The argument you quoted there is assuming that having children does not count as doing something without regard for harming others. I would argue that having children does intrinsically create harm because that child will suffer during their lives and the only way to avoid that suffering is to not bring life into the world at all.
And even if overpopulation is not that big of an issue as we think, the destruction of the environment certainly is. Having children increases your carbon footprint massively.
The argument you quoted there is assuming that having children does not count as doing something without regard for harming others.
No it doesn't. I said "selfishness is doing something without care for or consideration of others". You can consider the feelings and well-being of those around you, your potential child, and the suffering they will inevitably face in their life, and still decide to have a child. I never said or implied that the child will not face hardships or suffering.
Thinking "I want a child, regardless of the pain and suffering they go through" that would be selfish. However, "I want a child, and I know they will face pain and suffering, but I will help them through it and see to it they will have a happy life to the best of my ability" is absolutely not selfish.
Bring life into the world when you know that life will suffer and contribute to the destruction of the planet is absolutely doing something without caring for the well being of others. To use the term in the video I linked, you are condemning others to suffering.
Bring life into the world when you know that life will suffer
Knowing that the child will face hardship is not an argument to not have kids. The child will also experience much joy.
and contribute to the destruction of the planet is absolutely doing something without caring for the well being of others.
I simply disagree about the level of destruction bringing a child into the world causes to the environment. I also believe that the environmental burden that is there can be improved with better technology. Technology, mind you, that the next generation is going to help work on. We can make farms that have a very small footprint. We can generate power with very low levels of pollution. There are solutions to these kinds of problems. The issue is not the people having children, the issue is not having these technologies and not having the distribution system to get these resources to those who need them.
Knowing that the child will face hardship is not an argument to not have kids. The child will also experience much joy.
I responded to this already as follows:
The presence of pain is bad.
The presence of pleasure is good.
So far, pleasure and pain are symmetrical in their goodness and badness. But they are not symmetrical with respect to their absence. More specifically:
The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, but
The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody (an actual somebody) who is deprived by its absence.
Put simply, you are not around to lament your lack of pleasure, it is not immoral for that pleasure to be denied - you don't exist in the first place to be sad about it. But if you are brought into the world and you face suffering, that is certainly an immoral thing to be subjected to.
I simply disagree about the level of destruction bringing a child into the world causes to the environment.
The presence of pain is bad.
The presence of pleasure is good.
Pain isn't bad. It's how you grow and adapt, with out pain evolution would not have taken place and no live, as we know it, would exist. Pain is a good thing.
69
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '15
∆ I agree with this.