Thursday the Post lamented the fact that India (population 1.2 billion) is growing twice as fast as China (population 1.3 billion), and may soon have by far world’s most in vitro fertilizations, perhaps 600,000 a year (~2% of India births), costing about $2500 each.
Rob's link points to a book by David Benatar, who argues (both in that book and in several academic publications) that bringing humans into existence is morally bad. A summary of his argument, and a quick sketch at a refutation, is available from Jean Kazez (Phil. Prof. at SMU) at
"Jeffrey, kids are investments, and any investment reduces consumption in the short run. Also resources for new kids may come at the expense of assets given to siblings. But why not let parents choose more kids over richer kids?"'scuse the long delay in my response.I have no argument against investing in kids - provided that the averagelifetime per-capita standard of living does not get reduced. As per"On The Internet No One Knows You're a Dog"'s example, there canbe scenarios where per-capita utility decreases while each individualgains be per-capital utility drops - but only if inequality isguaranteed to persist, which I'd rather not count on.
Ideally, I'd prefer to see parents subsidized or taxed based on theincremental impact, positive or negative, that child has onper-capita utility. You seem to be saying that this impact is positive.Can you point to an analysis supporting this? Frankly, I'mskeptical. With our current technology, we seem to be pushing upagainst a number of resource limits (as suggested by species lossrates, and to some degree CO2 effects). Cranking up thepopulation further seems at least imprudent to me.
I consider it obvious that most human lives are worth living, and better than not existing.
That seems like a belief that might enhance one's fitness for reproduction for reasons unrelated to its truth value.
kids are investments, and any investment reduces consumption in the short run. Also resources for new kids may come at the expense of assets given to siblings. But why not let parents choose more kids over richer kids?
Kids are investments that compete with other investments--like education of already existing children, or more scientific research and innovation in the present (that might make future scientific research and innovation faster)
this case seems to me an extreme example of a more general Western trend of not granting moms their due altruism credit, because doing so would make non-moms look bad.
Apparently, population control measures in countries all over the globe, rather than reflecting widespread fears of overpopulation, are actually just part of a conspiracy to allow non-parent females avoid looking bad.
It doesn't matter if we're far from limit now. If you believe in Malthusianism, other people having babies brings Malthusian collapse closer on the margin, and therefore is negative in long term.
Of course if you reject Malthusianism you have no such problem, but Robin has extremely Malthusian views.
The one mother quoted said it was to be released from "the stigma of barrenness"; as in other traditional societies, having children is considered a good in itself. And not just for women, the traditional Jewish perspective, for example, is that a man isn't really a man until he has become a father.
I feel the opposite of Robin just like you, but it's definitely an emotional issue and not something I can think about rationally. I actually stopped reading Katja Grace's blog because I got to her posts about this issue and thought "She might have a good case for natalism there, I have to wrestle with these arguments further" and then the thought of going back and wrestling seemed like a really unpleasant task to be put off (for a good 18 months now).
In conclusion, I have no good reason to think so, but Robin is obviously wrong.
So old women in India pay to get "pregnant". Of course the egg is not necessarily hers,but you can bet the sperm is in most cases the husband's.The reason given for the pregnancy is either to make sure the father and mother have a son,or to avoid the stigma of the family being being barren. Yet this is not a sign of patriarchalism, really??
Next a shift in logic.Well, It is still altruistic,because it is known that more people means more talent. Yet would the same people who make this argument stand out in front of an abortion clinic protesting the talent and future wealth being killed of? No.
I think the real reason to support this practice seems to be a strong belief in personal autonomy but not so strong a belief personal responsibility. The elderly mother is likely to die and pass that off to "society." Local social norms come first.and let someone else take care of the consequences. Perhaps this works in a wealthy society with a good social welfare system, but in India? Since we live in an urban and cosmopolitan world, the government and even the world will be given that responsibility,without having been asked .
I consider it obvious that most human lives are worth living, and better than not existing.
Well, I consider it obvious that most human lives are not worth starting, and that is is better to never exist than to be brought into existence. The never-existent suffer no deprivation, nor are they burdened with mortality. To posit that people are "benefited" by being brought into existence, you need to explain how the alternative of never existing is a comparative harm to those whose lives are hypothesized. The relative rarity of suicide is not relevant to this question because actual lives are qualitatively and existentially distinct from lives that are merely contemplated in this context.
I know this isn't Robin's main issue and I don't want to derail the discussion. Those of you who are interested in the antinatalist position might want to check out frequent OB commenter TGGP's anti-antinatalist essay along with Jim Crawford's thoughtful response. Jim Crawford is the author of Confessions of an Antinatalist., and I am his publisher.
What's going on in India? It's a poor country, yet a lot (number unspecified) of elderly women are undergoing pregnancy through (expensive) *in vitro* fertilization. (I take it this is supposed to be more common--*much* more common?--in India than anywhere in the West.) Maybe pressure from patriarchy is no part of the explanation, but what *is* the explanation?
So are humans the primal measure of wealth? That the only point to have economic and technological growth is so we can support more people? If the world goes to 12 billion is the world twice as wealthy as a world population of 6 billion regardless of what the average per person wealth is?
Rob and David, I consider it obvious that most human lives are worth living, and better than not existing.Matthew, I can't see how a small percent of birth defects changes the overall tradeoff much.Jeffrey, kids are investments, and any investment reduces consumption in the short run. Also resources for new kids may come at the expense of assets given to siblings. But why not let parents choose more kids over richer kids?Fructose and Tomasz, kids can be net benefits to others (i.e., positive externalities) even at Malthusian limits.Tomasz, I do not agree that less ave util and more total util is bad. Katja, Kaj, Jess, this case seems to me an extreme example of a more general Western trend of not granting moms their due altruism credit, because doing so would make non-moms look bad. Tim, I consider your act altruistic if it benefits others greatly, regardless of your motives for it.Jack, I think you are misinformed on India's orphans.
Agreed with both of you, except: I think the distain behind mothers who have lots of kids while living on welfare is because people claim those mothers have the kids in order to claim more welfare benefits, not because they want to bring children into the world.
Rob's link points to a book by David Benatar, who argues (both in that book and in several academic publications) that bringing humans into existence is morally bad. A summary of his argument, and a quick sketch at a refutation, is available from Jean Kazez (Phil. Prof. at SMU) at
http://faculty.smu.edu/jkaz...
(I am placing this comment long after this thread has died down.)
"Jeffrey, kids are investments, and any investment reduces consumption in the short run. Also resources for new kids may come at the expense of assets given to siblings. But why not let parents choose more kids over richer kids?"'scuse the long delay in my response.I have no argument against investing in kids - provided that the averagelifetime per-capita standard of living does not get reduced. As per"On The Internet No One Knows You're a Dog"'s example, there canbe scenarios where per-capita utility decreases while each individualgains be per-capital utility drops - but only if inequality isguaranteed to persist, which I'd rather not count on.
Ideally, I'd prefer to see parents subsidized or taxed based on theincremental impact, positive or negative, that child has onper-capita utility. You seem to be saying that this impact is positive.Can you point to an analysis supporting this? Frankly, I'mskeptical. With our current technology, we seem to be pushing upagainst a number of resource limits (as suggested by species lossrates, and to some degree CO2 effects). Cranking up thepopulation further seems at least imprudent to me.
John,
You have me confused with someone else again. I'm not the one obsessed with paper clips and lottery tickets.
I consider it obvious that most human lives are worth living, and better than not existing.
That seems like a belief that might enhance one's fitness for reproduction for reasons unrelated to its truth value.
kids are investments, and any investment reduces consumption in the short run. Also resources for new kids may come at the expense of assets given to siblings. But why not let parents choose more kids over richer kids?
Kids are investments that compete with other investments--like education of already existing children, or more scientific research and innovation in the present (that might make future scientific research and innovation faster)
this case seems to me an extreme example of a more general Western trend of not granting moms their due altruism credit, because doing so would make non-moms look bad.
Apparently, population control measures in countries all over the globe, rather than reflecting widespread fears of overpopulation, are actually just part of a conspiracy to allow non-parent females avoid looking bad.
Because in their life time they on average will produce a little more than hey consume.
It doesn't matter if we're far from limit now. If you believe in Malthusianism, other people having babies brings Malthusian collapse closer on the margin, and therefore is negative in long term.
Of course if you reject Malthusianism you have no such problem, but Robin has extremely Malthusian views.
I think mjgeddes is a bit of a crackpot.
There was a mention in the article about the clinic buying life insurance for the parents, in order to provide for the child if it becomes orphaned.
The one mother quoted said it was to be released from "the stigma of barrenness"; as in other traditional societies, having children is considered a good in itself. And not just for women, the traditional Jewish perspective, for example, is that a man isn't really a man until he has become a father.
I feel the opposite of Robin just like you, but it's definitely an emotional issue and not something I can think about rationally. I actually stopped reading Katja Grace's blog because I got to her posts about this issue and thought "She might have a good case for natalism there, I have to wrestle with these arguments further" and then the thought of going back and wrestling seemed like a really unpleasant task to be put off (for a good 18 months now).
In conclusion, I have no good reason to think so, but Robin is obviously wrong.
So old women in India pay to get "pregnant". Of course the egg is not necessarily hers,but you can bet the sperm is in most cases the husband's.The reason given for the pregnancy is either to make sure the father and mother have a son,or to avoid the stigma of the family being being barren. Yet this is not a sign of patriarchalism, really??
Next a shift in logic.Well, It is still altruistic,because it is known that more people means more talent. Yet would the same people who make this argument stand out in front of an abortion clinic protesting the talent and future wealth being killed of? No.
I think the real reason to support this practice seems to be a strong belief in personal autonomy but not so strong a belief personal responsibility. The elderly mother is likely to die and pass that off to "society." Local social norms come first.and let someone else take care of the consequences. Perhaps this works in a wealthy society with a good social welfare system, but in India? Since we live in an urban and cosmopolitan world, the government and even the world will be given that responsibility,without having been asked .
I consider it obvious that most human lives are worth living, and better than not existing.
Well, I consider it obvious that most human lives are not worth starting, and that is is better to never exist than to be brought into existence. The never-existent suffer no deprivation, nor are they burdened with mortality. To posit that people are "benefited" by being brought into existence, you need to explain how the alternative of never existing is a comparative harm to those whose lives are hypothesized. The relative rarity of suicide is not relevant to this question because actual lives are qualitatively and existentially distinct from lives that are merely contemplated in this context.
I know this isn't Robin's main issue and I don't want to derail the discussion. Those of you who are interested in the antinatalist position might want to check out frequent OB commenter TGGP's anti-antinatalist essay along with Jim Crawford's thoughtful response. Jim Crawford is the author of Confessions of an Antinatalist., and I am his publisher.
What's going on in India? It's a poor country, yet a lot (number unspecified) of elderly women are undergoing pregnancy through (expensive) *in vitro* fertilization. (I take it this is supposed to be more common--*much* more common?--in India than anywhere in the West.) Maybe pressure from patriarchy is no part of the explanation, but what *is* the explanation?
So are humans the primal measure of wealth? That the only point to have economic and technological growth is so we can support more people? If the world goes to 12 billion is the world twice as wealthy as a world population of 6 billion regardless of what the average per person wealth is?
Rob and David, I consider it obvious that most human lives are worth living, and better than not existing.Matthew, I can't see how a small percent of birth defects changes the overall tradeoff much.Jeffrey, kids are investments, and any investment reduces consumption in the short run. Also resources for new kids may come at the expense of assets given to siblings. But why not let parents choose more kids over richer kids?Fructose and Tomasz, kids can be net benefits to others (i.e., positive externalities) even at Malthusian limits.Tomasz, I do not agree that less ave util and more total util is bad. Katja, Kaj, Jess, this case seems to me an extreme example of a more general Western trend of not granting moms their due altruism credit, because doing so would make non-moms look bad. Tim, I consider your act altruistic if it benefits others greatly, regardless of your motives for it.Jack, I think you are misinformed on India's orphans.
Agreed with both of you, except: I think the distain behind mothers who have lots of kids while living on welfare is because people claim those mothers have the kids in order to claim more welfare benefits, not because they want to bring children into the world.