I don't hear convincing arguments against climate change antinatalism

[noname223]

Some years ago I was more into antinatalism. I think it is debatable whether life contains more bad than positive for an average person. At least most friends that I had were happy to be born. However this forum shows that this approach causes a lot of collateral damage. I don't want to discuss the asymmetry argument of Benatar.

The strongest argument for me is: If you want a child why don't you adopt one? There are so many orphans who would be extremely glad to have good parents. The world has a huge problem with the climate crisis. And more humans increase on average the problem that is clear.

I saw the following reaction of often (white) affluent academics who don't stay rational or analytical but play the I am offended card when they are confronted with the question. I usually see how angry they get, they feel personally offended and refuse to tolerate an intervention in such an individual decision.

For me it seems clear. These people are selfish and want that their genes live on. Maybe one can say it is their biological desire and that is fine. But this is not their response in the interviews. They are not honest. They try to distract and refer to general statements. One should not give up humanity. They make fun of antinatalists and their ideas instead.

I mean this is their right. But I think many intellectuals fear that question because it fully shows them as selfish which they usually try to avoid as good as possible. Moreover I think most of them are smart enough to know that more humans on this planet will contribute to the hell that future generation will have to deal with. I think they know there is something immoral in their behavior.

I explicitly refer to the question "why do you procreate instead of adopting a child"? Because I think the implications of this question are the clearest. I don't necessarily want to argument in favor of exctinction of humankind due to the fact this question seems for me more difficult to find an objective true answer for.

I don't see good arguments (which are not selfish) in favor of procreating instead of adopting. I think the person I think of argumented with the demographic development of my country. Well there are a lot of children from other countries that will die otherwise from diseases, live a life full of poverty, exposed to an environment with an high crime rate etc. Moreover I think the argument of the consequences of the climate catastrophe beats the demographics argument.

What do you think?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think- they don't want ANY child- they specifically want liitle versions of themselves. Maybe they don't like to think of themselves as selfish but I'm pretty sure they don't really see the process as entirely selfless either. I think they know that they are doing it to prolong their own lives in a way and the lives of their partners into future generations. Plus- they are creating an insurance policy to (hopefully) care for them and keep them company in old age. I suspect- consciously or not- blood tends to be thicker than water. Perhaps a family bond will ensure this better than an adopted one.

Kind of a crude comparison but I had a friend who wanted to get a dog with their partner. They approached a (reputable) breeder. Lots of people criticised that- saying they should have adopted a rescue. Bottom line is though- I don't think they were doing it for the dog- to try and save a life. It's something they wanted and they wanted a specific type. More of a living accessory in a way.

I think people who adopt are utterly incredible. Raising children takes a lot of effort, patience and money I imagine. I think you need to have a very special love of ALL humankind to do it. I think- to put in all that (likely largely) thankless effort, people feel more compelled and driven to go through it if they are related.

 

[d3c96524be95]

Interesting thoughts. I mostly agree that if you had a binary decision to make between "procreate" and "adopt", I don't see any non-selfish reason to choose to procreate. Same goes for a binary decision between "procreate" and "not procreate". Procreating seems to be inherently an act of selfishness, but this is kind of engraved in us by construction, I guess.

That being said, I think there's some nuance we can bring. The first counter-argument that comes to my mind is that decisions are rarely completely binary. In a lot of western countries, adopting is very hard. Not only there are not so many orphans, you usually have to undergo a very long and tough process to adopt, which can easily take years. Inspectors will come to your home to make sure everything's up to the latest safety standards, inspect every detail of your life. They may reject your application for random reasons or even take back the child in some cases. Kind of things you would never have to go through if you just decided to procreate (unless you're completely careless with your child). Sometimes, this way of adopting may not even be an option (say you're too poor to make your home safe to the standards they expect from you, or you live in a country where adoption is not even allowed at all). Also, even if you're able to, I think it comes down to what one is able to withstand in their life: imagine you were required to amputate your own leg to be allowed to adopt, would it be considered selfish should to refused to do it? I mean, you had the choice, but is it selfish to refuse to face absurd or convoluted social constructs?

Sometimes, it's easier to adopt abroad, in a country that is less vigilant on adoptions. I'm no authority on the matter, but in such case, maybe one could freak out giving money to mafias or encourage any sort of human trafficking, which sounds anti-selfish to me. Also, you would have to travel abroad, make a lot of paperwork and still undergo lots of procedures, which is not that different from my previous point.

Regarding the impact on climate change, I used to be favorable to antinatalist policies, but I have slightly revised my opinion on this topic some time ago:

• Most developed countries (which contribute the most to climate change per capita) don't procreate that much anyways.
• Antinatalist policies effects are limited. China's very strict policy led to ~1.5 fertility rate, which is similar to most developed countries, with lots of side-effects.
• Such policies are hard to enforce, and it's way too little, way too late. We have hundreds of measures that would be so much easier to enforce and have a way more important effect on the climate for the next 100 years. Orders of magnitude. We even struggle with very simple high impact decisions like getting rid of coal-fired power plants or reducing meat consumption. Why should we even bother with how many humans there will be on Earth in 300 years if we cannot even make it habitable for a few million people in 100 years?

Again, if it was a binary choice between "1B" and "10B" human beings in 100 years, the quality of life of the average human being would probably be better at 1B. But it would be unrealistic to think we have a significant control on that. Most importantly 1B human beings in 100 years would also mean that some disaster had happened to the world. One cannot wish this either (though it could be great news for the animal kingdom).

 

[LunaRory]

here's the thing:
1. Adoption is not possible in every country. Many 1st world countries are no longer allowing same country adoptions if the child's parents are still alive. If child protective services remove a child from it's family, you may be able to foster, but only until CPS determines that the child can safely return home and regardless of how long they've lived with you, you will lose all rights to ever see that child again.
2. Due to many horrible things having been done to children adopted from abroad, many countries have banned international adoptions, e.g. Ethiopia.
3. Adoptions are incredibly expensive and take years to finalize. The legal fees alone, for both in-country and international adoptions, easily reach 30k and above.
4. Many countries that do allow adoptions only allow them to specific people (mainly people in heterosexual marriages, not civil partnerships, not single parents, only legal marriages).

Personally I agree that with the state of things right now, bringing a new person into this world is incredibly selfish. Then again, I do plenty of selfish things so I'm not even going to think about judging anyone. What really ticks me off though is when people try to insinuate that there is something wrong with you for not wanting to add to the overpopulation and keep asking "so when are you gonna have kids?". So many parents try to convince child free people to have kids, yet if anyone ever turned that around and tried to persuade parents to get rid of their kids or pregnant women to have abortions (please don't ever do that, would be a horrible thing to say) they'd get their knickers in a knot so tight they'd have to be cut out of them.

Every time I see on the news that hospitals are overcrowded and emergency services at breaking point, I think the answer is so easy and yet such an absolute taboo. Allow every person the legal right to a dignified death at a time of their choosing and the means to do so, regardless of age, health, financial background... I watched the BBC ambulance documentation series and it feels like 80% of call outs are to patients over 90 who've had a fall in their own home (many of whom say or at least hint that given the chance they'd rather just jump off the planet), 15% suicide threats/mental health emergencies and the rest are "actual" medical emergencies, who wait hours for ambulances to arrive and then many more hours in hospital hallways.
If we as a society just respected peoples wishes and let them leave this world in a dignified, peaceful way, overpopulation and the crazy demographic trajectory we're currently on wouldn't be such an issue.

 

[noname223]

Interesting thoughts. I mostly agree that if you had a binary decision to make between "procreate" and "adopt", I don't see any non-selfish reason to choose to procreate. Same goes for a binary decision between "procreate" and "not procreate". Procreating seems to be inherently an act of selfishness, but this is kind of engraved in us by construction, I guess.

That being said, I think there's some nuance we can bring. The first counter-argument that comes to my mind is that decisions are rarely completely binary. In a lot of western countries, adopting is very hard. Not only there are not so many orphans, you usually have to undergo a very long and tough process to adopt, which can easily take years. Inspectors will come to your home to make sure everything's up to the latest safety standards, inspect every detail of your life. They may reject your application for random reasons or even take back the child in some cases. Kind of things you would never have to go through if you just decided to procreate (unless you're completely careless with your child). Sometimes, this way of adopting may not even be an option (say you're too poor to make your home safe to the standards they expect from you, or you live in a country where adoption is not even allowed at all). Also, even if you're able to, I think it comes down to what one is able to withstand in their life: imagine you were required to amputate your own leg to be allowed to adopt, would it be considered selfish should to refused to do it? I mean, you had the choice, but is it selfish to refuse to face absurd or convoluted social constructs?

Sometimes, it's easier to adopt abroad, in a country that is less vigilant on adoptions. I'm no authority on the matter, but in such case, maybe one could freak out giving money to mafias or encourage any sort of human trafficking, which sounds anti-selfish to me. Also, you would have to travel abroad, make a lot of paperwork and still undergo lots of procedures, which is not that different from my previous point.

Regarding the impact on climate change, I used to be favorable to antinatalist policies, but I have slightly revised my opinion on this topic some time ago:

• Most developed countries (which contribute the most to climate change per capita) don't procreate that much anyways.
• Antinatalist policies effects are limited. China's very strict policy led to ~1.5 fertility rate, which is similar to most developed countries, with lots of side-effects.
• Such policies are hard to enforce, and it's way too little, way too late. We have hundreds of measures that would be so much easier to enforce and have a way more important effect on the climate for the next 100 years. Orders of magnitude. We even struggle with very simple high impact decisions like getting rid of coal-fired power plants or reducing meat consumption. Why should we even bother with how many humans there will be on Earth in 300 years if we cannot even make it habitable for a few million people in 100 years?

Again, if it was a binary choice between "1B" and "10B" human beings in 100 years, the quality of life of the average human being would probably be better at 1B. But it would be unrealistic to think we have a significant control on that. Most importantly 1B human beings in 100 years would also mean that some disaster had happened to the world. One cannot wish this either (though it could be great news for the animal kingdom).

here's the thing:
1. Adoption is not possible in every country. Many 1st world countries are no longer allowing same country adoptions if the child's parents are still alive. If child protective services remove a child from it's family, you may be able to foster, but only until CPS determines that the child can safely return home and regardless of how long they've lived with you, you will lose all rights to ever see that child again.
2. Due to many horrible things having been done to children adopted from abroad, many countries have banned international adoptions, e.g. Ethiopia.
3. Adoptions are incredibly expensive and take years to finalize. The legal fees alone, for both in-country and international adoptions, easily reach 30k and above.
4. Many countries that do allow adoptions only allow them to specific people (mainly people in heterosexual marriages, not civil partnerships, not single parents, only legal marriages).

Personally I agree that with the state of things right now, bringing a new person into this world is incredibly selfish. Then again, I do plenty of selfish things so I'm not even going to think about judging anyone. What really ticks me off though is when people try to insinuate that there is something wrong with you for not wanting to add to the overpopulation and keep asking "so when are you gonna have kids?". So many parents try to convince child free people to have kids, yet if anyone ever turned that around and tried to persuade parents to get rid of their kids or pregnant women to have abortions (please don't ever do that, would be a horrible thing to say) they'd get their knickers in a knot so tight they'd have to be cut out of them.

Every time I see on the news that hospitals are overcrowded and emergency services at breaking point, I think the answer is so easy and yet such an absolute taboo. Allow every person the legal right to a dignified death at a time of their choosing and the means to do so, regardless of age, health, financial background... I watched the BBC ambulance documentation series and it feels like 80% of call outs are to patients over 90 who've had a fall in their own home (many of whom say or at least hint that given the chance they'd rather just jump off the planet), 15% suicide threats/mental health emergencies and the rest are "actual" medical emergencies, who wait hours for ambulances to arrive and then many more hours in hospital hallways.
If we as a society just respected peoples wishes and let them leave this world in a dignified, peaceful way, overpopulation and the crazy demographic trajectory we're currently on wouldn't be such an issue.

I think both of you make some pretty valid points. Way more nuanced on the adoption regulations. People gave me feedback to interact more with people who reply. But I don't have much to add besides the sentences I wrote.
Personally I don't think assisted suicide would solve the problem of overpopulation. But I think this discussion would go into a quite different direction than my initial post.

Thanks for your insightful remarks!