While the method of raising

While the method of raising a child is determined by ethics, the reason for having one is not.

One has a child because one loves human beings, and chooses to endeavor to enhance the survival of the human race.

Then, one applies ethics and undoutedly determines that one cannot ethically have a child, it requires TWO, since it is a biological imperative, and also a labor-intensive job requiring at least 2 rookies.

So don't try this alone. (Rule#1)

Then one determines that having 2 children would cause an exponential increase in global population, whereas having a single child is closer to population sustainability.

So have only 1 child per couple (Rule #2)

Finally, when the aforementioned couple has decided to have only 1 child, they very ethically wait & save until they can financially endure without outside childcare assistance, and thereby unethically place the burden of their decision on society as a whole.

Pay your own way (Rule#3)

Topical story

for my life, so I thank the author. And much credit for giving rational thought to a decision that so many make with so little consideration.

I don't believe there is a moral imperative for or against reproduction; both choices are ethical, and the "right" decision is based on personal values (what do you want out of life? what will you sacrifice?). Reproduce if you want to - it's the only viable reason - but don't dwell upon the opportunity cost.

The "undeniable" biological urge for reproduction is doubtless a contributor to the flawed under-pinning for western society - the model of unconstrained, unlimited growth. To imply that a shrinking growth rate is a negative is to buy into this fallacy.

So if you want to reproduce, there is no justification needed - it is quite literally what every organism is programmed to do. I won't because I don't want to, but I most certainly would not ever reproduce because the government wants me to.

Limiting our population before nature does so for us may help ease the transition to a sustainable number of humans on this planet.

The best reason....

...assuming you'd like to base your decision on ethics, is a sort of mini-me argument: if you hold your values dear (whatever they might be), then wouldn't you want to see more people in the world that hold similar values? And wouldn't you like to know that somebody holds them after you're gone?

I know this sounds like the height of arrogance, but when I reflected on your question and thought about my own daughter, I realized that part of what I hope for as a parent is that my daughter will share my values. This seems part of the essence of parenting: perpetuating our beliefs, practices and worldview through another.

I was a bit taken aback when I realized this about myself: at first it seems like a lack of recognition of her individuality. On the other hand, teaching one's child nothing about our worldview or ethics is a refusal to parent. It's an abdication of responsibility.

Another way of putting this would be to ask yourself honestly whether you think the world would be better off with more people who believe as you do, and weigh the answer against all the other ethical arguments against having children.

Good article, and Hurray for Brevity!

It is, after all, the soul of wit.

You do seem to raise the spectre of "young, unmarried, uneducated, non-professional women" and then fail to address the implications of that trend. Do you think that it's a problem that uneducated people are breeding at a considerably faster pace than educated folks? What does that look like in the long term?

What is ethical?

Ethically, if you believe that our current levels of consumption, and the colonial practices of western nations are a blight on the world, then you are ethically required to have children that you raise with these values. Otherwise you increase the chances your values will die out, just like your genes will should you fail to reproduce. You then leave the world to those subscribe to greed.

Of course you also have to preach and practice those values. As unlike genes you can propagate your values by providing a strong case for them to other humans. But there is little more effective in creating strong proponents for a certain set of values, than by inculcating them in your children; while demonstrating that you also live by them, and that those values do, in fact, offer a positive an uplifing vision of action and being in the world.

Complicated subject

It is a complex subject for women in the Western countries. Where I feel there is a problem is the lack of real info and stories for women of university age. Women need to be thinking in their early 20s how they see parenthood fitting into their lives and career. It's better for all involved if people have their children younger.

Look at your family's fertility history. If your mother went into premature menopause at 30 and your sister had fertility problems in her late 20s, don't assume you can put off thinking about children until you are 35. It may not happen, at least naturally.

Over the past few years, there's been a spate of stories about well-known actresses having children at ages 45, 46, 48. Few of those women, with the recent exception of Desperate Housewife Marcia Cross, openly admit to using IVF and other fertility techniques such as donor eggs. Fertility techniques won't do much for you when you are in your mid-40s, unless you are able and prepared to go the donor egg route.

Young women need to figure out what they will want, a child that is biologically their own, or perhaps some mixture (i.e. donor egg), or adopted.

Older motherhood (over 40) also faces higher risk of birth defects and ectopic pregnancy and higher chance of twins. Nothing like twins to tire you out!

Basically, parenthood is a natural part of life that is about replacing yourself, carrying on families, and as a friend aptly put it, "creating life".

Back in the 70s a newspaper article on marijuana use quoted some young man as saying he used marijuana because the messed-up state of the world was depriving him of fatherhood. Wonky reasoning, if such a comment was ever made.

Yes, the world appears to be in dire straights. But then, my parents grew up with the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms race with its philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction. And we survived the world problematiqe of the 1970s that allegedly drove one young man to marijuana.

Women in the Western countries have so many more options with birth control, education and a society that has progressed dramatically since 1960. Like so many other things in our society, what should be relatively straightforward decision has become a complex, angst-ridden process.

A Selfish Species

Not to argue with anyone specifically but there are hints of we should pass on our beliefs and our traditions and our genes but I'm not hearing any good reason. The worlds population are spending or contributing to the depletion of our childrens inheritance. And our grandchildrens and probably the next several generations capital being spent now on shiney beads and luxury items. Nice legacy. Nice ethics. From a purely survival standpoint who gives a rats ass what colour they are or what God future societies pray to. The idea is not carry forward your genes it's carry on the human gene, you selfish bastards... A basic understanding of nature tells us that no species is above any other. Life is about cooperation not domination. The dire straights is not so much for our species extinction but for the cancerous consummer society we've created. No matter how you do the accounting, the clock is ticking on the collapse of this system we've built. Sorry to have to slap you out of your Disney vision, but we've peaked a little soon. Of course I'm willing to listen to whatever plans you have to feed 6.5 or maybe even 8 billion hungry mouths. A lot them will have to move too, as they've settled in flood plains and lowlands soon to be underwater. They've damed just about every river and fished the oceans darn near clean! Paved over good farm land and what is left is owned by corporate giants, hell bent on selling you GMO foods produced from seeds that last one season. Condo's on the market for 1 million dollars, no dirt, but 1400 square feet of luxury maintenance free lifestyle. Good solid real estate advice! Buy now! Rates are low, prices won't ever come down again, have a family! Oh ya, this next collapse is gonna be a biggie!!!

Club, notice the effort....

...that you put into convincing others of your point of view. Has it occurred to you that the world might do well if some of the children currently being brought into it were the recipient of the sort of vociferous training in ethics that you're able to provide? Maybe the world needs some kids like you....

Seriously, the only possible moral justification for having children is the consequence of doing so. And one might reasonably assume that the desired consequence is that those children make the world a better place, and continue to do so after their parents are gone.

The writer asked for an ethical argument in favour. This is the only possible one. As for the arguments against, there are many, and the two need to be weighed against one another.

Do we deserve to be here?

The ethical-baby debate is a cousin of the do-humans-deserve-to-exist debate, and part of that oh-so-human question "What's life for," a question intricately bound in noxious religious and ideological positions.

But what if we just are? What if we accept the marvel that is simply being alive on this rock in space, and also the responsibility of making it a better place?

We are not powerless as individuals and parents to reduce or eliminate our footprint on the earth. And if not us in the privileged world, then who?

Some philosophers argue the extreme case that the world would be better without humans; proponents of this view would certainly not have babies. Sadly, I wonder if Vanessa Richmond and her friends have been afflicted by this defeatist perspective.

All species are selfish

The human genome won't carry on if the only humans replicating are those who neither put thought nor effort into an ethical approach to living in more sustainably with nature. The difficulty is, of course, actually practicing what you preach.

There are no ethics involved in ranting against people who want to have children. That kind of misanthropy may have legitimate roots in the damage humanity has inflicted on the earth, to say nothing of other humans, but it also does nothing to solve any problems. It is merely a venting of anger. People who do that appear to be lost in bitterness and hatred.

Humans are parasites, there is no getting around that fact of our biology. Hell, all life in one sense is parasitic, as all life must secure sources of energy to survive and propagate. Sure given our current trajectory humanity is in for a collapse, but the people who will suffer the most are the world's poorest and most vulnerable. Those of us who benefit most from the luxuries humans produce have the greatest responsibility to work for change, not because we are in any sense better, but simply because our considerable good fortune has provided us with more power to contribute toward positive change.

Of course far too many of us endowed with that good luck, not only do nothing to improve the situation for the world, but actively attempt to loot more of the world's wealth and horde it away from others. Those people have to be opposed, and one way of doing that is raising children ethically who (hopefully) will carry on that work.

To what end.

What does removing one's self from the gene pool accomplish? It certainly terminates a long line of survivors. If they could I'm sure they might have something to say about that. Otherwise all it does is leave room for someone else which is a nice gesture that doesn't do you one damn bit of good unless you are deferring to another relative who will at least keep the family lineage alive. Down the road nobody will give a damn but if it makes you feel better go for it. Parenthood is definitely not something people should have forced upon them.

It is possible to aid humanity without carrying on your line but once again to what end? Everybody else gains but your genes aren't around to enjoy your success. Sounds kind of silly to me. In this case it is possible to have your cake and eat it too.......In moderation.

Who knows, maybe Mother Teresa's offspring would have been even more dedicated than she was?

In the Ball Park!

Thanks for noting the effort Deeby. We are part of the web of life and we will continue and need to have children. It's unavoidable! It's also the most complex problem we will face as a species or as a society. Global warming for example is not an extinction level event. Although for some it may take that appearance. The unbalanced scales of wealth and affluence are far bigger issues and will be major factors shaping our future as a species and how we conduct ourselves. It doesn't address anyones question of if I should have a child now, and your answer is as good as any if not the only correct one. I admire the optimism of your idea, and we should expect good citizens to follow and maybe even someone to emerge as a strong leader for our future. God knows we're long over due. I'd volunteer but ya'll aren't quite ready for my idea's. The lesson will be repeated until learned...

the best reason to breed is...

you're creating a coterie of people who will love you, even if they never bend to your will or do your bidding.

The best reason to avoid breeding is it's waywayway more work than you think it will be and fatigue exposes a lot of the flaws in your nature that could otherwise go unnoticed.

Contrary

Parasitic may be one view, I prefer cooperative. There is no wrong or right in Gaian terms it just is. So nothing we do to ourselves is wrong but it certainly is unhealthy. We have the right to go extinct just like T-Rex. Who by the way was, along with his kin, roaming this rock for many millions of years. Perhaps I'm comparing scales that are not attainable, but I'd like to think we could attempt a shot at that record. Maybe a big brain is not the key to survival in this universe. Perhaps we get voted off the island all over the universe in favour of less aggressive species. Now it's time for sailing, adieu...

Men: NO financial incentives to have kids.

I do not understand that women loses more than men, financially. When a woman marries a man, she usually chooses a good provider who makes more money than her. (If you think this is sexist, go on dating websites and see how many women would date a panhandler?) So, if a man makes, say, $60,000 and a woman makes, say, $40,000, they would make together $100,000, which reduces (effectively by $10,000 the man's salary as this combined income is going to be shared --one would hope). Add a kid and the income of both will be decreased (and even more the man's income since he will have to bear the burden of supporting his wife (for a while) and their new kid ($60,000 divide by 2 is $30,000+ cost of kid), maternity tax incentives, maternity indemnisation not included. Men also have more stress since they have more pressure to not lose their job. On the other hand, it is true that a "free" national daycare should be created, but then do we really need more people on earth? Perhaps we should relax our protectionist immigration rules (refusing credentials from them, for instance).

I think men lose financially much more when they marry and have kids. Of course, money is not everything!

overpopulated

Hey quit dreaming!

Kids have a mind of their own, and the older they get, the less likely it is that they will believe or act as you do!

It is an age-old selfdeception, that you become a rolemodel for your kids.

Most teens barely tolerate their parents, and have totally different values in life!

Unless they are to inherit a considerable fortune they will make their own lives and perhaps wonder what your life was all about.

So, not much of a reason to breed.

Being sensible you will realize that the world is grossly overpopulated, adding to that mass is not smart.

That "the wrong kind" of people breed is simply too bad, there is no way you can stop the flow!

Is the world on self destruct? yep!

Is there anything you can do? nope!

With luck we can stave off the inevitable and let the world collapse on itself after we die, that is about all.

As a 30+ woman...

I really enjoyed your article Vanessa. Especially since I saw the Maclean's cover recently and was immediately angered & fascinated by it.

It's been an interesting conversation thread here about the ethics of reproduction in an over-consuming developed world, but I don't hear many voices from young women actually faced with making the choice (and increasingly choosing not to).

As someone right in Vanessa's spot, everything she said resonated loud and clear.

It is a heart and head decision, and a damn confusing one.

Part of the angst for me is around money and career, and part of it is this deep worry we all seem to feel about where the planet is at.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know that when (I think I've moved beyond if) I make the decision to have a child, it will be because of a love for people, and a deep, probably biological, desire to parent one of my own. It won't be an intellectual rationalization, but an emotional one.

I know this will mean sacrificing some career goals and momentum, at least for a while. And that really stinks, cause it's hard enough already. I'll probably be really strapped for money, especially in ridiculously expensive Vancouver where I can't afford to buy a home. But my parents couldn't either in the 70s in Toronto, and I turned out more or less okay!

One of my main goals as a parent would be to raise a responsible human being who did care about her/his impact on others and the planet. And really, I think that knowing my children were inheriting both my generation's mistakes and victories would give me greater impetus to be an active change-maker.

As for government assistance that would make the decision easier, I'm all for that. Affordable and accessible day-care would make an enormous difference in helping women make the leap. If our government has deemed it important, then they should put their money where their mouths are.

Use your choice wisely

If you have even taken the time to consider the ethics and economics behind the “should I or shouldn’t I” reproduction question then personally I think you have the “right” to have a child … if you so choose. There are too many parents-to-be in the world who don’t have this choice, whether through economics or simple availability of birth control. There are an equally large number in the developed world who don’t think twice about reproducing … and sadly this crosses all levels of economy, from the stereotypical teen mom in the trailer park to the Gucci couples with “accessory” kids. Use your choice wisely.

As for the moral right to have a child given the state of the planet, I think I will lift a line from the article and add my own addendum: I like to think that I may be able to “create and raise a happy, healthy person with a small footprint who respects others”, is compassionate to others and is able to influence others to the benefit of the planet and humanity. This was the road which I chose to take years ago when I found myself facing Richmond’s dilemma. Admittedly, some degree of arrogance does play a part. Echoing James Burns, I have no desire to see my own set of values die out and be replaced by those of the mass consumer culture. Be prepared for the hard work involved in sticking by your ethics in the face of parental demands. Parenthood, I believe, is a bit like black box theory … you stuff all your principals, values and habits, into this fresh little creation and society does it best to cram things like crash commercialism and self-centeredness in as well and you just have to wait around and see what pops out of the box. So far I like what I see in my children.

Snert touched on one other option for those individuals who choose not to have children for global morality reasons but still have the desire to make a difference and inculcate their ethics in others … volunteer. Or have a child, or two, and get them to volunteer as well. Right now the world needs all the help it can get from people who have an inkling of what “ethical” means.

As an aside, I must say that I loved the term “off-ramped” as used in the MacLean’s article Richmond cited. It will now replace the dreaded “homemaker”, “housewife” or “SAHM” label when confronted with blank boxes that request my employment status.

having children...

makes you a better person. Putting someone else's needs before your own, making decisions around the best interest of the family, makes one less selfish. There might be other ways. Adopt. Take your nieces and nephews on weekends. Yet, little else compares with the sacrifices we make for our kids. Much of it thankless. People without children may say that being a parent is selfish. I said it at one time. The only selfish parents are the deadbeat ones who desert.

Arrogance

Isn't the idea that anyone can (or should) make these choices for others arrogant.

I think the problem with the over-populating world is more a question of consumption and selfishness.

We in the west use too damn much stuff as it is. We eat too much and walking along the street in virtually any part of Vancouver, it’s obvious we do. Not having children seems for many to be just an excuse for consuming more; buying more expensive cars, clothes and houses; dining out at more expensive places and travelling a lot more to holiday in exotic places. An interrupted career may be a career path, which considers something besides the bottom line and the glass ceiling.

Perhaps having a family is the best way for women and men to realize they have a commitment to someone besides themselves, if not to the future.

Kids tend to humanize their parents although I'm not sure that applies to folks like Brad and Angelina.

Québec’s excellent childcare system seems to have addressed the problem of the baby shortage in that province quite nicely. Perhaps Mr. Harper has plans to emulate it.

The best reason not to...

Given what we know about climate change, peak oil and the state of the biosphere (dying), the best reason to not have a child is that you will probably condemn someone you love to a very unpleasant death. Given the odds, I can't do it.

Winning the Lucky Gene Lottery

As other commentors have suggested, by asking the question you answer it: you are exactly the sort of person who has the genetic and ethical chops to bring up a thoughtful, responsible child or, better still, children.

There is indeed a "class" argument here and not one which need take us into Bell Curve territory. The fact is that any child born in Canada will have huge opportunities to make the world better. Opportunities which children born in less wealthy societies will lack simply because of their relative poverty.

Forgoing having children, particularly your children, will do nothing to alleviate that relative poverty and may very well exacerbate it. Here's why.

The only real capital humans have is the next generation. Our ability to innovate, our ingenuity, is dependent upon that generation. However, only a tiny fraction of the next generation will be blessed with the genetics and the wealth to advance science, ethics, economic, peace and poetry for the benefit of the rest of the world.

Your kids will, at the very least, have a shot at that opportunity simply because they will be lucky enough to be born in
Canada.

When you choose not to breed you eliminate the possibility of creating a highly imaginative, responsible, wealthy (in relative terms) child. It is a choice which has literally no upside.

If you were living in a third world hell hole with no services, no education, no medical attention it might very well be wrong to bring another child into the world. That child's realistic expectations of a life might begin and end with a sweated job and an early death. Your child's expectations are, practically speaking, limitless.

Fair? No. But to make the world less unfair we need every privileged, healthy, intelligent child we can get. There is tremendous work to be done and not nearly enough skilled hands to do it.

Because children are a positive

It amazes me that most people, before and sadly, sometimes after having children, fail to understand that children are by far the best "self-improvement" program going. With each of my three children, I've become less selfish, more politically motivated, and certainly less judgmental. It is even more important to me now that I be patient, loving, selfless, because that's the only way I will raise the people I love most to be the people I most would love them to be.

Children make more mature, selfless adults, if the adults are open to the sacrifices that must be made on their behalf. And no, that doesn't include sticking kids in daycare so the parents can afford an upper-middle class lifestyle! I did the whole "climbing the corporate ladder/single feminist being smart about my reproductive choices" thing, and then I gave up my job as editor-in-chief to nurture our children. Despite what the secular feminists would have you believe, you really can't have it all. Either your job or your family suffers and I have found raising responsible, loving, tolerant children to be far more meaningful and personally advantageous than any paid "career" position could ever be.

better world for future generations

One point which others have brought up but which I will emphasize, is that having children gives us a reason to make a better world. When speaking bout the environment, people often say that we have to save it for our grandchildren. This is a moot point for the childless. I can handle the thought of having to live in a compromised environment, lying in the bed I have helped to make, but the thought that my children will pay for our bad choices horrifies me.

An economic unit

Sadly it seems government and commerce only see a child (amongst most everything else!) as an economic unit!

No wonder there is no future vision for Canada other than more of the same with weak attempts at rectifying our impact on ecosystems and the planet!

The idea is we should be consuming ourselves into dust i guess?

I suppose a decreasing birth rate would also mean fewer future recruits for the miltary?

I suppose the 'white power' people are also worried about a lowering 'white' birth rate!

As one comedian said - get over it eventually everyone in the world will be a shade of brown!

I do not have any kids, and do not think I will as I am 45. I could not have any children as I think 'we' (preceding generations) have set up a big mess.

And I know of some families (my sister for example) who have kids, and the environment and health of the planet is the last concern on the parents minds!

Too often the off the cuff remark about the threat to mother earth is that the children will find the solutions! We are the ones who set the plate - like our economy, shirking our responsibilities by externalizing costs - the costs will be born by the next generation!

No child should have to ask their parents why the world is so messed up and what is mom and dad doing about it!

Good luck to all of us and Mother Earth!

some big project

I decided i'd best not have children. and my unborn are grateful. on Mother's day, my little eggs sing a happy song. my theory is that women have children because we need to have some big meaningful project to do, something that connects us with a world bigger than just ourselves, something creative and life-affirming. But there are lots of creative big meaningful things to do that don't include breeding--we're not encouraged to do those things because we're women...things like change our systems of governance to something more closely resembling democracy, say, or making a campaign to make wealth history, and redistribute the resources ...and there are other things we can do -- like working with friends and loved ones to end male violence, turning the tv and the computer off and writing a play or many...helping neighbours raise their kids, how about? I think perhaps the ethical thing to do is to have people of all ages in ones' life, whether they're related or not...

also, of course, the world we live in is not yet set up to value parenting more than say, bridge building or stock-trading. it's complicated. which is another reason i haven't had kids. i get all confused, then i get sleepy.

though choice

Being a woman in my mid thirties I am faced with the choice between my biological desire to have a child and be a parent and the question of wether it is right to have a child in the first world where we consume so much. I don't want to raise another consumer/worker for the economy to grow. I also wonder how can I have my own child when there are so many children who lack basic necessities. In the end the compromise might be adoption or only having one child.

Personal Needs versus ... Global Needs

We all have needs and desires, but we are also intelligent human beings who recognize that we cannot fulfill all of those needs all of the time. I would love to drive a Porshe once in my life, but I don't have the money to buy one. I would love to drive an SUV in the woods.I could steal one or I could instead rent one. I would love to make love whenever I fee like. As others have pointed out, do you think they will have a better life than you did? I think the same applies to this issue. We know that there isn't a need to have more people on Earth (and in Canada, in particular). Some people might have personal needs to have children, but there is a bigger picture. One's personal, selfish needs are NOT as important as the needs of the world. There are many babies who could be adopted from Africa. That wold be a much better choice.

Not quite...Jay

Once again the class line is mentioned and I'm uncomfortable with that line of logic. I'm not sure why but it hints of racism for one and also it drives toward further economic growth, as you state a Western "lucky gene" baby has more opportunity to advance science, tech, econ etc... I don't think long term solutions will be found in that arena. Beyond your responsibility to community that helps raise your children and mine, is our addiction to free will. So much of it that I think it clouds our connection with nature. A connection that we have brushed aside in the name of progress, which somehow has been perverted into wealth creation, or transfer of debt to future generations. Just as there are rules to life all over the universe and laws of science we have yet to discover or at least respect our life support system that surrounds us. I see a universe full of life, diverse beyond imagination with all the beauty we take for granted. Our greatest achievements are not the space shuttle, but the music, and art and cultures that embrace peace and harmony. First nations people come to mind and the recent article on humans still living in the Amazon without western contact. The point being that at the root of those cultures is a more balnced life and one that approaches sustainability in ways we don't understand or have tossed aside. It's to late to go back, and one day I hope we all will be a shade of brown as mention above, thank you Freebear. Once you accept a truth it becomes part of you. A life time of experience and instinct, is not easily translated here in this forum. So we need to improve our communities and thus improving the chances our children will grow up with strong ethics, but it will all go down the drain if we don't start redistributing the wealth. It's a common denominator in most opinions here and I'd say the new world order have just as much chance of coming from China, India as they do from North America and Europe. So those of you attached to the notion we as Canadians should have more children to give our world a better chance of survival, please try and explain it further as I just don't see it.

Those of you whose biggest joy in life is being a parent congratulations, you probably have the answer to the question. The best parents are probably the best neighbours and it does take a community to raise a child. In those third world hell holes Jay, children are their old age pension. Without family there is no economic viability, and life is harsh on those most unfortunate. Even here we are not immune to poverty and homelessness and many have no family to take care of them. It's just one of many growing social and survival issues for the society and for the species.

If you love life, you will become a guardian and a better parent and the community wins. But this false idol of infinite free will must end, and we need to accept and adhere to natural laws. And that's all I have to say about that...

On rediscovery

"Nothing new needs to be invented; everything needs to rediscovered!

(like the clothesline and kids walking to school!)"

I completely agree that a great deal could and should be re-discovered. And your examples are great. But clotheslines and kids walking to school imply a much more child friendly environment than we presently have. (People who use clotheslines tend to need them as opposed to non-breeders who have one dryer load a week, a safe walk to school requires lots of other kids and parents with their "eyes on the street".)

Adopting a child out of Africa seems a sensible idea except that it is taking someone away from a world where they might very well make a contribution; more sensible one could send the money it would cost to raise the child in North America to Africa where it could pay for the raising of dozens of children. But that is to beg the question as to whether Vanessa and her friends should have children.

For the next couple of generations Canada will be an astonishing wealthy nation comparatively. But there is a very real question as to whether that wealth will be used well or badly.

A number of the commentors on this thread have a fairly abstract approach to kids. Of course kids are not theoretical or economic units: they are individuals raised, for better or worse, by existing parents.

While I tend to disagree with much of what the more progressive writers at the Tyee believe, I also very much value their existence here and in the society at large. If large numbers of progressive women take the view that breeding is ethically compromised (for whatever reason) it will mean a skewing in values as the people who do breed begin to dominate the society.

Fundamentalist Christians and Islamists share one trait in common, they have many, many children. As they have those children and as progressives don't, child rearing, education, sports, recreational activities, libraries and a host of other child driven social enterprises will have no choice but to adapt to the changing demands of the parents who use them.

Taking a long view, the sort of society we will have in fifty years is going to be determined by who has the kids right now. If you are comfortable with an increasingly socially conservative, increasingly fundamentalist, society then you can vote with your womb. If you would prefer a society in which the Enlightenment was not dead, then have kids, lots of kids.

There are lots of orphans around the world ...

I don't get it. When I see pictures of orphan kids in Africa or Asia, when I see so many immigrants who could work here, when I see Earth's resources being depleted, and I hear people wanting to have their own kids here, I don't get it. Are those the same people who drive SUVs, thinking that it is their right to do whatever they want? Are those the people who cut in a line because they feel like it? Are those the people who buy expensive status symbols to show off to their friends and parents to feel that they are great and that they are better than the rest of us? I think we all have needs, but we need to control them.

interesting..

As much as we all believe we would like to have kids, teach them all the right things and they grow up to do good in the world, I am amazed at the responses which illuminate the complete lack of social responsibility of some people who consider kids as their own individual right. We need to step out of our bubble and start working together if we have any chance of surviving as a species, and considering how our decisions affect the rest of the people on this cosmic island called Earth.

Boo boo boo-hoo

Being free to reproduce IS an individual right. But all rights come with responsibilities, and raising children even more so. The vast majority of parents realize this, particularly once their children are born. And as I stated earlier, those with ethical concerns about the world's environment and raising children to share those concerns make very important contributions.

And to be honest, I am more than a little creeped-out by the arrogance and hatred of some on this thread who lambaste those who want to have children. There is little that is more human than having a child. There is little that connects people more to the future health of society and the planet than their own children.

I can understand expressing a concern that children born here in the west be raised with an awareness of their impact on the environment, and thus encouraging them to work positively for change. But I can't understand the unapologetic misanthropy I repeatedly hear expressed here. It would appear that for some all people born in industrialized nations are disgusting unforgivable sinners. It reminds me of the attitude of fundamentalist theocons waiting for the apocalypse that will destroy what they consider to be this evil world. Of course the theocons have some spark of hope, that they will enter heaven during the Rapture. Those talking up the collapse of humanity seem to have surrendered to nihilism. Frankly, I find it repulsive, lazy and defeatist thinking; and I don't see how arguing from that perspective will do anything other than drag people into paralytic despair, or hedonistic "who gives a sh*t" behavior.

re: Boo boo boo-hoo

That's right YOU have the INDIVIDUAL right to reproduce (with an accommodating partner I hope :)), just like people had the right to smoke wherever they wanted, or just like people had the right to let their dogs poo wherever they wanted,... HOWEVER, these "rights" were rescinded because people recognized --rightfully-- that this right interfered with other's rights (breathing relatively clean air,..). Now, you are right ... reproduction is a special right because the survival of all species depend on it. However, some species of animals recognize that when they over-breed, they are depleting the resources of their territory and endangering their survival. They do the smart thing and they stop breeding. Are some animals smarter than some human beings?

Positive thoughts vs. cynicism

I just thought that I would post this link … as it puts a more positive spin on the ethics of breeding in today’s world.

https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/scholarship/winners.jsp

These teens were all probably at some point someone’s “choice” and I can’t help but think that the world is a better place because they are here. Will their existence help to stem the tide of rampant consumerism, environmental degradation and 3rd world poverty? Will it even counteract the effects of their peers? Maybe … maybe not. When we choose to walk instead of drive, grow our own food, volunteer in our community, etc. we know that these small, individual measures won’t “save the world”, but some of us continue anyway. Embracing a cynical global perspective would make just getting up in the morning, never mind contemplating parenthood, too difficult to contemplate.

As for “no child should have to ask their parents why the world is so messed up and what is mom and dad doing about it”. I disagree … more children should be holding their parent’s feet to the fire and more parents should also be asking their children “what can YOU do about it?” The world has never been a rosy, Disney film and children have been asking variations of these questions for generations. Complacent people, who don’t ask or don’t care about the questions or the answers, seem to be breeding at warp speed unfortunately.

Smoking children?

reality-check, so you equate children with cigarettes and dog sh*t?

Who gets to decide who gets to reproduce under your scheme? How does the fact that overpopulation is a problem of the poorest affect that decision? And how exactly do you propose to restrict human reproduction? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortion? Or do you think guilt trips and diatribes will be effective?

Which animals, besides humans, can consciously recognize they are "over-breeding", and in recognizing that are then able (presumably unlike humans) to restrict or stop breeding, thus making them "smarter"?

Drat...

James, you got to reality-check before I could. Unfortunately, for a lot of the more strident ecoWarriors and Gorians the idea that humanity, especially the paler portions of it, is a cancer on Mother Gaia has become as much of a touchstone as Kyoto.

This sort of cultural self hatred is pretty much the reason that Vanessa is having her ethical qualms and she shouldn't be.

Misanthropy is right.

Thanks James Burns. I often find it's interesting to look more closely and critically at the people who suggest there should be legislative rules about who can and should be allowed to breed.

A quick look back at the false promises of the eugenics movement in the first third of the 20th century usually provides a nice tonic.

Learning that Oliver Wendell Holmes and Adolph Hitler were in the same camp on the question of limiting who should be allowed to have babies - thereby supporting the notion that certain kinds of genes are more 'worthy' than others - always makes me realize that a lot of otherwise intelligent people may have some very wrong ideas.

Responsible behavior is a 'personal' choice.

Cultures that don’t believe that are generally not worth saving. One way or the other.

Lighten up Jimmy...

Pretty strong words there Jim. Arrogance? hatred? Lambasting, lazy repulsive? Normally I get what your saying, except for a few of them $50 dollar words you toss out there. But when people have a fear of bringing children into this world and they try and express it, I don't get the point of bashing their brains out! I don't see anyones misguided hatred of the human race here, just concern about the future and if having a child now is the best idea.

You say that being free to reproduce is an individual right. Just wondering how that applies in China?

Concerns aren't the same as loathing

Having concerns over whether to choose to bring children into the world is healthy. People need to consider the pros and cons, particularly whether they feel they can be competent parents, and whether they are truly willing to dedicate the time necessary for raising their children.

But taking the position that humanity is little more than a blight on the world is misanthropic. Attempting to calibrate that misanthropy to only those in "dastardly" western industrialized countries is just an exercise in politically correct decoration. Pointing out humanity's mistakes and misdeeds is vital, but dwelling on humanity's negatives, while refusing to acknowledge our positives (or giving just a hint of lip service to them), is a recipe for hatred. Most people will rightly reject that. But as the above article shows, those misanthropic attitudes generate misguided doubt in the people who probably should be having children, because they are knowledgible of the world's problems, and they are active in trying to find solutions.

As for your China question club, you're being evasive. How would the right to reproduction be any different for someone Chinese?

Agreed

I'm probably guilty when it comes to some analogy's but my intention is not to be evasive. My intention would be to draw attention more to the human condition as a whole rather than individual rights and responsibilities. Loathing humanity for destroying nature is certainly pointless, and I would hope that my opinions don't reflect that attitude. Certainly an open mind is a pre-requsite for education and is one one the main reasons I read these forums. My intention would be to more capture the risks and perils of human activity, some of which we have control over and others we don't. There would be no pracitical way to manage population on a global scale, but ultimately nature will cap the limits to growth. The opinion above stating that animals may choose not to breed being a concious decision doesn't make sense but from a biological standpoint it's possible fertility rates would be affected by stress of overpopulation, and scarce resources. Maybe this was the point intended. I would think all mammals would be suseptible to these conditions and there is certainly less room for us and the wild kingdom to just up and move when ecological diaster strikes. Humans are encroaching on all habitat and soon the fight or flight option will be one sided. It's worth standing and fighting for, not just our lives but the diversity of life on which we depend. It just appears to many that it's very slanted in our favour and that we push nature away to make room for more consummers. Anyway I think I've been pretty consistant with my opinions over the years and they continue to evolve as they should. We're social animals but I take no comfort in the fact that we are on target for 8 billion people, as I don't see any win win scenario for this planets diversity. I'm fearful for the idea's that some of those really misanthropic demons out there have and what they may have planned for civilization once they see that our wealth creating society starts to crumble. That a subject for another day!

With reference to China, my point is they do limit birthrates. (or did) So my question is, doesn't that interfere with their rights to reproduce? Thanks for your insights.

Oh baby, baby

The stance taken here strikes me as disingenuous, counterfeit, and sadly bloodless in its emotion. Yeah, we've come a long way , baby....children are now tallied, priced, the pro/con "ethical" risks of having them weighed, before they are "bred"?

This is more about getting what you want by those who are used to getting what they want...easily and without much struggle. When has it ever been easy to be born into this world? Even the relatively stable post-WW2 years went to the brink with the Cuban missile crisis?

Death, the possiblity of miserable circumstance hovers over us all. But the use of the fear of risk or loss as the basis of this argument is precisely the same Republican spin about the need for a war on terror, the need for the suffocating safety of Homeland Security. They too use fear, the possibility of risk in life to control and get what they want...and they do it self-righteously as well. All real life carries risk....and demands the courage to live it that way.

The only reason, ethical or otherwise, I can think of for having a child it out of a sense of wanting to share an existing deep love...hopefully the child's genes will swim in the warmth of it.

But poor babies of the future...all those the credits and debits , all those calculatedly-considered ethics to overcome .... I'd rather be conceived out of reckless abandon in the backseat of a rollicking Chevy, out of at least some small iota of real hearty passion and life, then be the offspring of this whey soup crew of cautious accountants.



Written not that long ago but obviously on a very different planet then the one revealed by this article:

What about a passion for caution?

A passion for life and caution in making decisions are not mutually exclusive lynn. As I stated earlier, having concerns over having a child is healthy.

There are far too many children born, even in our society, that suffer terrible abuse and neglect from parents who conceived them "out of reckless abandon". Sadly, those very children are usually the ones that go on to do the most harm to society. If it were possible to choose, I doubt few would select that kind of horror over being "the offspring of this whey soup crew of cautious accountants."

But I understand part of your point. The world has never been a safe place. Forty-thousand years ago, had they been able to write, humans likely would have written articles questioning the merits of having children given the fact that most of them get eaten by lions, and tigers, and bears. Good thing for us they didn't let that stop them from breeding.

Re: smoking children?

It is rather unfortunate that you thought it would ba appropriate to be mocking someone's comment by transforming the message. This might work within your circle of friends, but more educated people here are not fooled.

In any case, to come to the argument that there are some species that self-regulate their breeding based on the available resources. I thought this was common knowledge.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8901(197908)16%3A2%3C383%3AROTSOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L#abstract

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/CWR9620161.htm

ttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-5422(199711)99%3A4%3C994%3ACIKPBC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L#abstract

I think that many human beings use ways to self-regulate their breeding when they realize that they cannot afford (have enough resources) to have kids or more kids: condoms, abortions,...

And, BTW, I think that most women will never accept the notion of not having kids because for them having kids is such a joyful experience. It really does prove without a shaddow of a doubt that breeding for women is very important just like breeding for men is (but I suspect for slightly different reasons,... most of the time. Anyway,... why don't you take a cold shower! The planet has a headache!

Your own sacred ground

I agree, James, although I would add, conception "whey soup accountant-style" does not necessarily guarantee freedom from abuse or neglect either.

My problem with this article is that despite what may be good intentions and despite all the endless "ethical talk" it reads false.... constantly veering away from the personal, away from its own true feeling where the decision to have a child ultimately lies.

Nope, not true, an ultra-commodified culture is anything but hyper-individualistic. It's all about mass appeal and mass control. The taming and finally the obliteration of individuality. That's why this article is asking us to supply "ethical" reasons for you "to breed." That's not only sad, it's tragic.

You don't need our opinion. It's important to feel this one out for yourself.

What is natural?

RC, is a hardwired response to environmental conditions that suppresses reproduction in an animal the same as self-regulation in humans? Or is making that comparison a case of anthropomorphizing the animal's behaviour?

The difference is important, because in my experience false analogies seem to lead many people to romanticize the non-human natural world to the point of fantasy. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it is "better". Nature isn't just beautiful sunsets and baby harp seals.

As for transforming your message, you made the equations between smoking, dog crap and children. I merely pointed them out succinctly.

Thanks Lynn

You've put it much better than I did up thread a bit and I hope you'll get a 'gold star' (best comment) label for your thoughts too.

Not that I think you have any more use for such things than I do...I still appreciate the way you expressed yourself on this important subject. I’m appalled that so many commenters seem to see children as just another commodity.

Kids are the future; if we give up on the most human aspects of our lives because we've run out of hope for the next generation then we are doomed to a contest of all against all for a pile of worthless stuff. Having children is a big part of keeping the race human and we forget that at our peril The idea that some cultures are more genetically-favoured than others is repellant – just as the idea that boy babies are somehow more valuable than girl babies – there is no way to turn such ideas into a positive.

There's nothing ethical in swearing off having children any more than there's anything unethical about women and men who chose have them. The dangerous part of these debates is how easily they spill over into a fascination with telling 'others' how to live.

If we truly want to help solve world problems we should eliminate tariff barriers against trade goods from countries in the Third World; places we think we're helping by ‘tied aid’ and phantom aid (expertise that benefits academics and consultants here in Canada more than it does the people who actually need the help).

Creating programs to police ‘one-child’ policies may seem necessary in some cultures but I’m far from convinced that the so-called positive outcomes of such ‘statist’ measures in any way outweigh the costs.

Egad!

Romanticizing nature now a bad thing? Yes I can see how that would take away from the individuals right to reproduce, or steal wealth from third world countries on the backs of starving children. Yes it's much more healthy to fantasize about owning great sprawling lawns and two story mansions. Triple car garages and driving to the superstore in an airconditioned Hummer in full time four wheel drive of course, while calling your broker on the cel phone.

No thanks. I'll take the sunset over the ocean everytime. Knowing that all of the diversity of life beneath that surface is slowly being depleted, and I'll remember diving on reefs teeming with life. There are something like 5 times more tigers in captivity in the US than there are in the wild. 6.5 billion people and counting. We can't even take care of the ones here now, but don't mess with an individuals rights to have more.... yeah have as many as you want.

We have the right to do what ever we want. We are nature. Everything we do is natural. Too bad for some other species though, but fuck them and their pea sized brains. We have rights! We have the right to rape the future generations of their inheritance, we have the right to burn oil and all the rain forests to the ground, we have the right to go extinct. No I'll go with the Earth First Gang, instead. They may be radical, but hey, you gotta have goals!!!

More children equals more consumers. We have to keep the economy driving forward don't you know. We can't have real estate markets taking a turn. Nope too many wealthy land owners and developers wouldn't make their profits! Rising house prices is a good thing. Your equity builds and then you can borrow against that to do your renovations as seen on TV! Gotta keep that economy rolling....

Hate children? Hardly! But adults, that's another story... And now I've definately had enough of this thread, I'm off to worship the Dolphin God, Flipper, ruler of Atlantis and the lost tribes....

difficult decision and incredibly rewarding

I hesitated about having a child, the impact on the environment and what type of world would he be facing?

Even now, as climate change begins, I look at him and think, well we've probably got another ten years before we really get into crunch time and he'll be 22, an adult. And maybe things won't be as bad as I fear. And he's the type of kid, the type of person that we need more of, someone who can make a difference.

But, who knows, he will make his own decisions. As one of the other mothers noted, you do your best to raise a child to your values and society does its best to "consumerize" the kid.

I had child because I think on a subconscious level having a child was my statement of hope and faith in the future and that humanity can figure out how to live sustainably. And my clock was ticking.

The thing that surprised me most was that this was the single most rewarding thing I have ever done: in terms of joy, personal growth and the chance to guide, parent and love a child.

off-the-radar

We cannot know can we. We cannot know if GW will be hitting the crunch or turn out to be Y2K all over with better graphics.

What we can do is love and nurture our children, prepare them for whatever world they will inherit, teach them to want to make that world a better place and then, modestly, get out of their way.

But if we do not have our children than there will be no possible chance for improvement. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, what we would be doing is conceding the future to fundys of all religions. And that I will not do.

For not having a child:

As long as there remains one child on this planet who is in need of a home, love, a full stomach... I relinquish the gift I've been given to breed my own.

It's not something I can really explain, or say when it fully dawned on me- but that's how I feel, and I'd love to adopt one day.

Yes, but.. reality_check

In my experience, just from looking at the lives of my female and male friends, men are much, much, needier in terms of emotional support (or is it just my friends?). So financially yes, a man may "lose" $10,000 when he starts a family, but men just don't do as well alone. Am I way off here? Or like I said earlier, is this just my experience?

To Fii

I think men need sex more than women, not emotional support. I wonder if men would need less sex if there were fewer sexuality presented to them day in and day out, here, there and everywhere. Women --on the other hand-- I think need more emotional support than sex (although it is hard to know what would happen if religion had not played with their mind). And if they want sex, it is more often with the goalto procreate than to have fun (although --I would hope-- that they are not mutually exclusive!

It's still worth it

I didn't spend enough time looking at all the issues as you and your friends seem to have done. My career stalled after having children yet my consumption, and waste, has gone up. I'm a rare bird working full time with two young children and find it a challenge to manage it all, especially now that they're in elementary school. Still, sitting down to dinner last night and throwing ideas around about a pretend screen-play and making up naughty rhymes with my boys makes it all worth it - emotionally. But the toll I take on the planet - I sometimes cringe.

reality_check

Right! Then why is a two-income family so essential to basic survival in this medium we call a consumer society?

Rick...one word

Taxes...

Though it is rather more complicated than that but the reality is that the destruction of the single income family can be traced to the rise in income tax and the exemption of the family home from capital gains taxation thereby igniting the real estate market insanity.

Hmmmm

Yeah- I don't know, reality check. Women 'needing' more emotional support? The key is- do they need it from men?? In my experience, no. From friends, from family members, from deep inside. When I lived overseas I noticed how (granted- older) women thrived after a time, those that were single... the older (by that I mean 30s) single men started to fall apart- they would drink excessively, some got involved in drugs; to put it simply, they had a hard time hacking it.

Perhaps we are of different generations? There is definitely something to your assertion, though, that we are conditioned. 'Women want love, men want sex'. I just don't see it as being that cut and dried in my friendships and experience in life thus far.

Reproduction; micro scale vs. macro scale

This debate reminds me of the two levels economics; micro and macro. At the micro level, individuals make personal decisions about lifestyle, balancing leisure and work issues. On the macro scale, the sum total of those decisions tells a global story.

Surprise, surprise! It is harder for two career-oriented working people to raise a family, so the birth rate goes down. Schools are closed and teaching is no longer a career for life. The global demographics shift to favour large, low-income families, perpetuating the wealth gap.

Birth control has radically changed society forever, and not all the changes are for the good. Evolution is based on a lot of random selective factors and when the selection processes become conscious decisions, genetic diversity takes a header.

We eat farmed animals and we are becoming what we eat; genetically unbalanced and unfit for the environment we occupy. The cities we live in are becoming larger, and the percentage of people who live in those cities is increasing. For "cities", substitute Desmond Morris's expression
"The Human Zoo" and you see the future, and it may not work.

Would you rather be a dad or a mom?

As a woman with a ticking biological clock, I'm making the decision not to birth children. Yes, the environmental factors make me feel better about that decision, but really, it's about self-preservation.

The biggest deterrent to me having children is watching the slavish workload and sometimes poverty of single and divorced moms. The second biggest deterrent has been the inequal distribution of household and childcare labour between the sexes. If a dad does do anything near to half the work, he's considered a saint, while for the mom, it's expected. I'd be quite happy to be the 'dad' of a child, but I'm not too crazy about being a 'mom'.

Our culture seems to think it's okay for the non-birthing parent to shirk his (or occasionally her) half of the labour and financial responsibilities of raising a child to adulthood. I see so many moms get stuck doing whatever it takes to look after their kids, while current or ex partner does nothing or little, and complains about that. Even people in stable relationships break up, and when they do, the person who birthed loses out.

Think about it - If you had children, would you rather be a dad or a mom?