Is it Selfish To Have a Lot of Children?

[DonRocks]

I'm curious what people think about the moral issues (based strictly on resource consumption) of people who have, say, ten children. (My mother had seven sisters, a brother, and some step-siblings, so I'm every bit as much a part of this as anyone else.)

Given that there are simply too many people in this world (my own opinion, shared by many others), is it an act of selfishness to have a big family?

Note that I'm not talking about government rules and regulations here; I'm merely talking about having a lot of kids.

In general, I'm a bigger fan of "societal pressure" (e.g., mink coats have fallen out of fashion) than "regulation" (China's "one-child policy"). On the other hand, I despise political correctness (see this post) which is a form of societal pressure.

But if the human population keeps growing, we're going to screw ourselves mightily. Isn't it ironic that by screwing each other, we end up screwing ourselves?

Amazingly, this issue can be fixed in a single generation, but the workforce would need to shift from ob-gyn to mortuary.

As a separate, but related, issue (logically extending from the preceding paragraph), is "burial" a selfish use of resources? (Both of my parents are buried in Aspen Hill, so again, I'm every bit as much a part of this as anyone else.)

Personally, I'm not convinced that graveyards are an abuse of our land - in fact, I'm not convinced that they don't *protect* our land by preventing development - just like railroads (think of all the rails-to-trails programs - it turns out that the railway lines were unintentional conservators of the earth, and I think graveyards are the same way, assuming coffins are made from natural materials that decompose).

[Ericandblueboy]

I believe population control is necessary.  Right now, it's mostly the under-developed nations that are experiencing disproportionate population growth.  Given that these countries have lousy education systems, we're going to end up with more people who are poorly educated.  I blame most of this on culture and religion. 

I'm not sure that I call people with lots of children selfish.  I'd use some other adjective.

[DaRiv18]

Plus, people who want to live to be really old and deplete our natural resources even further.  Selfish assholes!

[Ericandblueboy]

43 minutes ago, DaRiv18 said:

Plus, people who want to live to be really old and deplete our natural resources even further.  Selfish assholes!

Do you have a point?  By living and breathing, you are generally leading to the destruction of the planet.  You can minimize your contribution to global destruction by walking/biking instead of driving.  You can recycle.  You can have fewer children. 

Or you can believe that global warming is not man-made.

[DonRocks]

1 hour ago, DaRiv18 said:

Plus, people who want to live to be really old and deplete our natural resources even further.  Selfish assholes!

This is reductio ad absurdum, but it's a valid point through the use of sarcasm.

I suppose elephants deplete our natural resources too, so should we kill all the elephants? (The answer is no, and can be logically explained by the law of conservation of energy. Plus, elephants don't bulldoze rainforests.)

Nevertheless, if the global population keeps doubling, then overpopulation will take care of itself, because it will eventually lead to massive numbers of deaths - via water shortages, disease, anarchy, climate change, nuclear war, or some other means - so we can address it now, or let it address itself later.

It's really not all that different from the national debt (we can take care of it now, or let it take care of itself later).

Likewise climate change or any other chronic, growing problem. (One thing that amazes even cynical-me is that we've had years of *actual news stories* about floods, record heatwaves, glacial melt, super-hurricanes, rising sea levels, etc. - *actual incidents* - and still, we're not moved to action. So my guess is that it's going to take care of itself later, and we can all be recipients of a Group Darwin Award. Poo-tee-weet.)

[DaRiv18]

I actually agree with everything that I have read here in this thread.  But I can't think of any solution that could be humane.  If the issue is, we need to cap the number of lives on this planet at any given moment, for the good of the planet and future (human) generations, then just singling out babies seems to be pretty biased.  Plus, not too many octo-moms out there anyway, so is that really even a material source of the problem anyway?

[DonRocks]

22 minutes ago, DaRiv18 said:

I actually agree with everything that I have read here in this thread.  But I can't think of any solution that could be humane.  If the issue is, we need to cap the number of lives on this planet at any given moment, for the good of the planet and future (human) generations, then just singling out babies seems to be pretty biased.  Plus, not too many octo-moms out there anyway, so is that really even a material source of the problem anyway?

I'm not sure it's a working solution, but if everyone could get together and agree to have 1-2 children, then the problem will take care of itself. 

Granted that's a *massive* ideological shift, and in developing countries, it will be much more difficult to "implement" (that's not the right word, but I'm not sure what is). 

I think I differ from Eric in that I value my life - at least in theory - no more than that of the poorest, least-educated person on Earth (assuming that person is not malevolent towards others), but that's also an extrapolation and an assumption based entirely on his post above - pretty thin ice for me to be skating on.

[Ericandblueboy]

55 minutes ago, DaRiv18 said:

I actually agree with everything that I have read here in this thread.  But I can't think of any solution that could be humane.  If the issue is, we need to cap the number of lives on this planet at any given moment, for the good of the planet and future (human) generations, then just singling out babies seems to be pretty biased.  Plus, not too many octo-moms out there anyway, so is that really even a material source of the problem anyway?

Limiting reproduction is the most humane solution, otherwise you have to take people out.  There are a lot of octomoms out there....remember, Latin American countries are mostly catholic. 

My point about a large population of un or under-educated people is that it leads to unemployment and violence. 

[Ericandblueboy]

Birth rate table.

I'm actually shocked that African countries significantly out reproduce Latin American countries. 

[Al Dente]

Perhaps instead of receiving a tax break for each child, there should be a tax hike! A bigger family is more of a tax burden on the rest of us! Ok, I'm not really suggesting that, but it does make logical sense, no?

I don't associate large families with selfishness per se, but I do question the motives of a family like the Duggars. Nineteen freakin' offspring? 

Also, I think it's strange that we purchase expensive wooden boxes to put our dearly departed in and then put them in a big field with a bunch of other people in wooden boxes. Cemeteries seem like a waste of space to me. 

George Carlin: 

When I die I don’t want to be buried, but I don’t want to be cremated either. I want to be blown up. Put me on a pile of explosives and blow me up. Or throw my body from a helicopter. That would be fun. One stipulation: wherever I land, you have to leave me there. Even if it’s the mayor’s lawn. Just let me lie there. But keep the dogs away.

[reedm]

 I have to say this is a very odd topic.  Perhaps we should ration the food supply so people do not eat too much. That would certainly help overpopulation and food scarcity. Limiting family sizes seems to be a very Orwellian idea. Fortunately in our country we have the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence, unlike China, North Korea, etc  

That said, for arguments sake let's draw this out a bit.

Who determines how many children and families  can have? Do you have to have one male and one female? What if you have two children and both are males? Are you allowed to have two females? What if, God for bid one of your children dies? Are you allowed to have more?

While we're at it, let's decide how much space a person can have, how many cars a person can own, and  how much money a person can have.

No thanks. 

[DonRocks]

40 minutes ago, reedm said:

I have to say this is a very odd topic.  Perhaps we should ration the food supply so people do not eat too much. 

Meatless Monday

40 minutes ago, reedm said:

Who determines how many children and families  can have?

In 1978, China did.

40 minutes ago, reedm said:

While we're at it, let's decide how much space a person can have

HOV Lanes

40 minutes ago, reedm said:

how many cars a person can own

Sinagpore's "Certificate of Entitlement"

40 minutes ago, reedm said:

how much money a person can have.

I hate to keep this up, but in France, the inheritance tax is 60% with essentially no exemption unless you leave your estate *only* to the people the government allows. If you're worth $1 million, and you die married, your spouse gets it all; if you're living with someone out of wedlock, the government gets $600,000 before that person sees a penny.

[reedm]

Lol. I wasn't trying to be overly sarcastic or humorless. However, I've been to Singapore, and while I admire many aspects of their country, some of their "social engineering" practices are somewhat off-putting. Specifically for state-owned or controlled apartment buildings the ratio of the tenants must reflect the ratio of the country. Too many Indians? Too bad--you have to go look somewhere else. 

[DaveO]

One of the pet phrases of Bill Weld, currently running as VP candidate for the Libertarian's  (really this has nothing to do with that status, but is used as a reference for his current status)....has been something like  "Keep the government out of your pockets and your bedroom"

I'm less bothered by the out of the pocket side of things currently, I guess I'm sort of used to those long govt fingers in the pocket....but the government and you all should stay out of my bedroom. 

[Bart]

9 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I'm curious what people think about the moral issues (based strictly on resource consumption) of people who have, say, ten children. (My mother had seven sisters, a brother, and some step-siblings, so I'm every bit as much a part of this as anyone else.)

You're not part of the problem and neither is your mother.  Her parents, maybe, but they were raised in a different time when large families were practically a requirement.

But back to your question, yes it's selfish if you care about anything beyond your family.  But how many is too many?  I use the cat test.  If it's bizarre to have 10 cats, then it's bizarre to have 10 kids.

[Ericandblueboy]

5 hours ago, DaveO said:

I'm less bothered by the out of the pocket side of things currently, I guess I'm sort of used to those long govt fingers in the pocket....but the government and you all should stay out of my bedroom. 

Do you keep your kid(s) in your bedroom for their entire lives?  If not, then it makes no sense in this context.

[DaveO]

13 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

Do you keep your kid(s) in your bedroom for their entire lives?  If not, then it makes no sense in this context.

If you can't make sense of that general philosophical perspective I don't have much more to add.    Many authoritarian governments will tell you how to act, possibly how many kids to have, how to "live your life" etc.   I'd rather not deal with that.  It offends my sense of freedom.  Similarly I've been given authoritarian perspectives from orthodox religious leaders and similarly find them inappropriate for me, just as I couldn't care less what a group of lay philosophers feel about a similar topic.

Ultimately establishing "world wide" restrictions on number of children will end up being a mandate from well established nations telling the folks of impoverished nations how they are supposed to live.  Not something I would want to be part of.

[The Hersch]

On 9/15/2016 at 0:53 PM, DonRocks said:

It's really not all that different from the national debt (we can take care of it now, or let it take care of itself later).

Can you tell us what actual doom awaits us because of the national debt? What specific harm will be done by it and how? Can you provide historical examples of nations undone by debts such as the United States now owes? (Note: examples should include only countries whose debt is denominated in their own currency.)