Introduction
Throughout the developed world, the birthrate is falling. I’m not overmuch concerned about this, actually; we humans have had a good run, have obviously taken more than our share of our planet’s bounty and so on, and as a species I doubt we’ll be missed. But I am at the time of life when my friends have kids of child-rearing age, and here and there I’ll hear one of these friends say, whether quoting their kids or expressing their own sentiment or both, “It just seems wrong to bring a child into this world.” This gets my hackles up; in this post I explore why.
Just to make sure this sentiment is a thing, vs. me just happening to know an outsized number of nutjobs, I did a little research. Sure enough, a large (N=11,945) Pew survey conducted in 2023, when the US fertility rate reached a historic low, catalogs a variety of reason people aren’t procreating, and among these were two flavors of “it seems wrong,” including “concerns about the state of the world, other than the environment” (cited by 38% of respondents aged 18-49) and “concerns about the environment, including climate change” (26%). A third position, which didn’t figure in the Pew survey but I kept stumbling upon in my research, is the idea that it’s ethically wrong to bring about a human life, period, since we can expect that human to undergo a lot of suffering during his or her lifetime. (This is similar to the “concerns about the state of the world,” except that it doesn’t account for the specific circumstances that person would face: this perspective is that it’s always wrong.)
I’m going to address these in order of how much they bother me.
But first, some demographic grounding…
You might wonder why I would challenge any resistance to the idea of procreation, given how overpopulation has for decades been cited as one of the greatest problems facing the world. I first encountered this notion in junior high when “ZPG,” zero population growth, was treated like the most noble of human endeavors. At that time, the bestselling book The Population Bomb, by Paul Ehrlich, was still being talked about, years after its publication. In fact, Ehrlich’s influence continued such that his ideas showed up again in my college Environmental Studies course. But oddly enough, Ehrlich’s predictions have not been materially borne out.
I still encounter people who believe overpopulation is a major global problem. They haven’t gotten the memo: the world population will peak during this century and then decline. This isn’t some hunch or non-validated claim your blogger is spouting; it’s widely accepted by demographers, and explained in this report by the United Nations. (The timing of this downturn is somewhat debated; the direction is not. For example, the UN predicts a peak population of 10.3 billion in the 2080s; University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, publishing in The Lancet, project a peak of 9.7 billion as early as 2064.)
Why is this? It’s due to the dramatic drop in fertility rates globally. The term “fertility” in this context doesn’t mean our capability of reproducing (e.g., sperm count, other biological factors). It’s generally short for “total fertility rate” (TFR) and indicates the number of children a couple ends up having, based on all factors including their willingness to even try to conceive. The current TFR for the U.S. is 1.60 (i.e., on average each couple has 1.6 children). It’s widely considered that to maintain a country’s population requires a TFR of 2.1. (This is the accepted threshold because slightly more boys than girls are born, and not all children survive to reproductive age.) Worldwide, the TFR currently stands at 2.25, and it’s dropping fast, and has been for decades, since 1965—the same year the birth control pill came out, and the US Supreme Court struck down state laws banning contraception for married people. Check out this graph, from the excellent book Factfulness – Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World—and Why Things Are Better Than You Think by Hans Rosling et al:
So how come the world population isn’t declining yet, despite the low TFR? First of all, while one in four people already live in a country who population has peaked, this peak probably hasn’t been reached yet globally. (I say “probably” because there’s disagreement on this; some demographers believe it has.) The UN predicts the worldwide TFR won’t go below 2.1 until 2036, and even when it does, the population won’t decline right away, due to a concept that demographers call momentum. Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, describes it thus, in an interview you can read here:
Momentum means the population will keep growing for 15 to 30 years after you fall below the replacement rate. Let me give a simple example. Imagine you have a spouse and only one kid. You are below replacement rate, but you are two. You have two parents, your spouse has two parents. You are not replacing yourselves, but your parents have not died yet. The fact that you have one kid still increases the population. The problem is when your parents die, [you] have not replaced them.
In case you’re curious, the population of the US has been projected by our Census Bureau to peak around 2080, based on experts’ best guess at the immigration rate. Their low-immigration model forecasts a peak in 2043, and without any immigration, we’d have peaked already, in 2024. So what happened to Ehrlich’s predictions of doom? Interestingly enough, his ideas weren’t actually accepted among serious demographers even when The Population Bomb was published. He kind of duped us! In fact, his book came out three years after the average number of babies per woman had already peaked and begun its long decline. He was diagnosing a crisis at the precise moment the underlying trend was already moving us in the opposite direction.
All of this is to say, declining to procreate based on the specter of overpopulation is an outdated notion that would be all too easy to dismiss. But the population backdrop is useful to bear in mind as we examine the three rationale I mentioned for believing it’s wrong to bring a child into this world.
The environmental perspective
When people cite the burden of humanity on the planet as a reason not to have kids, I have to concede they have a point. Certainly we humans have taken more than our share of resources and caused massive damage to the planet, including the loss of countless species. It’s easy to see how not procreating would help, but I will challenge this position anyway. First, it’s easy enough for us to deride the environmental consequences of humankind, but aren’t we also enjoying our lives and the gifts that fossil fuels bestow? How convenient that we can take the high road regarding breeding, since we didn’t choose to be here. I notice very few are volunteering to leave.
The idea of not procreating does seem like the most effective way to lower carbon emissions. Sure, I can (and usually do) bike instead of drive, but I still have a carbon footprint. (In fact, most of my rides are for recreation, not transportation; I eat more because I ride hard; and I shower and launder my bike clothing after every ride.) The only way to shrink my carbon footprint to zero would be, of course, to off myself, but I’m not willing to do that. Making a pledge not to produce offspring to carry forward my planet-ruining ways is obviously much easier (at least for people who, unlike me, aren’t parents yet). My research produced a number of celebrities expounding this merits of this noble sacrifice. Perhaps the most outspoken was Miley Cyrus who told Elle magazine, “We’re getting handed a piece-of-shit planet, and I refuse to hand that down to my child.” She vows not to procreate “until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water.”
I think her sentiment is a good example of how this is more of a values-oriented idea than a true strategy, unless you’re willing to go all the way. There are certainly people who will, such as members of The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) (pronounced “vehement”) whose motto is “May we live long and die out.” VHEMT’s founder, Les Knight, told the New York Times, “We [humans] came to be and then ran amok. And because we’re smart enough, we should know enough to end it.” David Benatar, a prominent moral philosopher at the University of Cape Town, speaking about the extinction of the human race, declares, “It would be better, all things being equal, if this happened sooner rather than later.” I am guessing that most people who trot out the environmental rationale for non-child-rearing aren’t this extreme.
I’m struck that the endgame of voluntary human extinction is rather similar to what happens if we do nothing about climate change: either way, we humans end up extinct. The difference is how much collateral damage we cause along the way. But the idea that we as individuals should sacrifice having kids in the service of environmental welfare doesn’t, for me, entirely hold up because a) if this perspective gained popularity, eventually the only people procreating would be climate change deniers, who don’t tend to devote themselves to clean energy and other pro-environment efforts, and b) based on wider trends, the fertility rate is dropping so fast already that our human impact on the planet is going to decline radically in the coming decades anyway. To showcase how radically, let’s look at some numbers, from this essay by Derek Thompson, a longtime writer for The Atlantic, in which he interviews Fernández-Villaverde, the economist at Penn I quoted earlier. Fernández-Villaverde explains:
Let’s suppose Thailand keeps its current fertility rate of 0.8 for 200 years. Thailand right now has 63 million people. At the end of 200 years, it will be around two million people [italics mine]. How do you wind down a society of 63 million people into two million? … It means you need to close 98% of the hospitals of the country. It means you need to close 98% of the schools of the country.
Just think of the diminishment of infrastructure worldwide. Fewer buildings, fewer cars, fewer drivers, fewer everything. We’re already seeing this in the US. My own kids’ schools in Albany, California used to strictly police their locals-only admission policy, but now accepts students from neighboring communities when space allows, due to declining enrollment. Similarly, Fernández-Villaverde mentions how his school district in Philadelphia is “closing a lot of primary schools because there are no kids.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a climate change denier or apologist, but it looks like a number of factors are lining up to give a bit of relief here. The International Energy Agency, the Paris-based intergovernmental energy agency of the world’s major developed economies, asserts in its World Energy Outlook 2024 report that CO2 emissions in advanced economies fell by 1.1% to 10.9 billion tons in 2024—a level last seen 50 years ago, even though the cumulative GDP of these countries is now three times as large. Granted, China’s per-capita emissions are rising sharply as its economy grows, but the IEA report forecasts that it too will decline in the second half of the century—and meanwhile, China’s fertility rate is just 1.0, so their population will crash almost as dramatically as Thailand’s.
To reiterate, fertility rates are dropping very quickly, worldwide, which will have a dramatic effect on the global population. This is a giant boulder gaining speed. To abstain from having kids—just to give that boulder a little extra push—strikes me more as a nice gesture than a moral imperative. And if we really care about climate change, might we not consider that some of our offspring may help try do something to solve the problem? Giving them the opportunity seems like a small risk, when our prospective kids’ effect on the rapidly declining world population looks like a rounding error.
The ethical perspective
Aside from the pragmatic idea of defending the planet from human onslaught, there is a philosophical, ethical movement called antinatalism that objects to procreation in principle. In a nutshell, it holds that just being alive entails suffering, and thus by bringing a person into the world, we are causing that person to suffer without their consent. It’s as though antinatalists heard teenagers complaining, “I didn’t ask to be born” and took it too much to heart. But actually, this idea isn’t new. Around 400 BC, Sophocles wrote, “Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best; but when a man has seen the light of day, this is next best by far, that with utmost speed he should go back from where he came.” (I confess it’s hard for me to take this seriously; I’m envisioning a horrified human scrambling frantically to try to crawl back into his mother’s womb.)
In 1851, Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:
One should try to imagine that the act of procreation were neither a need, nor accompanied by sexual pleasure, but instead a matter of pure, rational reflection, could the human race even continue to exist? Would not everyone, on the contrary, have so much compassion for the coming generation that he would rather spare it the burden of existence, or at least refuse to take it upon himself to cold-bloodedly impose it on them?
I guess Schopenhauer would be surprised not only that humans do now have the choice, but that so far a majority of us have continued to procreate. Maybe we’re all enjoying our lives more than he did.
Among modern thinkers there doesn’t seem to be a deep bench of full-time philosophers espousing antinatalism; perhaps their most prominent figure is Benatar, the guy I quoted earlier saying “the sooner we go extinct the better.” He wrote a book twenty years ago called Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, which might be the closest the modern movement has to a bible. The centerpiece of his antinatalism is known as “Benatar’s Asymmetry,” which (as described by Wikipedia) goes like this:
1. The presence of pain is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure is good. However:
3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there exists someone for whom this absence is a deprivation.
Thus, bringing a person into existence generates both good and bad experiences, such as pain and pleasure, whereas not coming into existence entails neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, while the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
I have two fundamental problems with this logic. First, it assumes that pleasure and pain are like measurable building blocks of experience. They are absolutely not. Some people get more pleasure in life than others; some get more pain. But who could possibly calculate, on the whole, whether any particular person minds the disparity of his or her circumstance so much as to regret being alive? As operands in Benatar’s handy little grid, “pleasure” and “pain” work fine; in real life, they’re so messy as to be useless in any kind of experiential calculus.
My second issue with this Benatar’s Asymmetry is that it presupposes that all pain and suffering are in fact a net negative, whereas overcoming suffering can produce great satisfaction. Consider Eminem’s character in 8 Mile: most of the movie showcases his struggle, disappointment, and humiliation, until (don’t worry, no real spoilers here) it all comes right in the end. (If you haven’t seen that movie, go watch it right now and come back.) The triumph in the end is glorious. And now let’s consider Eminem’s actual life: he had a thoroughly miserable childhood, with a drug-addicted mother who suffered Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, meaning she literally poisoned her child because she derived pleasure from the ministrations of medical staff. Imagine his satisfaction at not only surviving that, but going on to achieve worldwide stardom and excellence as a musical artist. Overcoming odds can be intensely gratifying. Listen to the triumph in Eminem’s voice in “Halie’s Song,” about the joy he gets from being a father: “ ‘Cause my baby knows that her daddy’s a soldier/ Nothin’ can take her from me.”
Perhaps the opportunity to gain strength and satisfaction from suffering can start to explain why people actually choose to endure pain—think of athletes. I myself have inflicted suffering on myself countless times (click here, or here, or here), just for the thrill of it. Naturally, there’s a difference between the suffering we willingly undertake and that which is thrust upon us, but I have experience there too, like when I broke my femur in a bike crash. Obviously if I could have chosen not to endure that, I’d gladly have passed—and yet, it did happen, and I did continue with the sport. It never occurred to me to quit. Why? Because on balance the pain is worth the pleasure. I’d just as soon decide where I fall on that pleasure/pain axis, vs. my parents having concluded on my behalf, ahead of time, that my life just wouldn’t be worth the suffering.
Another central argument Benatar makes is what he calls the “misanthropic argument,” which Wikipedia describes thus:
According to this argument, humans are a deeply flawed and destructive species that is responsible for the suffering and deaths of billions of other humans and non-human animals. If that level of destruction were caused by another species we would rapidly recommend that new members of that species not be brought into existence.
This one is just empirically false: I can easily name a species that causes the deaths of billions of animals: housecats. The peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications estimates that “domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually.” Are we really going to call for the voluntary extinction of the domestic cat? Look, Benatar: the world is a harsh place. Get over it.
Finally, a widespread tenet of the antenatal movement, as documented here and here, is that by having a child, we are exposing that person to pain and suffering without his or her consent. The popular antinatalist YouTuber Lawrence Anton explains, “So, you’re creating someone and they’re going to go through all this suffering, whatever it is in their life, and you’re not even able to ask them if they want to take those odds.” Well, what would that consent even look like? Don’t teenagers breezily blow past every privacy warning and end user agreement they ever see on social media, because they don’t have the fully formed neocortex required for the consideration of consequences? How much reasoning power does a zygote have?
Kidding aside, do these antinatalists really believe that we humans who have gotten the chance to exist are in a position to provide consent for our own future suffering? What if God came to me in a vision and said, “Dana, as a fallen Unitarian you are scheduled to have crippling back pain in your ‘70s. Would you prefer to be struck by lightning at 69?” I wouldn’t be able to decide. And what about the elder population a generation or two from now, whose safety net would be demolished if antinatalists got their way and there was no younger generation to pay into Social Security? Are we planning to get their consent? How come suffering is only to be avoided when it’s hypothetical instead of assured?
To be continued…
I advised earlier that I would consider each of these three “is it wrong” rationale in order of how much they vex me. As this post has gone on long enough, I shall save the “best” for last. Tune in next week when I’ll tackle the reason that 38% of the adults between 18 to 49 gave, in the Pew survey, for not having children: “Concerns about the state of the world.” I’ll also go into the number one reason those surveyed gave for not having kids, and why I’m actually fine with it.
—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here.
For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.