How would you like to be born now — hypericin

Depends how shockingly, narcissisticly selfish you are.

Usual standards these days - probably not.

Anyone with even a shred of compassion for their fellow man - yes, even more so because there's a lot of work to do to make things better for those who'll follow us.

I pray that if I had to be to be born then let it be that I'm born

1. Without eyes so that I won't be able to see prey.

2. Without ears so that I won't be able to hear prey.

3. Without a tongue so that I won't be able to taste prey.

4. Without a nose so that I won't be able to smell prey.

5. Without skin so that I won't be able to sense prey.

6. Without hands so that I won't be able to strike prey.

7. Without legs so that I won't be able to run after prey.

8. Without a brain so that I won't be able to plan how to capture prey.

I suppose what I actually want is not to be born! Sorry for beating around the (George) Bush!

Paints an entirely different picture of congenital birth defects, abortion, and stillbirths! The good don't want to be born and if they must be born, they would prefer to be disabled in ways that are beyond conceivable!

I have to admit, I went from really looking forward to fatherhood to totally going off it, pretty much on this basis. I find it hard to rationalise how another consumer could help matters.

I find it hard to rationalise how another consumer could help matters. — Kenosha Kid

What makes you think you'd bring up 'just another consumer'. Don't do yourself down. I'm sure you've the potential to bring up the next Ghandi, or MLK, wouldn't that be better than no one?

I tend to think material circumstances are not the most important thing for us, as long as we can get by.

In a lot of ways there's a feeling of general decline, societal unraveling and defeatism/apathy today... as if we are nearing the end of an age. Obviously it depends on how bad climate catastrophe will be and if societies manage to turn it around... but maybe the 'cultural climate' could be a lot better in say 20 years then it is now.

What makes you think you'd bring up 'just another consumer'. Don't do yourself down. I'm sure you've the potential to bring up the next Ghandi, or MLK, wouldn't that be better than no one? — Isaac

How did that work out for them in the end? :wink: The options aren't my spawn or no one though: if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that by the time there's a shortage of humans, it'll be too late anyway.

I am a stepfather to two kids. It pains my parents because I'm an only child myself, but I don't feel like having selfish genes is a good reason to reproduce. If I had none, I would have liked to adopt.

Is this a situation that you would prefer to avoid? That you would do anything, at all costs, to avoid? Then how is it ok to impose this situation on any child, let alone your own? — hypericin

No, dealing with climate change or any other adversity along with the rest of life is not something I wish to avoid “at all costs”.
Ergo, I would never use that reason to not have kids and would have no problem bringing a kid into the world.

How did that work out for them in the end? — Kenosha Kid

Good point. Although, on topic, maybe them doing their thing and then shuffling off was their last act of greatness!

The options aren't my spawn or no one though: if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that by the time there's a shortage of humans, it'll be too late anyway. — Kenosha Kid

I was doing you the credit of assuming yours would be better than average, I should take the compliment...

I am a stepfather to two kids. It pains my parents because I'm an only child myself, but I don't feel like having selfish genes is a good reason to reproduce. If I had none, I would have liked to adopt. — Kenosha Kid

Cool. That's the bonus score option in terms of ethical bingo I suppose. Step-parent or adopt two kids and then bring them up to be Gandhi and MLK.

My feeling is just that there's going to be a human race into the future (we're never going to get everyone to stop breeding) and life for those people is going to be really miserable if we don't do something to fix the mess we've made. Unfortunately that project {fixing the mess we've made} is going to take more than one generation to complete. So if we (the hip and cool ones) don't have kids, it's not going to get done. The only choices I see are no-one has kids (no future generation, no misery), or we continue to have kids (at a reasonable rate), in order to ensure there's enough of a future generation to carry on fixing things up.

Maybe there's a good argument for not having kids if you're not that bothered (we don't need a massive population to do the repair work), or if you're a dick (always applies). But if you're even a little above average in niceness then your kids (adopted, step, or otherwise) are going to be just the sort of people the next generation need to help reduce the harm already done by the previous one.

How confident are you in your assessment that climate change is just one adversity among others? Would you stake your life on it? Another's?

Obviously it depends on how bad climate catastrophe will be — ChatteringMonkey

The future is unknowable. But according to our best predictive efforts, it will be quite bad indeed.

Unfortunately that project {fixing the mess we've made} is going to take more than one generation to complete. So if we (the hip and cool ones) — Isaac

You are imposing this burden on your "hip and cool" kids. For whom the problem may well be irredeemable by the time they are adults. What are you doing now to address the problem, while there, maybe, is a sliver of time left to perhaps avoid the worst of it? If nothing, it is nonsense to expect your "hip and cool" kids to contribute any more.

Pretty confident, i would stake lives on it sure.

The future is unknowable. But according to our best predictive efforts, it will be quite bad indeed. — hypericin

Thats not true. Our best predictive models are based on the patterns of the past and present. Those patterns indicate that the world is and has been getting better, not worse. Poverty, well being, infant mortality, disease, murder and every metric of a better life except 2 which escape me at the moment. Look into Steven Pinkers work, all these things are better than ever. Taken as a whole, mwnkind has never been safer or better off.

The great thing about death is that such an exit is always available. It's the consolation for the living (those suffering) that there is always an escape. But we should honor those we brought into the world, or those that brought us into the world, insofar we are obliged to live for them.

Maybe we need a cultural revolution around death, that makes it less scary, streamlined, normal. Voluntary ritual suicide could become an honorable/sublime thing again.

It never was moral to have children, but nowadays it's undeniable.

Then how is it ok to impose this situation on any child, let alone your own? — hypericin

I'm reminded of Richard Feynman's great essay, Los Alamos from Below (pdf link). It's about his time working as a low-level scientist at the Los Alamos facility to build the first atomic bomb during WWII. At the end he writes:

"I returned to civilization shortly after that and went to Cornell to teach, and my first impression was a very strange one. I can't understand it anymore, but I felt very strongly then. I sat in a restaurant in New York, for example, and I looked out at the buildings and I began to think, about how much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth ... how far from here was 34th St? ... All those buildings, all smashed -- and so on. And I would go along and I would see people building a bridge, or they'd be making a new road, and I thought, they're crazy, they just don't understand, they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless.

But, fortunately, it's been useless for about 30 years now, isn't it? So I've been wrong for 30 years about it being useless making bridges and I'm glad that those other people had the sense to go ahead."

He went on to have two children. One became a philosopher and computer scientist; the other, a photographer.

The great thing about death is that such an exit is always available. It's the consolation for the living (those suffering) that there is always an escape. But we should honor those we brought into the world, or those that brought us into the world, insofar we are obliged to live for them. — Nils Loc

:fire: :100:

It never was moral to have children, but nowadays it's undeniable — darthbarracuda

:up: (undeniable = immoral)

Also the triumph of hope over experience.

Look into Steven Pinkers work, all these things are better than ever. — DingoJones

If all these metrics are predicated on an unsustainable trajectory leading directly to catastrophe, summing them up doesn't quite help.

Good thing they aren't predicted on an unsustainable trajectory then, or you might have a point there.

"at least I'll be dead before the worst of it" — hypericin

Most people were born and didn't die before their particular "worst of it". Bad stuff has been the lot of many billions over many millennia. Our species will probably survive, though many others may not, and "the species" says nothing about individuals.

"Morality" isn't very well suited to decide the future of the species. Individuals can (and will) decide for or against reproduction.

I didn't reproduce, but that had nothing to do with the morality of reproduction. It would be better if there were fewer people. When I first heard about Zero Population Growth (1970) there were only 3.6 billion people, which seemed shockingly high. It's too late to talk about it now, with just about 8 billion. Nature will now have to solve the problem, and--no doubt--nature is perfectly capable of doing so, will solve it at some point, and we will not like it, that is certain.

You are imposing this burden on your "hip and cool" kids. For whom the problem may well be irredeemable by the time they are adults. — hypericin

Yep. I assumed they would want to. Does that seem like an odd assumption to you? Did you grow up wanting to be one of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings?

What are you doing now to address the problem, while there, maybe, is a sliver of time left to perhaps avoid the worst of it? If nothing, it is nonsense to expect your "hip and cool" kids to contribute any more. — hypericin

Seems like a really odd question to ask. Given that I'm hip and cool, I'm obviously doing hip and cool things, no? You don't think I just gave myself that appellation do you?

I was doing you the credit of assuming yours would be better than average, — Isaac

I have been known to try to influence the youngest towards slightly higher aspirations, although his real dad is trying to make an anti-vax conspiracy theorist out of him. The eldest has passed her driving theory on the 12th attempt. Neither, with love, pleading, threats or bribes, can be compelled to not leave every light in the house on all day. I don't think that:

Step-parent or adopt two kids and then bring them up to be Gandhi and MLK. — Isaac

is in the offing, but who knows?

Maybe there's a good argument for not having kids if you're not that bothered (we don't need a massive population to do the repair work), or if you're a dick (always applies). But if you're even a little above average in niceness then your kids (adopted, step, or otherwise) are going to be just the sort of people the next generation need to help reduce the harm already done by the previous one. — Isaac

I do think that having fewer children would have a more positive effect than trying to slop out a Martin Luther King. Being serious for a moment (just for a moment), hoping to breed an army of social justice warriors is a casino approach: sure, I may be more likely than Nos to raise a kid who's conscientious, but I'm still more likely to produce yet another mindless consumer because it's me versus pretty much everything else in the world (including their other parent).

I think a more responsible approach is for our generations to forge the superstructures that future generations will in part adhere to and in part improve upon, to set the laws, morals and social conventions -- the hereditary socialisations -- that will anchor them. At the moment, that anchor point is "Do what you want, f*** everybody else." We need to be at the point where our kids see their friends' dads driving SUVs and think "What a c***" because that's the society they've been raised in, rather than "I'll get one one day."

his real dad is trying to make an anti-vax conspiracy theorist out of him. — Kenosha Kid

Oh dear...

Neither, with love, pleading, threats or bribes, can be compelled to not leave every light in the house on all day. — Kenosha Kid

Ha! Mine were the opposite when they were at home. "Do you really need that light on!". I may have overdone the indoctrination a bit... My eldest now works with criminals and psychopaths... not sure what that says about my parenting skills.

I don't think that:

Step-parent or adopt two kids and then bring them up to be Gandhi and MLK. — Isaac


is in the offing, but who knows? — Kenosha Kid

Don't rule out a mid-life epiphany...

Being serious for a moment (just for a moment), hoping to breed an army of social justice warriors is a casino approach: sure, I may be more likely than Nos to raise a kid who's conscientious, but I'm still more likely to produce yet another mindless consumer because it's me versus pretty much everything else in the world (including their other parent). — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, I do see where you're coming from. I think it's different for people in different circumstances. I was lucky enough to bring my kids up in quite some isolation (rural, home-educated), most of their friends were the kids of fairly like-minded parents. Obviously one might accuse me of looking at the problem through this extremely privileged lens, but I think my (semi-serious) complaint against the OP is the moralising. General policy might be to not have kids, or adopt, and that might well be a good idea, but a moral duty (or preclusion) is supposed to be treated as if they were universal. If the reasons why it's bad rely on specific circumstances, it doesn't matter if 99.999% of the population are in those circumstances, we can't even pretend it applies universally. The moral bit, I suppose, would be to have some very high thresholds that need to be met before considering bringing children into the world. I'd be very much on board with that. But for those lucky enough to be able to meet those thresholds, I think having kids is a reasonable thing to do.

I think a more responsible approach is for our generations to forge the superstructures that future generations will in part adhere to and in part improve upon, to set the laws, morals and social conventions -- the hereditary socialisations -- that will anchor them. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed. Do you think we can get this done within the lifespan if a single generation though, seems like a big project?

The future is unknowable. But according to our best predictive efforts, it will be quite bad indeed. — hypericin

Really?

In a time when things have gotten better for humans and for human life, this is the typical grandstanding that is so welcome today in order for us to show that we care about the current global problems and the proper correct way to think about climate change. To dare to even say that things have improved from the time of our grandparents and great grandparents is such heresy, that nobody will do the obvious an extrapolate from that past. To have any positive outlook and you are thought to be denier of reality. I don't understand it.

I remember the example which on economic historian gave about this: the average height of people have increased. Yet for a very long time academicians have said that this growth would end, even if the stats shows an increase. This because average height of people growing would mean that things are getting better, people have better food and so on. (If your parents are taller than you, look at the height of your great grandparents.) And thus he made a contrarian prediction: that this would still continue. Likely he would get ridicule and criticism for such heretical views.

Or perhaps it's the twisted hubristic way to overemphasize our own importance: that just right now we are living at the pinnacle of human achievement and prosperity and everything will be worse from this instant moment onward. I doubt we are at such historical crossroads at this moment....if we were not in such situation 2011, 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971, 1961, 1951.

You guys I’m an only child and I have 1 child (no more). If everyone was this responsible then we could reduce population. Catholics are enemies of earth! I don’t understand why people can’t see that HIV and COVID fit into a plan to reduce population?!?! Not only does it reduce population (help climate), it also selectively reduces old people (which are economic burden) and changes the political landscape towards more progressive (young people)! The elite don’t want overpopulation anymore than you and me. It’s plain as day.

Both having kinds or not are selfish for different reasons. The only moral question here is
"which form of Egoism is better at the end?". And in that case, when I say better i mean more useful for the society.
To don't deprive yourself from all the "fun" you could have by not having a kid and the responsibility that it brings, or to want to have one as to extend your own self through it? And "teach" it whatever you think you "know"?

insofar we are obliged to live for them. — Nils Loc

But is it right indeed? Why should we be obligated to live for anyone else except ourselves?

Maybe we need a cultural revolution around death, that makes it less scary, streamlined, normal. — Nils Loc

That's totally what humans need at the end. And societies as outcome of individuals also. I couldn't agree more.
But what bothers me is, how that is possible? And is it indeed possible after all?! Can you change what humanity learnt and passes for million years now, from generation to generation, how to deal with death? Not sure is possible.

My eldest now works with criminals and psychopaths... not sure what that says about my parenting skills. — Isaac

Ha!

Agreed. Do you think we can get this done within the lifespan if a single generation though, seems like a big project? — Isaac

I don't think we're even inclined toward it as a society. If we were, sure. Things like this can be little nudges or sudden paradigm shifts. In the UK, we went from not really paying paedophiles much mind beyond a "stay away from Mr Davis" to hating them more than anything else thanks to the tabloid press. Look how quickly Trump raised an army of millions against democracy and the free press in America. We need that, but for polluters.

Things like this can be little nudges or sudden paradigm shifts. — Kenosha Kid

Fair point. I suppose, though, I'd argue that a sudden paradigm shift still falls into the category of a long-term project, just on account of its rarity. Whether you're slowly filling a reservoir with ten years worth of dew, or doing a rain dance in the hopes of a once per couple of decades deluge, your reservoir filling project (most likely) takes about ten years. The second option has the advantage that it might happen the very next day, but that's the kind of wild optimism about timescales that we usual only reserve for grant-funded research projects!

My gut feeling is that whether society changes by slow attrition or by rare paradigm shift we need to be prepared for either taking more than a generation to happen.

Good question. I guess it depends a lot of how are the parents. Sadly, we live in a very selfish/dangerous world so I think is not so profitable to this kids being born...
but it these parents are good persons and teach to the kids ethics, values, morality, etc... Probably it could be totally worthy

we need to be prepared for either taking more than a generation to happen — Isaac

Completely agree. Good point :up: :100: