Is it unethical to have more than 2 children?

Wilmol

Considering that 2 is the replacement rate. You're contributing to the overpopulation by having more.

Every human needs massive resources. These include land taken away from other living beings and in terms of raw materials such as heating fuel and anything else you can think of, oh you bought a new house? Now you need furniture and where does it all come from? That's right forests cut down. It's so ridiculous at this point that countries like England and Netherlands literally need to import food from less densely populated countries in order not to starve.

Another thing that would absolutely help with climate change is lower population. Less demand for produced goods = less manufacting and growth to meet demands such as massive land clearances.

Someone would say that it doesn't make a big difference but on a large scale, it makes a massive difference and people that have more than 2 children are selfish, interested in meeting their own needs and **** everyone else.

Jequ0n

I presume you are talking about highly developed countries here, and not the “developing” world.

Yes, people lose any reason when it comes to their perceived rights to spawn.

Not everyone has two children. I think that’s too reductive in fairness. I have none although i’n married for ten years. Friends of mine have two or one or none. Some cousins of mine have four. In Ireland we’re below two on average as far as I know.

Calling people selfish is unhelpful. Making people aware of climate change is helping at the moment in my opinion. More needs to be done there regarding consumption - retrofitting houses, switching to electric cars, renewable energy for electricity, packaging, more food that is organic, free range/organic pork being available in supermarkets, nappies (huge polluter), buying clothes to throw them out later on and the list goes on and on......

Maybe changing the focus to green parenting would be a good idea. How to parent while doing less environmental damage.

The high cost of housing, work commitments and lifestyle choice seem to be keeping our birth rate below two already.

El Tarangu

While I can see where your argument is coming from, the birth rate in the EU is 1.53 births per woman - so, well below the replacement level. Therefore, in most western countries at least, I don't think that there is such a clear moral argument against having more than two kids.

Personally, I would like to think that if I wanted more than two kids, I would consider adopting.

I think the calculations of the OP are off.

I am not sure "2 is the replacement rate" is accurate for a start. This assumes all babies - children - teens - young adults actually survive. Alas they do not.

I have never seen the rate set to "2" in any jurisdiction. The last report I read from the UN for example - if memory serves - went with "2.1". which means that automatically some people would be required to have more than 2.

That is before you factor in the fact that some people do not even want 2. They want 1. So while the overall replacement rate might be something like 2.1 this means the replacement rate requirements vary per couple. If we want to achieve 2.1 then some of us need to make up for those only having 1 or 0.

So the 2.1 rate is an average for a population - not for any individual women/couple. So it would be erroneous to use this figure to evaluate the ethics/morality of any given woman/couple having more than 2 children. So a line like "people that have more than 2 children are selfish, interested in meeting their own needs and **** everyone else." is as simplistic as it is baseless and false.

There have been some "anti natalists" who have shown up on podcasts like Joe Rogan and Sam Harris. They have some decent arguments - a lot better thought out and given a better basis than the reductive attempt of the OP.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117697987#Comment_117697987

But these populations keep growing anyway though, almost every European country is on an upwards scale even with low growth rate. Is immigration really responsible for 5 million increase of population in France in 7 years? These countries are already bursting at the seams, one look at the satellite view of Netherlands and England explains everything.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117697993#Comment_117697993

China now has a 2 child policy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698012#Comment_117698012

So what? This is a different issue entirely to the claim that "2 is the replacement rate" which is a false claim and a poor basis for the ethical statements you used it to spring board to.

Further - China have a 2 child policy after for a long time having a 1 child policy. A policy which left them with an ageing population and they have been forced to change their policy now to address that failure. It was also a policy that was considered unethical as it often left a single only child in the position of having to support 2 ageing parents and 4 grand parents. It also created a lot of power disparity between men and women.

And finally in May of 2018 it was announced that they are considering scrapping the 2 child policy and in May of this year they announced a move to a 3 child policy to address their falling birth rate problems.

So actually your point here turns out to be A) irrelevant B) Out of date and C) mentioning China here goes against your own position from the OP as it shows what happens when you meddle and try to engage in population eugenics and control, and the ethics and morality associated with it. Shooting yourself three times in the foot has to be a record :)

El Tarangu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698010#Comment_117698010

The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of food in the world; the issue is with the amount of carbon an extra human produces, rather than not having enough food.

It’s quite easy to feel angry regarding the climate crisis and rightly so but I find the best way to focus that positively is by thinking what power do I have And accepting that I have no power over certain things i.e. overpopulation in England and the Netherlands

I do have power over

1. Who I vote for

2. My consumer choices

3. My community choices

4. What can I produce myself

5. My interactions with others / what people will happily listen to

6. Where I donate money

Also I constantly remind myself that I’m not perfect and I need to live and get on with other people.

i try to keep it local as I work and live locally but I do buy organic staples online that gets delivered mostly dry goods and meat. I grow my own veg and have my own hens and meat chickens. I buy organic whole grain for them grown in Kilkenny which I get delivered. I buy organic milk, wine, cheese (organic not available) and fish locally. I make my own soap that i use for washing. I try to use the car as little as possible. I buy few clothes /shoes. I have solar panels to heat the water. I have oil fired central heating but I generally just use the stove in which I burn timber. I stopped using firelighters years ago and use newspaper and kindling sometimes with oil or candlewax if its difficult to start. I like to eat out but not often and try to choose more sustainable restaurants /cafés when I do. I don’t fly anymore but I do take the ferry. I’m active in a local club and i donate money to local festivals. I try to promote and support positive actions at work and among friends.

You have to give yourself and others a break too. Some people have a lot to deal with. Some people don’t care and won’t care.

I find if I make a list of all the stuff you do currently and a few goals to achieve, realise what I lack and maybe why it helps.

I choose not to be on social media (apart from boards) as I find it too shouty, judgemental maybe sensationalist. I personally find it too distracting and it puts me in bad form as I don’t think people are considerate, understanding or even listen. I do understand that I therefore lack a voice. That is something I lack but it is a choice I have made.

Maybe I’m totally off topic 🤔

Peregrinus

The argument assumes a straight-line correlation between the number of children and the consumption of scarce resources, but in fact this isn't the case. Countries with low fertility rates also tend to be among the highest producers of carbon. Limiting the number of children you have isn't an ethically admirable choice if your motivation is to prolong an already environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. And - the OP isn't suggesting this - suggesting that others should limit the number of children they have so that you can continue you your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle would obviously be the opposite of an ethical stance.

The US fertility rate, for example, is currently 1.73. With 5% of the world's population, it produces 18% of the worlds annual carbon output. A further fractional reduction in the fertility rate by having more US families limit their fertility to 2 is not a meaningful or effective response to this challenge. The world doesn't need fewer Americans; it needs Americans who live in a more sustainable way.

(Not to pick on Americans; if you take figures for the EU, they will tell a similar story.)

@Wilmol

@Wilmol "Is immigration really responsible for 5 million increase of population in France in 7 years?"

Partially yes. But you also need to look into some other statistical factors such as "population momentum". Such things explain how a population continues to increase even as their fertility rate is on the decline.

Further you need to factor in other things like life expectancy. If more people are living longer this will affect population statistics over time even if the production of new humans declines. Fertility rate can not be considered in isolation from death rates.

So again I think it much to simplistic to ethically judge people for crossing over a replacement rate. Especially if it is a false replacement rate you have simply invented on your own that differs from the actual rate.

There would be better things to turn your ethical eye to. Such as religions which preach the sinfulness of contraceptives. Rather than admonish people for having children - perhaps admonish those who preach against the tools which stop people who do not actually want children from actually having them.

It would be better to focus ethics on anything which causes people to have children they do not want - rather than moral high horsing people who have children they actually do want.

Fertility in most of the world is falling rapidly, outside of sub-Saharan Africa and a few central Asian countries fertility rates are converging very close to replacement levels if not below. All of Europe is sub replacement level as is the vast majority of the Americas. India is hovering around their replacement level of 2.2 and is rapidly dropping. Some Indian states have lower fertility rates than the majority of Europe.

China's official tfr is now 1.3 and may be lower depending on whether or not you believe CCP statistics. Taiwan and South Korea have entered uncharted territory dropping to sub 1 in South Korea and close in Taiwan. Thailand isn't far behind.

The vast majority of the worlds population growth over the next 50 years will come from sub-Saharan Africa. It's population could grow from 1.3 billion to 3 or 4 billion. Whether or not this happens is another matter because they are going to face huge challenges with this level of growth.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698084#Comment_117698084

It was an interesting read, thank you for your comments. I learned a couple of new things.

TheValeyard

Nothing wrong with having as many kids as you want once able to support them, financially and emotionally.

bladespin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698169#Comment_117698169

Exactly this.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117697969#Comment_117697969

Why do you presume that?

WrenBoy

No.

Ubbquittious

What a load of sh1t. Is anything ethical these days? We are being made feel guilty for merely existing. How did things get to be this way?

FlubberJones

I've never understood the desire to have lots of kids (over two)... we're humans not rabbits.

Well it was Plato I think who is accredited with saying that the Unexamined life is not worth living. I do not at all mind having aspects - even every aspect - of my life questioned. It makes me think and reevaluate my choices and actions. And in the past people have questioned the ethics of things I do or do not do - and I have in fact modified the way I live to accommodate that.

I think looking at it as "being made feel guilty" is not quite right. No one can make me feel guilty. They can only set off a spark that might or might not make me make myself feel guilty.

Looking at it as "being made to consider things you might not otherwise have" is probably a little better. Sometimes if people did not ask the question - I would never have questioned it myself. So I see it as a favour not an attack.

But there is two threads on children at the moment. This one on how many it is ethical to have. And another one on what age it is most or least ethical to have them at. So far nothing in either thread has made me regret or reconsider the decisions I have made (which is to have 4 kids - the last of which is coming as I am age 42).

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698276#Comment_117698276

Different needs, education levels etc

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698421#Comment_117698421

It's not PC to suggest people in the developing world consider having fewer kids

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698436#Comment_117698436

I am saying they might need more because of differing needs.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698365#Comment_117698365

Very interesting, this is like that boris johnson joke where he said world is overpopulate while he himself has near 10 children. So you agree that if we can comfortably fit more humans, we can have as many children as we want, even if everyone had 20 each. Obviously if we could support it, and obviously we don't care about taking land from nature or getting rid of animals that live in that nature to grow more food. You lost me at 4 children, no one needs 4 children.

@Wilmol

@Wilmol

no one needs 4 children

No one "needs" any children. So once again I think you are targetting an argument against one group of people that equally applies to all people. Which is the same error I think you made earlier in the thread too. No one needs 1 2 or 3 children just as much as no one needs 4. So why single out someone with 4 to make that point at? It makes no sense.

If it makes you feel any better however I am not a "usual" case in that I am the M in an MFF relationship. As such we are three parents not two. And our target of 4 children which we have always had was based on them having 2 each. This was always our plan since the beginning. So my case is moderately different to any couple who has 4 children. Though only moderately. But we are more analagous to two 2 children families than one 4 child family.

But as I said before the "argument from everyone" fallacy is not useful here. If your point is based on "Well if everyone does it....." then it is not a point at all. Because everyone is not going to have 1. Or 2. Or 3. Or 4. Some will have 0. Some will have 4. Very very few are going to have 10 or 20. The rhetorical "argument from the extreme" is just red herring territory.

_gir

heaping climate change problems on unborn kids is unfair, it is our selfish destructive lifestyles atm that cause climate change, not our numbers. The only reason more people causes more climate change is because they have the same destructive lifestyles.

The unborn really have it stacked against them, blamed for climate change and need to carry the burden of our pensions and financial systems

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698887#Comment_117698887

You have 2 wives?

We are not married because obviously that's not possible in Ireland. But otherwise yes.

I might not have targetted 4 kids otherwise. 2 most likely or maybe 3. Never interested in having 1. Always thought I would prefer to have 0 than 1.

But I guess it gives me a bit of perspective from both sides. The perspective of being a father of 4 on one side and the perspective of having 2 children with someone on the other side.

But I think there are just way too many factors to consider in parenting to focus on any one thing. Be it the number of children like in this thread - or the age you have a child at in another thread that is also live right now. Focusing in on one single thing like age or quantity - given the multitude of factors in play with parenting - just seems silly to me.

So when someone moans about how many children a person has - or what age they were when they had a given child - I just think they are being unjustifiably simplistic in their thinking.

El Tarangu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698169#Comment_117698169

It depends how you define "support them financially".

Childless people subsidise other people's children in all sorts of ways:

Children's allowance - €1,680 per child, per annum

Education costs - €6k -€8k per child, per annum

Which is fair enough if people are having one or two or three kids; we need children for society to continue ticking along. But if you are having five or six or seven kids, it's arguable as to how much the parents (as opposed to the rest of society) are 'supporting them financially'.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117699139#Comment_117699139

I'll leave you with 2 words, mental gymnastics. Hilarious, a wife and a mistress.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117699434#Comment_117699434

You can keep your mental gymnastics thanks - as you are the only one using any. And your making stuff up too which you have been doing since the thread started. Making stuff up does not help anyone or anything here.

I do not know anyone with a wife or a mistress. I certainly have no such thing. We are a complete family / relationship all living together in one house here. We decided from early on in the relationship that we were going to aim for 4 children - they wanted 2 children each - and that is what we have done.

And I am not seeing any arguments on the thread against the ethics of this. Just a few misunderstandings of mathematics - a couple of fallacies - along with stuff simply being made up. But a single reason for considering more than 2 children unethical is still wanting. Do you actually have one?

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117699473#Comment_117699473

I'm almost certain you're trolling at this point. The king living in his castle while his 2 mistresses run around him with grapes in their hands. You seem to have plenty of time judging by your post quantity with this many children and mistresses to please.

@Wilmol

@Wilmol You're getting unnecessarily personal now - I am not sure why. You started a thread asking about the ethics of having more than 2 children. Somehow my taking the side that there is nothing unethical about it has annoyed you to the point that you are now just making it about me - and flinging petty insults in my direction - and straw manning my relationship to make it sound like it is much different than it actually is. Why get personal here? Chill-ax.

I am not sure why you think I would have less time though. Economies of scale actually mean more adults in a relationship means you have more free time and money and resources. Not less. Or at least that's how our experience has been over the last 15+ years together. However if it makes you feel better I do not post all that much on boards and when I do it is usually when I am at work and am doing software testing which is a lot of pressing a button and waiting for results. Then I do indeed have time for discussing things on this forum. I have been on boards 12.5 years. That works out at less than 2 posts per day on average. Hardly prolific is it?

But to return to the topic of the thread - rather than drag it into a one sided and unwarranted personal abuse fest - The "Replacement Rate" is actually bigger than 2. And it is an average rate - not a per person rate. This means that to achieve the replacement rate in a society where some people have less than 2 children - or even no children at all - and where children die too - that some people will need to have more than 2 children. In my case it is 4.

So if we are using the replacement rate as a premise for the discussion - it would suggest that there is nothing at all wrong with having more than 2 children and in fact in some cases it is the right thing to do.

For me though I do not think the replacement rate is a good basis for discussing the ethics here however. Rather all of the factors a given parent - or set of parents - have for and against their ability to give a child a healthy upbringing should be considered before having any children at all - let alone subsequent children.

We as a family unit of three adults considered all of those factors and decided 4 was the right number for us. That was always our target and we have pretty much achieved that now. I will be getting the old "shave and a smell of bacon" procedure done after this I can assure you :-)

Nothing mentioned on this thread so far calls the ethics of that into question or suggests my fathering 4 children was the wrong thing to do. I am not sure why this fact annoys you to the point you need to get abusive and personal?

rainbowtrout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698855#Comment_117698855

Not a great example really. While Boris has been prolific, if we assume that he has 10 children from 10 different women, that's 11 adults it's taken to produce those 10 children. There is essentially 1 child to replace their own mothers, the replacement rate is still very low.

Not sure why you're having a go at taxAHcruel. His relationship, while unconventional has been well documented on boards over the years.

The current fertility rate in Ireland is 1.81. There are lots of people not having any children. If there weren't any families in Ireland having 3-4 kids, our fertility rate would be through the floor.

neenam

China and India have the largest populations in the world, 36% of the world's pop. between the 2. When you look at per capita CO2 emissions, These 2 populous countries rank lower than other countries, including Ireland in 2019.

It's not as simple as population size that's contributing to climate change. It's a number of other factors such as the petrochemical industry, flaring, mining, and in the case for Ireland agriculture. Not having children doesn't allow you a get out of jail card to have a massive electric SUV, going on flights and steak everyday if you want to lower emission rates, basically the lifestyle of the top 5% "polluter elite" - they're the biggest contributors, not those having +2 children. To mitigate CC and the ecological emergency we’re facing now, there is little to be gained from blaming it on a rising population.

Gregor Samsa

It all depends on how many spare parts you think you’ll need. I’ve erred on the side of caution and ended up with 3, but in fairness two of those are twins, so it was a bit like when you go to the supermarket to get a bottle of shampoo, but all they have is multipack offers with “not to be sold separately” printed on them. You can’t really say “thanks, but I only need one”.

mksbart1948

No such thing as overpopulation, there is still plenty of uninhabited land on Earth. This concept exists only in the minds of a few hundred richest people who still want more and more. It is easier to control a billion people than 7 billion

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117700307#Comment_117700307

So you’re confirming that we rely on poor people in terms of population and once India and China can have the same lifestyle as the west, we’re all screwed.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117700653#Comment_117700653

So every inch of land needs to be filled? You do know that these lands that humans need to live on would be taken away from animals like deer, foxes, rabbits.. Not only that, nature such as forests need to be destroyed to make space to build housing and for raw materials.

mksbart1948

We are far far away from filling 'every inch of the land'.

Plus putting the rabbit on an equal footing with the human is another leftist social engineering aimed at promoting these hilarious theories unsupported by any scientific premises.

Durag

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117700786#Comment_117700786

We don't need to 'fill' every inch of the land. We've already decimated enough of it on land we dont even live on, i.e. agricultural land. We share this land with other mammals, it isnt ours to completely fill and if we did, the land would be a completely barren uninhabitable wasteland as we would have no forests and no wild spaces for mammals and insect life to prosper.

Sounds like some right-wing social engineering aimed at promoting hilarious theories unsupported by any scientific premises.

@Durag

@Durag People also need to eat, so filling every available space with people is not such a good idea I think. All living things are important as we are all interconnected. The importance of microcorzial fungi for soil health. The importance of animal dung for fertilising crops. The importance of trees for providing oxeygen. The idea of pillage pillage is not so smart I think. The world is wonderfully complex and interdependent.

MowldyCabbage

Given how thick and incompetent a lot of people are it's unethical for them to be breeding at all.

@mksbart1948

@mksbart1948 All living things are equally important surely. We all need to eat.

mksbart1948

If you think there are too many people, there is a simple solution for you to help.

The history of mankind is based on the use of resources. When any of these resources run out - we use our infinite ingenuity to replace them with others. The history of Homo Sapiens is at least 200,000 years old, for about that many years we have cut down trees and somehow still the earth is very far from being a 'unihabitable wasteland'.

I prefer right-wing 'culture of life' from left-wing 'culture of death' any day of the week.

@mksbart1948

@mksbart1948 Life is dependent on the use of resources for sure but resources need be managed sensibly not obliterated. I really don’t think labelling opinions in this chat as left or right wing is helpful to be honest. If you want to label things surely your proposition that humans are more important than anything else is a religious theory rooted in Christianity? In my opinion all living things should be respected in a reasonable manner rather than being disregarded.

Durag

Yeah, there's definitely nothing like climate change currently happening, or a mass extinction going on, or oceans been drained of life, or pollution everywhere. Lets keep chopping down trees!

@mksbart1948

@mksbart1948 You really need to expand on what you mean by that last sentance. ‘Right wing culture of life and left wing culture of death’ That makes no sense to me so i’d appreciate an explanation. Most Irish people are neither left or right wing anyway, This is isn’t the USA.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117701024#Comment_117701024

Shall I send you the population graphs from 50 years ago? The population in 1900 was 2 billion and now it is near 8 billion. The quantity of humans alive today is on a scale never seen before. I imagine 200 000 years ago, there was less than 10 million humans alive. Hilarious comparison. So a few cavemen didn't change the world, what a surprise...

mksbart1948

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117701061#Comment_117701061

I agree 100% with first and last sentence