Thing #1 I would not mind if humans went instinct. We do not seem to be good for other living things or each other, so I disagree with you slightly there. Like, does the bad cancel out the good? I even wonder sometimes if humans are that great at all. After all, look at how some insects have survived. Humans are not only a blip but it could be argued we are destroying our own habitat and are an invasive species that should be stopped. We think what we do is great but no other animal would agree.
Thing #2 the only true pleasure and sense of purpose and meaningful moments in my life had to do with having and raising my kid. Nothing ever made sense to me until I was a mom. I'd go so far as to say this is the ONLY reason we're here because it's the only reason any animal is here. To reproduce, to survive. Isn't everything else just status building for that reason anyway? So there is a good chance I will leave this life believing that only having a kid and being a mother mattered to me and nothing else even came close.
I don't know really know how to reconcile these two things. I would say "you SHOULD" have kids because it's fucking awesome and for no other reason.
I’m not sure I’ve heard any pro-natalist utilitarian argument that claims “people are typically happy; more people -> more happiness.” Are there any good examples?
Anyhow, what you’re describing sounds a lot like Derek Parfitt’s “mere addition” paradox:
The big issue for me is that childbirth HURTS. Pregnancy hurts. It is physically exhausting in ways we didn't imagine before having children, and that's just before the baby arrives. We had one child and had to think long and hard before having a second one. After the second one it was clear there was no way my wife could go through all that again. In an imaginary world we'd love to have 12 kids, but not 12 pregnancies, and certainly not 12 deliveries. I can't imagine a moral imperative requiring someone to go through that.
Years ago I had this argument with a now-famous pro-natalist philosopher who made his point just as you describe. I pointed out that the lifetime (tau) of the species (or at least the high-population version of it) was also a major factor and that overloading the carrying capacity would probably crash that, in addition to creating a lot of misery. He honestly had forgotten to multiply by tau.
One could make the argument that a pro-natalist world is a more humane world. A world where it's possible for a middle class family to have 3 or even 5 kids and provide for them in a socially acceptable manner is one very different from our own.
I think that pro-natalist policies are a macro thing like GDP or BMI. If the policies create a social safety net to nudge up the national average of kids per family then it’s working. When applied individually the arguments don’t work as well outside of the nudge of one more kid. Max absurdism at the individual level leads you to the realm of the Duggar’s or Jeffords cult
I have three kids and I’m frankly exhausted. I’m glad I have them. But they’re also a mess and expensive and selfish and at various times like small sociopaths —and I’ve got good ones! I don’t think the moral argument holds up.
I'm not sure this is serious so I'm just going to say a few things not well thought out. If you are writing about monogamous people then there are physical limitations for women. (I'm one). Maybe men don't focus on this, but so many women die in child birth. It's risky. Birth rates drop when people can control reproduction because it is risky and taking care of the children isn't easy. Yes, they bring happiness (usually) but few people have the physical capacity or wealth to have as many as they might want. Some societies have figured this out--multiple spouses. I met an accomplished woman with 4 children (from another culture). When she was asked how she had written so much while taking care of her 4 children? She answered, "O, my dear, the other wives do that." Currently, in the U.S.,with "by the seat of our pants" childcare (as we've seen in the pandemic) all mothers, even mothers with partners, struggle to carry on day-to-day living. Much better/different societal arrangements would need to be made if women had as many children as they wanted (even if they were physically able). Higher educational opportunities and less regulation by religious cultures are factors. Women have also reduced larger families as there simply was not an alternative to continuous pregnancies before safe birth control. Among us in the U.S. are religious groups--Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons-- for whom larger families are culturally supported. Mitt Romney has 5 sons and 24 grandchildren (maybe more--some by adoption and some by surrogacy). The number of children a woman has depends on her health, her social support, her finances, her emotional capacity. A child takes all one's energy. While it may make no intellectual sense, that little creature steals the intellectual sense and becomes the mother's heart and it never goes away even when the child is grown. I suppose each of us has the happiness we need from having a child--and most of us (with birth control) can decide how much of this kind of happiness we want (or don't want). The non-child bearing spouse (if there is one) is a factor as well. If that person is supportive a mother could have more. I don't have any observations about IVF except that those I know who have used this method to have children are usually well-prepared. Adoption is supported to some extent by tax-credits, but that's just a small amount of tax $$ at the time of adoption and no other support except what support is given any person raising children. If society gave support there would likely be more children by each mother, but since it doesn't there can't be an answer to this.
"The simple moral pro-natalist case (as opposed to the economic case) goes like this: human beings are the source of happiness or, if you want to be fancy, utility. Humans create more happiness for other humans, and also experience happiness themselves, so expanding the stock of humans expands the amount of happiness/utility."
Some children grow up to be serial killers or genocidal psychopaths or presidents of the United States. I call bullshit.
I think the crude pro-natalist case pitched to selfish childless coastal people like myself (think Ross Douthat, etc) is more like: the one thing we know we are here to do is have children, and because of this, having children will enrich your life in ways you can’t even imagine. To that end, one kid = you “get it”, but is kind of the bare minimum. Two to four kinds is probably ideal for all sorts of reasons because you get maximum joy/fulfillment while having a somewhat reasonable situation (and helping that replacement rate!). More than that you are spreading your time and resources too thin (less ideal for the kids) and not gaining as much enrichment, although in old age you’d be stoked to have tons of kids. Not sure I’ve heard the “more is better no matter what” argument.
I’m all for the tax credit, but the idea that the US will ever *incentivize* children financially is laughable.
Our childcare costs alone are $580 per week. Our son is a huge financial hit expected to last til he’s 22 (at least), and our lives are a lot more stressful because we are trying to raise him while working long hours without much time off. (My partner got one week of parental leave…unpaid. I got unpaid FMLA and used some sick days.)
We love the little guy, but we can’t imagine having two.
The US is one million miles away from making parenthood attractive from a financial perspective. We should help parents with costs because it’s the right thing to do, but anyone who expects these credits to result in more births is delusional.
I myself have concocted a nuanced opinion on this topic that takes into account the particulars as well as the broader context, ranging from personal finance to evolutionary psychology, all very cutting edge, but also resonant with the wisdom of the ages
There are some very strong arguments about WHY we have kids (evolution, fucking) and some very weak ones FOR having kids (great example of the is-ought distinction in action). But even amongst the weak arguments, the ones referring to utility are probably not the way to go (for all the nitpicky reasons that utilitarian arguments are so easily dismantled, even if utilitarianism as a whole is so consistently convincing). Probably the best justification comes from the Hegelian/Marxist/Weberian camp. The modern world, with its division of labor and wall-to-wall bureaucracy leaves each of us extremely alienated from the genuine humanity that many of us crave. Becoming a parent makes us slaves, with our children serving as bondsmen. And it is only through this relationship of bondage that we are able to muster the strength to forge some measly connection back to our own sense of humanity.
Historically, yes, the argument was "have as many kids as you can," because until 1900, north of 25% of infants died within their first year, and north of 45% died before before age 15. Globally. Worldwide. By 1950, that dropped to a bit over 15% before age 1 and over 25% before age 15. Now, it's a bit under 3% before age 1 and under 5% before age 15. So really, even just maintaining the population meant that the average woman needed to have something like 4-5 kids. Filter out those who didn't/couldn't/died first, and this means that women who did have kids must have had, on average, more than 4-5 each.
While infant and childhood mortality was so high, nobody really needed to worry about things like cumulative resource use or population growth. Just wasn't an issue. If you didn't have as many kids as possible, there just wouldn't be anyone within a few generations. Today? Yeah, lots of things are going to need to be reevaluated.
Seriously, I'm increasingly convinced that a majority of what are viewed as intractable social/political problems that have emerged in the last century or so (as distinct from those that have existed forever, e.g., "People tend to be assholes if they think they can get away with it.") are to a significant degree simply functions of scale. Solutions that worked with a global population of 150 million don't work with a global population in excess of 6 billion. Going to have to figure that out one way or the other.
Thing #1 I would not mind if humans went instinct. We do not seem to be good for other living things or each other, so I disagree with you slightly there. Like, does the bad cancel out the good? I even wonder sometimes if humans are that great at all. After all, look at how some insects have survived. Humans are not only a blip but it could be argued we are destroying our own habitat and are an invasive species that should be stopped. We think what we do is great but no other animal would agree.
Thing #2 the only true pleasure and sense of purpose and meaningful moments in my life had to do with having and raising my kid. Nothing ever made sense to me until I was a mom. I'd go so far as to say this is the ONLY reason we're here because it's the only reason any animal is here. To reproduce, to survive. Isn't everything else just status building for that reason anyway? So there is a good chance I will leave this life believing that only having a kid and being a mother mattered to me and nothing else even came close.
I don't know really know how to reconcile these two things. I would say "you SHOULD" have kids because it's fucking awesome and for no other reason.
I’m not sure I’ve heard any pro-natalist utilitarian argument that claims “people are typically happy; more people -> more happiness.” Are there any good examples?
Anyhow, what you’re describing sounds a lot like Derek Parfitt’s “mere addition” paradox:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
The big issue for me is that childbirth HURTS. Pregnancy hurts. It is physically exhausting in ways we didn't imagine before having children, and that's just before the baby arrives. We had one child and had to think long and hard before having a second one. After the second one it was clear there was no way my wife could go through all that again. In an imaginary world we'd love to have 12 kids, but not 12 pregnancies, and certainly not 12 deliveries. I can't imagine a moral imperative requiring someone to go through that.
Years ago I had this argument with a now-famous pro-natalist philosopher who made his point just as you describe. I pointed out that the lifetime (tau) of the species (or at least the high-population version of it) was also a major factor and that overloading the carrying capacity would probably crash that, in addition to creating a lot of misery. He honestly had forgotten to multiply by tau.
One could make the argument that a pro-natalist world is a more humane world. A world where it's possible for a middle class family to have 3 or even 5 kids and provide for them in a socially acceptable manner is one very different from our own.
I think that pro-natalist policies are a macro thing like GDP or BMI. If the policies create a social safety net to nudge up the national average of kids per family then it’s working. When applied individually the arguments don’t work as well outside of the nudge of one more kid. Max absurdism at the individual level leads you to the realm of the Duggar’s or Jeffords cult
I have three kids and I’m frankly exhausted. I’m glad I have them. But they’re also a mess and expensive and selfish and at various times like small sociopaths —and I’ve got good ones! I don’t think the moral argument holds up.
I'm not sure this is serious so I'm just going to say a few things not well thought out. If you are writing about monogamous people then there are physical limitations for women. (I'm one). Maybe men don't focus on this, but so many women die in child birth. It's risky. Birth rates drop when people can control reproduction because it is risky and taking care of the children isn't easy. Yes, they bring happiness (usually) but few people have the physical capacity or wealth to have as many as they might want. Some societies have figured this out--multiple spouses. I met an accomplished woman with 4 children (from another culture). When she was asked how she had written so much while taking care of her 4 children? She answered, "O, my dear, the other wives do that." Currently, in the U.S.,with "by the seat of our pants" childcare (as we've seen in the pandemic) all mothers, even mothers with partners, struggle to carry on day-to-day living. Much better/different societal arrangements would need to be made if women had as many children as they wanted (even if they were physically able). Higher educational opportunities and less regulation by religious cultures are factors. Women have also reduced larger families as there simply was not an alternative to continuous pregnancies before safe birth control. Among us in the U.S. are religious groups--Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons-- for whom larger families are culturally supported. Mitt Romney has 5 sons and 24 grandchildren (maybe more--some by adoption and some by surrogacy). The number of children a woman has depends on her health, her social support, her finances, her emotional capacity. A child takes all one's energy. While it may make no intellectual sense, that little creature steals the intellectual sense and becomes the mother's heart and it never goes away even when the child is grown. I suppose each of us has the happiness we need from having a child--and most of us (with birth control) can decide how much of this kind of happiness we want (or don't want). The non-child bearing spouse (if there is one) is a factor as well. If that person is supportive a mother could have more. I don't have any observations about IVF except that those I know who have used this method to have children are usually well-prepared. Adoption is supported to some extent by tax-credits, but that's just a small amount of tax $$ at the time of adoption and no other support except what support is given any person raising children. If society gave support there would likely be more children by each mother, but since it doesn't there can't be an answer to this.
"The simple moral pro-natalist case (as opposed to the economic case) goes like this: human beings are the source of happiness or, if you want to be fancy, utility. Humans create more happiness for other humans, and also experience happiness themselves, so expanding the stock of humans expands the amount of happiness/utility."
Some children grow up to be serial killers or genocidal psychopaths or presidents of the United States. I call bullshit.
I think the crude pro-natalist case pitched to selfish childless coastal people like myself (think Ross Douthat, etc) is more like: the one thing we know we are here to do is have children, and because of this, having children will enrich your life in ways you can’t even imagine. To that end, one kid = you “get it”, but is kind of the bare minimum. Two to four kinds is probably ideal for all sorts of reasons because you get maximum joy/fulfillment while having a somewhat reasonable situation (and helping that replacement rate!). More than that you are spreading your time and resources too thin (less ideal for the kids) and not gaining as much enrichment, although in old age you’d be stoked to have tons of kids. Not sure I’ve heard the “more is better no matter what” argument.
I’m all for the tax credit, but the idea that the US will ever *incentivize* children financially is laughable.
Our childcare costs alone are $580 per week. Our son is a huge financial hit expected to last til he’s 22 (at least), and our lives are a lot more stressful because we are trying to raise him while working long hours without much time off. (My partner got one week of parental leave…unpaid. I got unpaid FMLA and used some sick days.)
We love the little guy, but we can’t imagine having two.
The US is one million miles away from making parenthood attractive from a financial perspective. We should help parents with costs because it’s the right thing to do, but anyone who expects these credits to result in more births is delusional.
I myself have concocted a nuanced opinion on this topic that takes into account the particulars as well as the broader context, ranging from personal finance to evolutionary psychology, all very cutting edge, but also resonant with the wisdom of the ages
There are some very strong arguments about WHY we have kids (evolution, fucking) and some very weak ones FOR having kids (great example of the is-ought distinction in action). But even amongst the weak arguments, the ones referring to utility are probably not the way to go (for all the nitpicky reasons that utilitarian arguments are so easily dismantled, even if utilitarianism as a whole is so consistently convincing). Probably the best justification comes from the Hegelian/Marxist/Weberian camp. The modern world, with its division of labor and wall-to-wall bureaucracy leaves each of us extremely alienated from the genuine humanity that many of us crave. Becoming a parent makes us slaves, with our children serving as bondsmen. And it is only through this relationship of bondage that we are able to muster the strength to forge some measly connection back to our own sense of humanity.
Historically, yes, the argument was "have as many kids as you can," because until 1900, north of 25% of infants died within their first year, and north of 45% died before before age 15. Globally. Worldwide. By 1950, that dropped to a bit over 15% before age 1 and over 25% before age 15. Now, it's a bit under 3% before age 1 and under 5% before age 15. So really, even just maintaining the population meant that the average woman needed to have something like 4-5 kids. Filter out those who didn't/couldn't/died first, and this means that women who did have kids must have had, on average, more than 4-5 each.
While infant and childhood mortality was so high, nobody really needed to worry about things like cumulative resource use or population growth. Just wasn't an issue. If you didn't have as many kids as possible, there just wouldn't be anyone within a few generations. Today? Yeah, lots of things are going to need to be reevaluated.
Seriously, I'm increasingly convinced that a majority of what are viewed as intractable social/political problems that have emerged in the last century or so (as distinct from those that have existed forever, e.g., "People tend to be assholes if they think they can get away with it.") are to a significant degree simply functions of scale. Solutions that worked with a global population of 150 million don't work with a global population in excess of 6 billion. Going to have to figure that out one way or the other.
I had never even heard of "pro-natalism". I thought people just decided whether they wanted to have kids or not.
I guess I need to get out more.