celebratory response to having children

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If you accept the argument (as I do) that a large percent decrease in human population would be a large benefit to man's survival / success / safety going forward, then how by the same token can one reconcile the expected celebratory response to having children?

Where is the moral outrage for jepordizing man's future that excess childbirth represents?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,664 • Replies: 63

No top replies

For all of human evolution up till now more was better. Humanity is a like large supertanker not a speed boat, turns take time.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

then how by the same token can one reconcile the expected celebratory response to having children?

Maybe one can't reconcile them. It may very well be that being happy for someone's newborn child is in direct contradiction with one's concern for global sustainability. Is this really a problem? It's called a "conflict of interests" and it happens all the time. Everyone holds contradictory beliefs, and sometimes these contradictory beliefs can be quite detrimental; but being happy for someone's baby doesn't strike me as one of them. Though I am concerned about the future of the planet, I have also been happy for my friends when they have given birth. If the philosopher or the rhetorician wants to call this a contradiction, I will freely confess to being guilty as charged.

0 Replies

I'm always the MOST delighted when someone adopts.

0 Replies

funny, i was thinking about children and childbirth after reading genesis again, before i skipped over the family heritage parts.

fascinating, but anyways, if every couple has only 1 child, the population should drop, shouldnt it?

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

funny, i was thinking about children and childbirth after reading genesis again, before i skipped over the family heritage parts.

fascinating, but anyways, if every couple has only 1 child, the population should drop, shouldnt it?

2.2 kids per couple if each person is part of only one couple during a lifetime, that is the flatline population number. The .2 is for those who die before bearing children, and those who are infertile.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I'm always the MOST delighted when someone adopts.

A sensible delight.

0 Replies

(As a teacher) I've noted that many parents are not quite so celebratory once their offspring become adolescents! A bit like that cute, fluffy little pup turning into a great big, huge german shepherd. A bit more than some parents bargained for! :wink:

0 Replies

During my senior year of high school the world population hit 6 billion. I know because I was taking a demography course at the time. I decided I wasn't going to have children. I suppose I never really wanted to have my own kids and I've continued to be indifferent since then. However, I don't begrudge others from having more than their 2.2 (or 2.7) children. I get a little edgy when people have more than 4 or 5 kids, though. For a whole host of reasons.

0 Replies

Evolution selects for genes that promote their own self reproduction; therefore, we are have evolved to like having kids. Pretty simple really.

0 Replies

Well, actually, not always. Species like wolves and coyotes have pack members who serve as nannies - the good of the village mentality exists in the pack mind, why not in the human mind?

0 Replies

Re: celebratory response to having children

Chumly wrote:

If you accept the argument (as I do) that a large percent decrease in human population would be a large benefit to man's survival / success / safety going forward, then how by the same token can one reconcile the expected celebratory response to having children?

Where is the moral outrage for jepordizing man's future that excess childbirth represents?

On the other hand, if no one had any more children we would cease to exist as a species within 100 years. I doubt most people would consider that a desirable end result either.

Obviously we need SOME children to continue as a species. The key there is balance - not in complete elimination.

One could ask a simlar question in relation to this same original premise - Why don't we congratulate the family of the recently deceased when we go to the funeral? "Hey, thanks for having your Uncle Harry kick the bucket! This planet was getting to crowded with him hanging around..."

There are many, many contradictions with population control. I suspect you frequent your doctor's office for check-ups or when you get sick. We have government sponsored advertisements telling people to do exactly that. Why? Wouldn't dying help to decrease the overall population too?

0 Replies

Depopulation does happen. Between the decline in lifespan post CCCP (over ten year decline) and those of breeding age refusing to have very many children, the population of Russia is in rapid decline (.8 million a year). Across Europe the only reason for population stability is the first and second generation immigrants having far more babies then the rest of the population.

I don't get too worked up about the population problem, mass starvation and mortality from disease will fix the problem if people will not. The earth can not carry this many people, a massive adjustment is imminent.

0 Replies

Read the 1968 essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin it's all about the dilemma you are pondering.

0 Replies

I'll give it a read, however my viewpoint is not so much based on "a conflict over finite resources between individual interests and the common good" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

My concerns for the burgeoning population are based more on the argument that a small population would be safer and more stable going forward (for a large number of reasons inclusive of but not limited to the issue of resources), thus a saner avenue than the large population we have now, even if the claim that the population is growing less rapidly proves to be true over the long run.

I would also add that man is now potentially at a technological crossroads whereby a small population could now live in relative luxury and safety.

As per fishin's counter that I should, by the same token, celebrate death, I might if it was done in a humane way to effect a smaller population if the alternative was mass extinction / mass suffering. However it's clear that condoms, vasectomies and tubal ligations would do the job without the need for celebratory death.

The traditional Irish Wake notwithstanding Smile

Quote:

The traditional Irish Wake was commonplace around Ireland up until about the 1970's. This was the process of Laying out the body of a departed relative in the house where they lived and /or died. All of the family and quite a few of the deceased ones neighbors and friends would gather at the house. The body was usually in a coffin in the parlor of the house or living room. There would be lots of food and plenty of drink to be consumed. People would come and socialize and remember the departed person's life. This wasn't a time for tears to say the least, it was more of a party than a funeral.

Sadly, this form of send off is not practiced anymore in Ireland except probably in remote areas where Irish traditions are still very much alive.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlcar2/An_Irish_Wake.htm

As to hwakeye 10's proposition that we are (more or less) doomed to high levels of suffering to come, I hope he is incorrect, but I suspect his version of the future to have a high probability, this supports my view that the celebratory response to having children may indeed be misplaced.

As to Shapeless's post, I counter that argumentum ad populum is not a valid rationale for endangering man's future to such an extreme.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I counter that argumentum ad populum is not a valid rationale for endangering man's future to such an extreme.

And I would agree. I wasn't suggesting that we accept the contradiction because everyone else does. I was asking whether the conflict of interests that the contradiction represents is such a puzzling philosophical dilemma and/or whether it is really in need of serious hand-wringing. For me personally, being happy for someone who was trying to conceive and succeeded is not something I rank very high on my list of moral quandaries to be dealt with. I was just wondering how high it is on yours.

0 Replies

I would only go as far as saying it is in need of "serious hand wringing" in as much as its net effects both pragmatically and morally promote the potential downfall of mankind in a most obvious and direct fashion; not that I do not understand human nature.

I would certainly rank it higher than (for example) parents promoting their kids to steal small items such as chocolate bars.

0 Replies

Fair enough. Inasmuch as the effect is "direct and obvious," as you say, no arguments here.

0 Replies

I suggest it's direct and obvious enough to consider that the risks to man's future far outweigh the rewards of needless childbirth.

Call it a social commentary on misplaced morals!

0 Replies

Agreed on that count. Like you, I laud Aidan's comment about adoption on the previous page.

0 Replies

celebratory response to having children

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know