“I couldn’t bring a child into a world like this” is a bit of mental gymnastics that people use to convince themselves that they’re being noble and selfless with this decision, when in reality it’s neither noble nor ignoble, neither selfless nor selfish. Every child eventually hits their parents with the classic “I never asked to be born!”, and while it’s certainly true, NOBODY asks to be born, and life has ALWAYS sucked in some way or another. Should pre-humans have refused to have kids because it would be cruel to bring them into a world where they have to kill to eat? Nonsense.
If people simply don’t want to have kids, they should simply say that and own it. They don’t OWE it to anybody to have kids - but they don’t owe it to anybody to not have kids, either. It’s not a moral decision in either direction. It’s simply a case that some people don’t feel up to the responsibility, and that’s fine: not superior, just fine.
And before anyone says that not having kids helps to keep the surplus population down: no problem on Earth is a result of the population being too high. There’s enough food for everyone; the problem is distribution. There’s enough land for everyone; the problem is that some people are hoarding. If the population starts using renewables and just generally going green, corporations build more data centers and invent other novel ways to waste resources.
My selfishness pushes me to not make life anyone else’s problem.
Every child eventually hits their parents with the classic “I never asked to be born!”, and while it’s certainly true, NOBODY asks to be born, and life has ALWAYS sucked in some way or another
Just because something has always been bad or worse and for everyone, that doesn’t make it ok.
no problem on Earth is a result of the population being too high.
Pre-industrial humans caused mass habitat loss, species extinction, and even climate change, and that was with their relatively miniscule populations and emissions. What quality of life are you imagining over eight billion people having such that we somehow don’t continue wrecking the environment? And how do you plan on putting the genie back in the bottle regarding all our polluting technological “advancements” that require fossil fuels and/or intensive mining? Who’s declaring to the world that plastics, electricity, and all forms of motorized technology are over, and how do you imagine this would be enforced?
Even completely stripped of all our technology, humans are still animals, and any animal species will wreak havoc on their environment when overpopulated. Hell you don’t even have to be an animal; go look up the Great Oxygenation Event or what happened when trees first evolved. What do you suppose Earth is going to be like for the millions of years required for it to adapt to the changes we’re making? Unlike monocellular organisms and plants, however, we are sapient creatures; if we can observe this is happening and know we’re the ones causing it, how is it not in any way a moral issue?
Why not? Pre-humans were not smart enough to recognise that having children would cause the children to suffer. Perhaps it would be better to simply die out as a species. It all depends on how you view morality and how you weigh non-existence
This is a much better reason, frankly.
“I couldn’t bring a child into a world like this” is a bit of mental gymnastics that people use to convince themselves that they’re being noble and selfless with this decision, when in reality it’s neither noble nor ignoble, neither selfless nor selfish. Every child eventually hits their parents with the classic “I never asked to be born!”, and while it’s certainly true, NOBODY asks to be born, and life has ALWAYS sucked in some way or another. Should pre-humans have refused to have kids because it would be cruel to bring them into a world where they have to kill to eat? Nonsense.
If people simply don’t want to have kids, they should simply say that and own it. They don’t OWE it to anybody to have kids - but they don’t owe it to anybody to not have kids, either. It’s not a moral decision in either direction. It’s simply a case that some people don’t feel up to the responsibility, and that’s fine: not superior, just fine.
And before anyone says that not having kids helps to keep the surplus population down: no problem on Earth is a result of the population being too high. There’s enough food for everyone; the problem is distribution. There’s enough land for everyone; the problem is that some people are hoarding. If the population starts using renewables and just generally going green, corporations build more data centers and invent other novel ways to waste resources.
My selfishness pushes me to not make life anyone else’s problem.
Just because something has always been bad or worse and for everyone, that doesn’t make it ok.
Pre-industrial humans caused mass habitat loss, species extinction, and even climate change, and that was with their relatively miniscule populations and emissions. What quality of life are you imagining over eight billion people having such that we somehow don’t continue wrecking the environment? And how do you plan on putting the genie back in the bottle regarding all our polluting technological “advancements” that require fossil fuels and/or intensive mining? Who’s declaring to the world that plastics, electricity, and all forms of motorized technology are over, and how do you imagine this would be enforced?
Even completely stripped of all our technology, humans are still animals, and any animal species will wreak havoc on their environment when overpopulated. Hell you don’t even have to be an animal; go look up the Great Oxygenation Event or what happened when trees first evolved. What do you suppose Earth is going to be like for the millions of years required for it to adapt to the changes we’re making? Unlike monocellular organisms and plants, however, we are sapient creatures; if we can observe this is happening and know we’re the ones causing it, how is it not in any way a moral issue?
Why not? Pre-humans were not smart enough to recognise that having children would cause the children to suffer. Perhaps it would be better to simply die out as a species. It all depends on how you view morality and how you weigh non-existence
If it depends on how you view it, then it’s not a moral obligation, it’s a personal preference. Which is fine, but just acknowledge that.