Is it morally permissible to reproduce?

[AtheistVince]

Well, is it?

population is crazy. way too many orphans.

Give me reasons why it would be alright, cause I really think its not.

[Aesthete]

Well, if I understand your point essentially, it would be morally permissible to reproduce in an under populated world. Overpopulation may be an issue in itself, but I don't think that renders the action of reproduction immoral. However overpopulated the world a sufficiency in newborns is needed to sustain stability, and this figure usually won't be that far below death rates. I could see you making an argument that it would be immoral to reproduce knowing that the child you bear will have some sort of disease or would likely live in poverty. I don't, however, think that's relevant to your point.

[Matty]

hmmm, so i suppose it would be more moral to restrict reproduction in overpopulated areas such as they did in China causing untold infanticide etc? Much better.

Oh wait a minute, no thats a complete load of bollocks, isn't it?

I find it hard to try and attach a morality question to what is arguably our sole purpose in being alive, from an animal sense. I agree, if you have children knowing that you're going to be needing handouts or welfare in order to care for them properly (in an essentials sense) is to me morally questionable. So is having kids knowing that you are incapable of looking after them in a none monetary sense (you have a drug addiction, or whatever).

But if you are able to look after your own, and provide for them in a [subjectively] suitable manner, then how is propagation at all morally wrong? What more "right" thing can there be?

[AtheistVince]

If we bare children, knowing very well that there are children living in abject poverty (orphans, for I am not at the moment suggesting that we take children away from parents who are also in poverty), are we not somehow ignoring or even worse implicitly keeping them in such circumstances? We could very well actively do something about their suffering, by forgoing procreation of our own. Creation of life seems wrong if there are innocent (meaning merely through no fault of their own) lives being constantly kept in a state of misery.

I may get flack for this but it seems that this is analogous ( obviously to a lesser degree) to those who breed dogs for a living. Why would anyone buy a dog from a breeder (forgoing the moral question of whether it is alright to buy and sell sentient beings) when there are far too many animals in shelters, who will otherwise be euthanized (though absolutely regrettable, it is nonetheless a consequence of our society). This is the same reason I am against the cloning of human beings, don't create more mouths to feed when we can't nourish the ones we already have.

Perhaps i am terribly off base here, but I really don't see any way around this.

Of course Infanticide is not the answer, though abortion (not the same thing as infanticide) should certainly be considered better than letting some little kid die in the desert somewhere.

[Glimmung]

Well, is it?

population is crazy. way too many orphans.

Give me reasons why it would be alright, cause I really think its not.

While the population may be crazy, the population consisting of my progeny is not. So, personally, the answer is yes.

-G

[starling]

The desire to have children is itself an addiction. It's something that we have so little control over we have to exert the most effort to resist it, or otherwise direct it, because our instincts are not caught up with the way we live in modern society. Nobody deserves to have children. It's not a miracle to have children. It's a process that may be good, may be bad, and we should approach it very carefully, not with the attitude that we have a God Given Right to do it whenever we want. I understand as reasonable people, you feel it unfair to deny yourself the burden of childcare, since you perceive your genes as better than stupid cretins who breed like rabbits, but that's not a reason for you to have babies. That's a reason for you to try to get stupid people not to have babies.

It's not so much a matter of morality, as of who you will affect. Your children will not only ruin your lives, they will deeply affect many other people's lives, as they take, contribute, save, kill, and participate in their lives. It would be incredibly callous of you to disregard the lives of all those people, just so you can have your precious children. You have to consider them, consider whether you and your society is in a position to handle another human being. If so, then let the podlings flow freely. If not, then get a freaking pet, and spay her. I reccommend ferrets.

[Coooolo70]

Everyone has a right to seek out a partner and procreate... even if a certain child is born into an undesirable environment. How can you give preferential treatment to those better off in a good environment and force the ones in an overpopulated environment to die and leave nothing behind? if you are going to restrict someone from reproducing, it would only be fair to stop everyone from reproducing. which would effectively mean the end of humankind.

as it's already been mentioned, the main reason for our existance is to reproduce, to leave something of ourselves behind... is it right to force others to die and have their life be wasted?

[premjan]

It is a craving for proxy immortality.

[Matty]

of course it is. And that's no bad thing, there isn't anything more deep down hard-wired than the desire to reproduce. Morality doesn't have to come into it

I don't see why anyone is obliged to look further than their own environment in deciding if such a thing is acceptable. As has been said, if you're in a position to be able to look after your own offspring then no biggie. If you have kids knowing you'll be relying on someone else to support you and then throughout their infancy then I'd say that is morally more dubious (though there will of course be exceptions even to that)

"Having kids is morally reprehensible because of the added weight you add to the world population strain, and hence cause some unfortunate kid in some third world country to have proportionally less of their already meagre resources" simply doesn't fly. You could apply the same brand of spurious morality to just about anything you consume, use or that had ever needed to be manufactured by anything other than an artisan from said third world country. And do you?

[Streamwinner]

We just need to keep dumb people from reproducing.

On a more serious (and less cynical) note, you have to identify your assumption before you can begin talking about morality. For instance, is it your assumption that life is better than death? Or that fighting for resources is wrong and that people "should" have access to resources, food, etc.? Or that you are "supposed" to look after your children?

[engly-saxo]

Well, is it?

population is crazy. way too many orphans.

Give me reasons why it would be alright, cause I really think its not.

We have to reproduce to propogate our species and maintain our numbers. ALL species possess this instinct.

And population isn't "crazy" everywhere. Most first world countries for example have stagnant population growth. Global population growth is more common in the third world.

[Streamwinner]

We have to reproduce to propogate our species and maintain our numbers. ALL species possess this instinct.

And population isn't "crazy" everywhere. Most first world countries for example have stagnant population growth. Global population growth is more common in the third world.

I remember hearing somewhere that if you put all the people in the world inside the state of Texas, you could fit eight people to each acre. Someone could probably do the math. I've probably fucked up the numbers.

EDIT: worked numbers using estimate of 6,661,314,000 as earth's population (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop).

Texas (land area) = 261,914 sq mi. = 167,624,960 acres
Means approx. 39.7 people per acre. I was way off.

What's the current doubling time? 54 years?

[Jennie]

The world population is not currently projected to double again, we are supposed to reach a peak between 8-10 billion by 2050, then the population is projected to decrease. Of course, projections and reality do not always run in harness.