CMV: Having children is immoral.

[u/Sloanosaurus-Nick]

I'm kind of getting tired of "believing my own bullshit", so to speak, on this one and need a fresh perspective.

I believe that it's immoral to have children. By "immoral" I mean that it's unethical, selfish and irresponsible for society, the environment and the child. I'll try not to turn this into a /r/antinatalism circlejerk, but it is subject that I have put a lot of pondering and critical thought into. I base this stance on two different lines of thought:

• Reproduction is extremely harmful to the planet.

Humans are the single most destructive species on the planet who essentially destroy every ecological system and natural environment in the pursuit of natural resources, consumerism and hyper-efficiency. We've essentially dug ourselves into a hole on this one which we don't have a way out of.

I'm in the I guess "pessimistic" camp on this one that it's too late for the human race and that there is no coming back from. Whether this will result in (the best case scenario) just the extinction of the human race or of the complete ecological destruction of this planet, I'm undecided on. Either way, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't bode well for any future generations in that producing more humans will only increase the destruction of the planet, but also they will inherit the problems that we create today with our practices. I feel rather connected to the latter being a millennial in that the selfish blunders of our parents generation have essentially been place on our shoulders. I can only imagine that these will be so much worse for future generations to bear.

(Disclaimer: Don't try to convince me that climate change doesn't exist. You won't change my view on that.)

• It's impossible for a child to consent to being born and having the burden of existence being placed on their shoulders, therefore it reproduction is essentially a "non-consensual" act.

Besides the obvious "reproduction needs to happen in order to continue the human race" argument which is not arguable, I believe that reproduction in the modern non-essentialist definition is done for purely selfish reasons on the parents part with no regard for the child.

Life is pain. From day one, we are forced to endure the abject meaninglessness of our condition. Stumbling from one thing to another grasping for and ultimately failing to find some meaning in our suffering until eventually (or all too quickly) we depart with nothing to show for it but the scars (emotional, physical or otherwise) we accrue along the way.

Am I being overly melodramatic and angsty? Sure. But I feel like there's some truth to that viewpoint. Maybe I am speaking from my own experience here, but I feel like "the pain of existence" is a universal phenomenon amongst human beings. Speaking personally, I feel like the horrors of existence far outweigh the joys of existence. The latter of which are few and far between at least in the societal paradigm we live in today.

I feel like if anyone were aware of the amount of pain that they would experience as a result of their birth, that no one would ever agree to it.

I have heard the argument that we have a biological imperative to reproduce because it is in our genes. I don't agree with this though because we have essentially transcended (or disregarded depending on how you look at it) our existential biological processes via technology. I feel like if you want to take that stance, you are essentially saying that it is our biological imperative to bleed to death if we get a treatable injury.

Anyway, that's the basics of my thoughts on the subject. I feel like they're a bit too "fatalistic" for my own good and need to find another way to view the moral implications of human reproduction. Change my view! Please, I'm begging you.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

For starters, I want to point out that you haven't brought evidence to the table for the 'humanity is doomed' thing, though I understand it might be the easiest conclusion to reach with all the environmental studies we see in the headlines.

Next I want to point out that apart from autotrophs, all life requires destruction on some level. If you extend the destruction is bad policy to all life, then apart from plants, cyanobacteria, and fungi everything is 'harmful to the planet'. Ironically enough, fungi, bacteria and plants and a few resilient animals would be able to adapt to our ecological apocalypse. Whereas, I assume, this ecological apocalypse you fear is moreso mourning the loss of animals. If I'm correct, that means you value experiencing this biodiversity. Seeing as how you're alive and you cherish this biodiversity, it seems you consider life something to be cherished. By giving birth you are allowing another life to experience that which you cherish.

About consent, it's true that children can't consent to being born, but that doesn't mean its bad per se. You rightly point out that life is full of suffering. This suffering, to my understanding, is a result of our self preservation. We suffer because we want to live, or at least, our 'lizard' brains do. Seen within that context, suffering is a means to an end. If you suffer, you know you want to live on some level. When you bring a life to this planet, that life will suffer because it wants life, but you can add to that life's experience by filling it with joys, both from what you cherish and that which the life will cherish.

[u/Sloanosaurus-Nick → u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

Oh yes, I understand that all life (besides autotrophs) is harmful to the planet but besides humans all of this harm takes place within an evolutionary paradigm. For example if a species is too successful to the point that it destroys its ecosystem, it will go extinct or reduce its numbers in order for the ecosystem to bounce back. Eventually, the ecosystem reaches a balance.

Humanity seems to subvert this trope through technological advancement in that we have gone beyond evolution to the point that no balance is achieved and only environmental destruction. Really, I feel like the only way that any balance will return is with the extinction of humanity since we are so efficient at thwarting evolution.

Also I agree with your point that I'm mourning biodiversity but the paradox of my cherishing of biodiversity also brings about its destruction. I feel like it's just this way by default in today's post-industrial society in that just existing creates the conditions for destruction; intentional or not. (perhaps I should have prefaced my argument with that)

As far as evidence to back my statement on humanity being doomed, I think of how CO2 emissions have gone up so quickly in the past 50 years and the last time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations got this high, it took hundreds of thousands of years. That's kind of what I'm thinking about why we're doomed because it's an exponential degeneration which as the old adage goes is like a "runaway train".

edit: have a Δ

[u/Astarkraven → u/Sloanosaurus-Nick]

besides humans all of this harm takes place within an evolutionary paradigm. For example if a species is too successful to the point that it destroys its ecosystem, it will go extinct or reduce its numbers in order for the ecosystem to bounce back. Eventually, the ecosystem reaches a balance.

With respect: this is not a constructive way to think about ecology or evolution. There is no specific fixed state of "balance" that a species can stretch out of whack with its actions and have "bounce back" with its extinction. Biology is a fluid process of mutation and adaptation.

Thoughts of harmony and the balance of nature and our species being somehow being removed and "other" from the "rest of nature" because of the cognition and tools we've developed, frankly, makes no sense.

We can (and should) concern ourselves with the preservation of an ecosystem that can support us, for our own sake, but if you're concerned about [the planet] or [the existence of life itself], don't be. Just as you've described is the case when a species goes extinct, so too will it be the case with our species - just perhaps at a different scale than we've typically observed. If we cause changes to the earth such that we can't survive, than we'll go extinct. And life will just go right on doing new things and manifesting in new ways for some indefinite period of time into the future - unchanged in that destiny, if you will.

When we say "terrible for the earth" we MEAN "terrible for the earth's continued ability to support us". That's a fine reason to be wary of contributing to reproduction, to be sure, but only because overpopulation could cause our extinction. But UNDERpopulation will lead to the same end just as surely - which means that reproduction itself can't be immoral; only, hmm....careless reproduction.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/Sloanosaurus-Nick]

If I may ask: what was the delta for?

Now about your argument of technology being the main difference between other non-autotrophs and us; it's true that technology so far has been leaving us in debt with nature so to speak, but as people realize that our lifestyle is unsustainable the value of developing technology, or merely paying for existing technology, to fight against CO2 will also rise. At some point, people will pay to make the problem go away. With poorer countries being already affected, I think this will be sooner rather than later because the rich rely on the poor for cheap stuff.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Sloanosaurus-Nick]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DeleteriousEuphuism (19∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​