someone who'll involuntarily do so.

Of course, most parents just mindlessly have kids. But that too is to instantiate a vice. For mindlessly to do such a significant thing is reckless in the extreme.

I hear your arguments, and I personally do not want to have children. But I'm not convinced as of now that having children is necessarily a bad thing for all people.

I did not say that it was 'necessarily' a bad thing for all people. We can no doubt dream up peculiar scenarios in which it would be an overall good thing. My claim is that it is generally a bad thing - that most acts of voluntary human procreation are wrong, and wrong for the reasons I gave (and no doubt some more besides).

[Sunflowers]

My 2 cents; I think only intelligent, educated, ethically concerned, scientifically literate, and well off people should have children (I know, too much to ask). They don't need to be vegan necessarily, since if they meet the aforementioned criteria, their children will likely go vegan.

I don't see how that would overcome any of the arguments in the OP, though. First, even if it is true - and it seems more like wishful thinking than anything - that their children would be vegan, that is not sufficient to ensure that their lives will not do more harm than good.

And it would remain the case that their children would be being subjected to a life and thus wronged.

And it would remain the case that they would most likely instantiate vices by having them.

The only real difference that being rich is going to make is that it would mean that the quality of the life to which their offspring are being subjected will be higher. But ethically that isn't going to turn the trick.

[Red]

I don't see how that would overcome any of the arguments in the OP, though.

I skimmed it. There have been many debates about natalism here as Jebus mentioned.

First, even if it is true - and it seems more like wishful thinking than anything -

What makes you say that?

that their children would be vegan, that is not sufficient to ensure that their lives will not do more harm than good.

Again, not just being vegan (although that alone will diminish your harm to the world far more than a meat eater), but also being intelligent, educated, and scientifically literate.

If someone met those qualities and eventually went vegan, do you think that would show that they are concerned with ethics, and will be more conscientious overall?

And it would remain the case that their children would be being subjected to a life and thus wronged.

And it would remain the case that they would most likely instantiate vices by having them.

Read the first thread I linked in my reply to Jebus. It addresses your concern on this pretty well I think.

The only real difference that being rich is going to make is that it would mean that the quality of the life to which their offspring are being subjected will be higher. But ethically that isn't going to turn the trick.

Why not?

[Sunflowers]

I don't see how that would overcome any of the arguments in the OP, though.

I skimmed it. There have been many debates about natalism here as Jebus mentioned.

But this discussion is about the arguments I made in the OP. That's why I created it. Yes, I am sure there have been lots of debates about antinatalism here, but this one is this one and not another.

First, even if it is true - and it seems more like wishful thinking than anything -

What makes you say that?

Because it is so implausible. Are the children of rich intelligent people vegan? no, not typically.

that their children would be vegan, that is not sufficient to ensure that their lives will not do more harm than good.

Again, not just being vegan (although that alone will diminish your harm to the world far more than a meat eater), but also being intelligent, educated, and scientifically literate.

Again, this is just absurd. Who causes more harm to other animals - humans or donkeys? Humans, yes? And who's more intelligent? If you think our intelligence has operated to benefit other animals you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

We're probably the most damaging species on the planet. And it's intelligence that made us so.

Read the first thread I linked in my reply to Jebus. It addresses your concern on this pretty well I think.

No, that is not how internet debates work. You have to make your case afresh, not expect others to trawl through everything you've previously written.

The only real difference that being rich is going to make is that it would mean that the quality of the life to which their offspring are being subjected will be higher. But ethically that isn't going to turn the trick.

Why not?

For the reasons given in the OP.

[Red]

But this discussion is about the arguments I made in the OP. That's why I created it. Yes, I am sure there have been lots of debates about antinatalism here, but this one is this one and not another.

Your post is not unique. Your arguments have been addressed in the links I posted.

First, even if it is true - and it seems more like wishful thinking than anything -

What makes you say that?

Because it is so implausible.

Evidence?

Are the children of rich intelligent people vegan? no, not typically.

When I say well-off, I don't necessarily mean rich, I just mean making enough to sustain yourself and enjoy a nice comfortable lifestyle. Even low-middle class first world citizens live like Kings and Queens compared to their third world counterparts.

Rich, intelligent people tend to have less kids anyway. Like in Idiocracy.

Again, this is just absurd. Who causes more harm to other animals - humans or donkeys? Humans, yes? And who's more intelligent?

I'm not talking about harm to other animals. The only people who are harming other animals are meat-eaters, poachers, and sadists.

If everyone went vegan, I doubt there'd be much call for the continued destruction of habitats.

Unless you're referring to the environment. I do like the environment for its natural beauty, but from a practical standpoint, it's pretty much just a lot of plants.

If you think our intelligence has operated to benefit other animals you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

When the hell did I say that?

We're probably the most damaging species on the planet. And it's intelligence that made us so.

That's true, but it doesn't have to be this way. If everyone were to go vegan and we embrace Nuclear Energy, we can maximize our standard of living while minimizing our environmental impact.

No, that is not how internet debates work. You have to make your case afresh, not expect others to trawl through everything you've previously written.

According to who? And why? (BTW it's obvious you didn't even click the link, since I didn't write that post)

That doesn't sound like a very productive method of debate. Imagine if other things in life worked that way.
'Oh, you're not allowed to draw upon the kinematic equations for your Physics problem! You have to find them out yourself first!'

It just saves both of us a lot of time. There are other things on the forum I want to post that are of more interest to me.

I'm referring you to a previous post on the matter since I don't see the usefulness in repeating things that have already been said and addressed (especially considering how the threads I linked address your points specifically). I assume you're just too lazy to read through it.

For the reasons given in the OP.

Which were? I must've missed them.

[Sunflowers]

But this discussion is about the arguments I made in the OP. That's why I created it. Yes, I am sure there have been lots of debates about antinatalism here, but this one is this one and not another.

Your post is not unique. Your arguments have been addressed in the links I posted.

Once more: that's not how this works. Either make the points afresh, or don't bother.

Anyway, you now accept, presumably, that the offspring of rich - or just moderately well off - intelligent people are not likely to be vegans? And thus you accept, if you realise what follows from what, that for such people to procreate would therefore be to almost certainly create more harm than good?

We're probably the most damaging species on the planet. And it's intelligence that made us so.

That's true, but it doesn't have to be this way. If everyone were to go vegan and we embrace Nuclear Energy, we can maximize our standard of living while minimizing our environmental impact.

Well, to talk like you, where the hell did I say otherwise? The point is not that we're utterly incapable of being a force for good, the point is that it is incredibly unlikely that your offspring, or the offspring of others, are going to make the changes necessary.

If you give a kid a loaded gun in a shopping mall then, chances are, carnage is about to occur, yes? It doesn't 'have' to - there's nothing metaphysically necessary about it. It's just incredibly likely. And so only a fool would give a kid a loaded gun in a shopping mall. Likewise, if this generation has kids then, chances are, those kids will do more harm than good. Doesn't have to be that way - but it's going to be, isn't it?

No, that is not how internet debates work. You have to make your case afresh, not expect others to trawl through everything you've previously written.

According to who? And why? (BTW it's obvious you didn't even click the link, since I didn't write that post)

According to me. I said it. This is a debate I started to discuss arguments I made. I'm not going to click on any links. Look, don't assume I'm ignorant. That's your working assumption - yes? That I'm not up to speed on this issue. Now, why assume that?

This is a 'philosophy' forum, yes? Philosophers make arguments. They debate. So just do that. Just make an argument or address an argument, don't direct people to literature. I didn't - I just presented some arguments. Now, if there's something faulty about those arguments, just point out those faults. You can demonstrate a fault by reason alone - you don't need any literature.

It just saves both of us a lot of time. There are other things on the forum I want to post that are of more interest to me.

Er, you have self-control, I assume? If my arguments are of no interest to you, don't bother engaging with me about them then. But don't expect me to assume that you're a weary expert and all I need do to gain enlightenment is read your posts elsewhere. I mean, the arrogance of it! Plus, given the quality of your posts here, I have no confidence whatsoever that your posts elsewhere contain any insight.

I'm referring you to a previous post on the matter since I don't see the usefulness in repeating things that have already been said and addressed (especially considering how the threads I linked address your points specifically). I assume you're just too lazy to read through it.

No, I'm not lazy, I'm just not stupid and I am not going to read your posts elsewhere when the quality of your posts here give me no reason to think they'll be worth reading.

For the reasons given in the OP.

Which were? I must've missed them.

Well, as you're too lazy to read the OP (because it was beneath you - but you thought you'd blurt something anyway), here's one argument.

You. Can't. Consent. To. Be. Born. That means if you procreate, you force someone to live a life. And that's default wrong. Thus, procreation is default wrong.

Now, that remains the case no matter how rich or intelligent the procreator may be, yes?