Ethically, Should You Have a Baby?

Summary

The script explores the ethical dilemma of procreation, questioning whether it's morally sound to bring new life into an increasingly troubled world. It delves into philosophical perspectives like antinatalism, which argues against having children due to the potential for pain and suffering. The video also addresses the environmental impact of overpopulation and the potential for children to bring about positive change. It concludes by inviting viewers to consider the hopefulness of new generations and their capacity to innovate and improve upon the world they inherit.

Takeaways

• 👶 The video discusses the ethics of having children, considering the current state of the world and environmental concerns.
• 🌱 It highlights public figures like Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who advocate for having fewer or no children due to moral and environmental reasons.
• 📜 Historical perspectives, such as Christian morality and the Bible's encouragement to 'be fruitful and multiply', are contrasted with modern philosophical views.
• 😒 Schopenhauer's pessimistic view of life as an unwelcome side effect of human desires is presented, suggesting reproduction perpetuates misery.
• 🎭 Nietzsche's interpretation of Silenus' wisdom from 'The Birth of Tragedy' is mentioned, which suggests it's better not to be born at all.
• 🌐 Antinatalism, the belief that it is bad to be born or to have children, is introduced with David Benatar as a contemporary proponent.
• 🔄 Benatar's argument about the asymmetry between pleasure and pain is explained, stating that the potential for pain in life outweighs the potential for pleasure.
• 🌍 The script connects the ethics of procreation to the climate crisis, suggesting fewer humans could help mitigate environmental issues.
• 🚗 It presents data suggesting that having one less child can have a greater positive impact on carbon emissions than other individual actions.
• 🌱 Hannah Arendt's optimistic view of 'natality' is contrasted with Benatar's antinatalism, emphasizing the potential for new generations to bring about positive change.
• 🤔 The video concludes by posing questions to the audience about whether having children is a hopeful act or an act of selfishness, and whether it's ethical to bring new life into the current world.

Q & A

What is the main topic discussed in the video script?

The main topic discussed in the video script is the ethical considerations of having children, including the philosophical and environmental implications.

What religious perspective does the script mention regarding procreation?

The script mentions the Christian morality perspective, which traditionally encourages procreation as seen in biblical teachings to be fruitful and multiply.

Which philosopher is mentioned as having a pessimistic view on procreation?

Arthur Schopenhauer is mentioned as having a pessimistic view on procreation, considering it an unwelcome side effect of human desires.

What philosophical view is described as believing that it is bad to be born or to have children?

The philosophical view described as believing that it is bad to be born or to have children is called antinatalism.

Who is the contemporary proponent of antinatalism mentioned in the script?

David Benatar, the South African philosopher, is mentioned as a contemporary proponent of antinatalism.

What is the asymmetry argument presented by David Benatar regarding pleasure and pain?

David Benatar argues that there is an asymmetry between pleasure and pain, where the absence of pain is always good, but the absence of pleasure is only bad if one is conscious of being deprived of it.

How does Benatar's view on having children relate to the environment?

Benatar's view on having children relates to the environment in that he argues having children is a selfish act that contributes to overpopulation and environmental degradation.

What is the statistic mentioned in the script about the carbon emissions saved by not having a child compared to getting rid of a car?

The script mentions that not having a child saves an average of 58.6 tons of carbon emissions per year, compared to saving 2.4 tons by getting rid of a car.

What philosopher is presented as offering an optimistic view on the role of children in society?

Hannah Arendt is presented as offering an optimistic view on the role of children in society, emphasizing the potential for new beginnings and change.

What term does Hannah Arendt use to describe the potential for new beginnings inherent in birth?

Hannah Arendt uses the term 'natality' to describe the potential for new beginnings inherent in birth.

What is the script's final question to the audience regarding the ethics of having children?

The script's final question to the audience is whether children are a source of hope or if bringing new human life into existence is ultimately harmful, asking for the audience's thoughts in the comments.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Ethical Dilemma of Procreation

The video script begins by introducing the topic of whether having children is ethical, highlighting the increasing trend of public figures advocating for fewer or no children due to moral and environmental concerns. It contrasts traditional views, such as Christian morality encouraging procreation, with philosophical perspectives like Schopenhauer's pessimism and Nietzsche's antinatalism, which argue against bringing new life into a world filled with suffering. The South African philosopher David Benatar is presented as a prominent contemporary antinatalist, emphasizing the asymmetry between pleasure and pain and the moral issues of causing pain to new beings.

05:01

🌱 Climate Change and Population Growth

This paragraph delves into the environmental impact of human population growth, particularly the carbon emissions contributing to climate change. It suggests that having fewer children, especially in developed countries, could be a significant solution to reducing emissions. The script humorously references the effectiveness of not procreating compared to other lifestyle changes in carbon reduction. It also touches on the potential negative impacts of bringing children into a world facing climate change, questioning the ability of parents to ensure a good life for their children in such circumstances.

10:02

👶 The Hope of Natality and New Beginnings

The final paragraph presents a counter-argument to antinatalism, focusing on the concept of 'natality' as introduced by Hannah Arendt. It emphasizes the potential of children to bring about new beginnings and positive change, differing from their parents and not doomed to repeat past mistakes. Arendt's view is used to argue that the birth of children is a source of hope and a means to overcome current challenges, including climate change. The script ends with a call to action for viewers to share their thoughts on the topic and acknowledges the contributions of the video's patrons and the author of the script, Tom Whyman.

Keywords

💡Procreation

Procreation refers to the biological process of producing offspring or the act of creating new life. In the context of the video, it is historically regarded as a good thing, particularly in Christian morality, where the Bible encourages people to 'be fruitful and multiply.' The video explores the ethical implications of procreation, questioning whether it is a positive or negative act given the current state of the world.

💡Antinatalism

Antinatalism is a philosophical stance that assigns a negative value to birth, arguing that it is morally wrong to bring new beings into existence due to the potential suffering they may experience. The video discusses this concept through the lens of philosophers like David Benatar, who believes that the world is so bad that bringing new life into it is inherently harmful, regardless of the amount of pleasure they might experience.

💡Asymmetry between pleasure and pain

This concept, as discussed by David Benatar in the video, suggests that the experience of pain is morally worse than the absence of pleasure. Benatar argues that while we feel deprived when we know about a pleasure we're missing out on, we don't need to be conscious of the absence of pain to be in a good state. This concept is central to his antinatalist argument, as it suggests that bringing someone into existence to potentially experience pain is a moral wrong.

💡Climate change

Climate change is a significant theme in the video, referring to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily as a result of human activities. The script discusses how having fewer children could be a more effective solution to reducing carbon emissions than other individual actions, such as driving less or eating less meat, thus framing procreation in the context of environmental responsibility.

💡Natality

Natality, a term introduced by Hannah Arendt and discussed in the video, signifies the inherent new beginning that comes with birth. It is the concept that every new person has the potential to act differently and bring about change, which counters the notion of inevitable repetition of past mistakes. In the video, natality is presented as a source of hope and a reason to continue procreation despite current global challenges.

💡Philosophical perspectives

The video presents various philosophical perspectives on the ethics of having children. From the pessimistic views of Schopenhauer and Benatar, who see procreation as a continuation of suffering, to the optimistic views of Arendt, who sees the birth of new individuals as a source of potential and hope for a better future. These perspectives provide a rich backdrop for the video's exploration of the topic.

💡Selfishness

In the context of the video, selfishness is attributed to the act of procreation by Benatar, who argues that having children is inherently selfish because it brings new beings into a world filled with suffering. This is contrasted with Arendt's view, which sees procreation as an act of hope and potential for positive change, rather than mere self-interest.

💡Population growth

Population growth is a key concept in the video, which has increased from 1 billion to 8 billion people over the past 200 years. The script suggests that this growth may be unsustainable, especially in the face of climate change, and implies that a reduction in the birth rate could be beneficial for the environment.

💡Carbon emissions

Carbon emissions are a critical issue in the video, as they are major contributors to climate change. The script points out that having fewer children can significantly reduce an individual's carbon footprint compared to other lifestyle changes, such as driving less or reducing meat consumption.

💡Hope

Hope is presented as a counterpoint to the pessimistic views on procreation in the video. Arendt's concept of natality and the potential for new generations to enact positive change provides a hopeful perspective on the future, despite current global challenges. The video ends with a question to the audience about whether children represent a source of hope.

Highlights

The discussion on the ethics of having children, with public figures like Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocating for fewer or no children.

Christian morality traditionally encourages procreation, as seen in biblical teachings to 'be fruitful and multiply'.

Schopenhauer's pessimistic view that reproduction is an unwelcome side effect of human desires, perpetuating misery.

Nietzsche's citation of Silenus' view that it's better not to be born at all, reflecting antinatalism.

David Benatar's contemporary antinatalist stance, arguing the asymmetry between pleasure and pain makes bringing new life morally wrong.

Benatar's comparison of having children to taking hostages, suggesting children can be leveraged for societal benefits.

The growing concern over climate change as a reason for choosing to remain child-free.

The argument that reducing human population, especially in developed countries, could help mitigate the climate crisis.

Empirical studies showing that having fewer children is the most effective climate-friendly change an individual can make.

Benatar's view that having children is bad for the children themselves, considering the potential hardships they may face.

Hannah Arendt's optimistic perspective on the potential of children to bring about new beginnings and positive change.

Arendt's concept of 'natality' as a source of hope and the potential for children to break cycles of repetition.

The philosophical debate on whether the birth of new children is a source of hope or a form of wishful thinking.

The moral dilemma of whether it's responsible to bring new life into an increasingly challenging world.

The potential for children to rise to the challenges of climate change and create a better future.

The conclusion that, despite the current state of the world, having children can be seen as an act of hope rather than selfishness.

Transcripts

(electronic music)

- What's up guys, Michael here to talk about people,

but make them small and bald.

That's right, babies.

And specifically, is it good to have them?

Because increasingly, people are starting to think,

"Not so much."

Recently, public figures

like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are starting to argue

that having fewer or even zero children

might be the most moral

and/or most responsible thing to do.

Of course, for folks who've always dreamed

of birthing a little tyke or two or a baker's dozen,

contemplating the idea of not bringing life

to an adorable monster like this

is understandably upsetting.

So, it's worth asking:

is having a kid, or even a lot of them,

a positive way to pass down your superb head of hair

and green thumb?

Or is there something irresponsible about bringing life

into this slowly sinking Titanic of a planet?

Let's find out in this Wisecrack Edition:

Is Having Babies Ethical?

So, how has procreation historically been regarded?

Well, Christian morality has long held

that having children, if you can, is a good thing.

In the Bible, God tells a bunch of people,

like Adam and Eve, and also Noah

to be fruitful and multiply.

And obviously, some people do still take this imperative

very seriously.

If you don't believe us,

go meet some Midwestern Catholics

or just rent "Cheaper by the Dozen 1 and 2."

But it's also an imperative

that's been challenged by philosophers.

For instance, take Schopenhauer,

a crotchety pessimist who thought

that we may as well be living

in the worst of all possible worlds.

And he didn't even live

to see the season finale of "Hawkeye."

He believed reproduction

was little more than an unwelcome side effect

of humankind's endlessly failed attempts

to satisfy our desires.

A moment of physical pleasure, then,

i.e. doing sex could result in offspring,

thus continuing the human race

and the misery of its existence

via kids that will grow up and be just as miserable as you.

It's like your middle school health teacher told you,

"Sex has consequences."

Meanwhile, in his book, "The Birth of Tragedy,"

Nietzsche paraphrases the Ancient Greek wisdom of Silenus,

which was given to a tragic king

by a man with the ears of a horse.

"It is best not to be born at all;

and next to that, it is better to die than to live."

To be clear, we do not endorse this message

and we hope that Silenus' friends

gave him a big hug after he wrote that.

Philosophers call this view, that it is bad to be born

or to have children, antinatalism.

The most prominent contemporary proponent of antinatalism

is the South African philosopher David Benatar.

We talked about him in our video on "Attack on Titan,"

if you wanna check that out too.

Benatar, like Schopenhauer,

thinks the world is really, really bad.

But interestingly,

he argues that it would still be morally wrong

to bring new human life into existence

even if the world wasn't a greenhouse filled with farts.

See, Benatar thinks that there is an asymmetry

between pleasure and pain.

We all know it feels good to experience pleasure

and bad to experience pain, but Benatar argues,

it's only bad not to experience pleasure

if you are conscious that you are being deprived

of said pleasure.

Like, if you didn't know

that this 24-karat gold ice cream existed,

you couldn't be sad

that you will likely never have the pleasure

of indulging in it.

But now you know about it

and we can all be depressed together.

Conversely, it's good not to be in pain

even if we're not conscious of that lack of pain at all.

We don't have to be thinking about how (beep) it might feel

to sit on a cactus

to be enjoying the state of non-cactus sitting.

But now you are, so you're welcome.

Thus, the asymmetry between pain and pleasure.

bringing people into existence, then,

gives them the ability to feel pleasure and pain.

And this, for Benatar, is morally bad

because no amounts of pleasure

could ever outweigh the wrong we've done to someone

by giving them the ability to feel pain.

So, thanks mom.

As it happens, Benatar argues our own world

is characterized more by pain than it is by pleasure.

And if you don't believe us,

just ask Ben Affleck's face.

But even in a hypothetical world

where everyone only experienced pleasure,

it still wouldn't be right

to bring someone into existence, says Benatar.

That's because he thinks such a life

would be about as good as a state of total non-existence.

For this reason, Benatar argues having kids

can never be anything other than a selfish act.

At one point in his book, "Better to Have Never Been:

The Harm of Coming into Existence,"

Benatar even compares having children to taking hostages

as people can use their children

to leverage better treatment in society.

One of his examples is if two women need a kidney,

but there is only one available

and one of those women is a mother and the other is not,

who does society thinks should get the kidney?

But people aren't all questioning

the morality of baby-making

because they've read David Benatar.

For the most part,

it's because they've been watching the news.

With this crappery greeting us every night,

it's no wonder one in four child-free American adults

say they plan not to have children

because of climate change.

As we all hopefully know,

the climate disaster is being caused by the pollution,

in particular, the carbon emissions of human beings.

It therefore makes sense

that reducing the number of humans would help the crisis,

especially the number of humans in developed countries

who are responsible for the bulk of emissions.

For more on how to fix the climate crisis,

check out our Wisecrack Labs video on carbon capture.

Over the past 200 years,

the Earth's population has gone from 1 billion people

to 8 billion, and it's only going up.

Perhaps it would be right to see this sort of growth

as unsustainable.

Now, Exxon is obviously way more responsible

for this large-scale pollution

than you and your Honda Civic.

Still, individual solutions for combating

or at least mitigating climate change to some extent

have become more well-known.

We're all aware we could be reducing our carbon emissions

by eating less meat, flying less often,

or investing in an electric car.

Though, not a Tesla.

Please, never a Tesla.

We know that we should be buying zero-waste products

or conscientiously sorting our recycling,

but empirical studies have found that

of all of the climate-friendly changes,

by far, the most effective would be

don't make any new little polluting machines.

In other words, have fewer kids.

If you get rid of your car, for instance,

you might save 2.4 tons of carbon a year,

but if you have one fewer child, studies have argued,

you save on average 58.6 tons a year.

This is what Harry and Meghan are supposedly doing

by limiting their family to only two children,

which we have to applaud.

If the average child emits 58.6 tons of carbon a year,

just think of how much pollution

the average Prince emits.

Who knew that ending the monarchy

was such a climate-friendly move?

But having children might not be bad

just because they're bad for the planet.

Benatar goes so far as to argue

that having children is bad

for the sake of the children themselves.

This makes sense.

I mean, climate change?

Now, maybe you don't think that existence right now

is necessarily a bad thing.

I mean, you can order sushi while you go to the bathroom

and we're getting to J.Lo romcoms in the first half of 2022.

But you might be able to agree

that existence in the age of climate change

already is or might eventually become not great.

Even in the best-case scenarios,

life over the course of the next few decades

is likely to get really difficult for much of the planet.

Who's to say that a child born today

wouldn't eventually really vibe with George Bailey?

- I said, I wish I'd never been born.

- It's generally understood

that parents feel it's their duty

to ensure their children have the best lives possible.

But who can honestly make that guarantee today?

So, this is getting pretty depressing,

especially if you like babies or your name is Anne Geddes.

- [Anne] This is what it's all about,

the sense of joy that comes with babies.

- So what hope is there?

Well, some philosophers would argue, plenty.

For many, arguments like Benatar's

don't really hold up because human beings

just don't work like that.

Consider, for instance, the views of Hannah Arendt.

For Arendt, every human action always meant a new beginning.

People, for the most part,

don't just do the same stupid things

over and over again for no reason,

unless their name is Sterling Archer.

- Lana, introspection is the enemy of happiness.

So, my advice is don't always work for me.

- Has it, though?

(Sterling laughs)

- I don't know, that's the beauty.

- Rather, they are constantly striving,

if often imperfectly,

to do something new and hopefully better.

And this theory of Arendt's doesn't just apply to adults.

It's also about children.

Children, after all,

are never simply carbon copies of their parents.

They might resemble them in certain ways,

sharing similar experiences, backgrounds, and proclivities,

but they are not identical,

and therefore, they are able to do things differently.

Arendt used the word natality to signify this fact:

"The new beginning," as she called it, "inherent in birth."

For Arendt, natality was incredibly important

because it's what helps save us from disaster.

And she was making this optimistic argument

after the horrors of World War II.

After all, if everyone really was identical

to their parents,

if there was no new beginning inherent in birth,

then we would always be doomed to do the same things:

too set in our ways to ever stop doing the things

that we know are causing everything to go wrong.

Luckily, that's not the case.

I mean, just look at the suburban teens on TikTok

posting videos about why Frantz Fanon rips.

Their lame-ass parents would never.

Because children have the capacity to do things differently

and better than their parents, Arendt argued,

the birth of new children is not only a morally good thing,

it's our only coherent source of hope.

Sure, things are bad now,

but our children are not doomed

to emit as much carbon as we do.

They can choose to be different.

Life in the age of climate change might suck,

but that doesn't mean our children

will be incapable of rising to the challenge.

Nothing, of course, is inevitable.

Natality does not mean

that our children are necessarily destined to succeed.

They might grow up to host a YouTube channel.

Who put that there?

It's not funny.

It's what I do and I'm proud of my job.

I'm proud of this.

But from the perspective of the human species, at least,

continuing to have children, despite everything,

is the only course of action that really makes sense.

In this view, reproduction isn't selfish,

it's hopeful.

So, what do you guys think?

Are children a source of hope

or is this just wishful thinking?

Is it okay to bring new human life into existence

or would we be doing our children a favor

by never having them?

Let us know what you think in the comments.

And if you're interested in learning more about this topic,

check out "Infinitely Full of Hope" by Tom Whyman,

who just so happened to write this very video.

Thanks as always to our patrons for all your support,

and be sure to check out our podcasts.

Hit that subscribe button

like you're popping today's birth control pill

out of its pack,

and don't forget to ring that bell.

And as always, thanks for watching. Later.

(upbeat electronic music)

I know about birth control pills 'cause I'm a man.