The ethics of having children in a Post-peak world

[Lord Beria3]

I have been thinking recently about the ethics of having children when everything I read, analyse and understand brings me to the conclusion that it is likely that within a generation our world, including the UK, will be facing a massive Malthusian nightmare of feeding our current population.

Indeed, the possibility of outright starvation in Europe is possible (within twenty years if a recent analysis which I posted suggests) and up to 200 million Europeans could die.

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=18585

With this in mind, and factoring in the possibility that I and others are wrong, is it ethical to have children?

This is something I cannot decide myself. It seems foolish in the extreme to have children knowing that by the time they reach adulthood our civilisation will be in extreme crisis (most probably) and possibily on the brink of total societal collapse with all the horrors that can bring.

Historically Britain has had repeated famines throughout its history and if we are going back into that long era than having no more than one child may be the most sensible thing going forward.

I realise that this is quite a emotional subject for some, but I do think that a honest, rational and open debate is needed.

[DominicJ]

Not sure where ethics comes into it.
Evolution got us this far.

[RGR]

[quote="Lord Beria3"]

[eatyourveg]

Not sure where ethics comes into it.
Evolution got us this far.

To the edge of the cliff you mean?

Back on topic, LB3, should you meet a floozie who wants sprogs, she is going to have them. Your say in it won't mean much beyond your continued/discontinued presence. Such is the biological urge. It is irrational and overpowering.

[PS_RalphW]

I adopted 2 sprogs.

Wife and I like to say it is because we agreed that there were already too many sprogs in the world to add more of our own, and adopted sprogs generally grow up to have fewer sprogs of their own, than the same demographic left to run feral.

The truth is, we were past sprogging age. The sprogs' original parents have continued their feral lifestyle and now there are at least 2 half siblings. We expect at least one to end up 'in care'.

[PS_RalphW]

With this in mind, and factoring in the possibility that I and others are wrong, is it ethical to have children?

Do you have any?

LB3's tagline gives a hint

[Ludwig]

With this in mind, and factoring in the possibility that I and others are wrong, is it ethical to have children?

Do you have any?

LB3's tagline gives a hint

Coalthief is old enough to post meaningful things on PS, and LB has mentioned that he is in his 20s. So I think your assumption is wrong. I think LB is Coalthief's son - though when asked, LB declined to clarify the matter.

[Ludwig]

With this in mind, and factoring in the possibility that I and others are wrong, is it ethical to have children?

Dunno about ethical, it's certainly stupid.

"Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself."

True more than ever in the current circumstances.

I often feel, in a quite literal sense, that my great gift to my children is their non-existence. I feel great reassurance in knowing that they are safe.

[Kentucky Fried Panda]

What you do is knock up some other bloke's wife, especially a wealthy couple.
My kids have all had fantastic lives without me

[UndercoverElephant]

With this in mind, and factoring in the possibility that I and others are wrong, is it ethical to have children?

No.

[Lord Beria3]

Just to clarify, Coalthief is not my son (!!), its a ironic joke that started from coalthief calling my daddy...

I don't have children at the moment.

[PS_RalphW]

Just had a battle royal getting younger sprog to sleep. Wife wound down by having an hour long chat on the phone. Whilst ignoring the sprog's yells. I'm trying to wind down but the Cambridge May Ball fireworks are sending me nuts!

Gin. Works every time. (if you give it to the sprog...)

[GlynG]

I like ethical debates; I actually studied a masters in Ethics and Social Philosophy (though never finished the final dissertation on the ethical responses to climate change due to a combination of bereavement and getting depressed by the implications of climate change research). Whatever your opinion on having children or not in the world we’re in, it is absolutely an ethical dilemma and I would go for no children being the ethical choice; if you understand the problems. If you already have children then obviously do the best for them but personally I’ve toyed with having the operation done to ensure I can’t have children.

For me the peak oil and probable mass starvation of most of the worlds current population is actually a side-show however and wouldn’t on its own stop me from having a child (or at most two). It’s what happens to the many hundreds of nuclear reactors and storage pools when grids go down for extended periods that is the real problem. Those things are vastly over-filled (based on what they were originally designed to hold) and quick to release nuclear radiation across the globe if they’re not constantly actively cooled. Methods to store them for the millions of years needed are not going to developed in time and the temporary measures will start failing not long after industrial civilisation. We’ve seen the massive problems a modern high-tech nation is facing due to a single nuclear accident (around 20% of Japan is already so radioactive it’s unsafe to live in) which is likely to continue getting worse for many years/decades/centuries to come. Imagine that times the 500 or more reactors worldwide. That's even without going into deliberate nuclear or bacteriological warfare, which could make life painful and short.

[UndercoverElephant]

I like ethical debates; I actually studied a masters in Ethics and Social Philosophy (though never finished the final dissertation on the ethical responses to climate change due to a combination of bereavement and getting depressed by the implications of climate change research). Whatever your opinion on having children or not in the world we’re in, it is absolutely an ethical dilemma and I would go for no children being the ethical choice; if you understand the problems.

Absolutely. If you understand the problems and take your own ethical behaviour seriously, they don't get bigger than this one.

I also share your views on nuclear power, although I wouldn't call 5 billion people dying a "sideshow."

[postie]

To answer the question directly, and not take the easy route of taking the piss???

Well.... in a post peak world, IMHO .. it makes sense to have as many kids as the thing you have sharing your bed can pop out. In as short a period as possible. 14 or 15 would be ideal.

If 2/3rds of them died, before 16, of currently preventable illnesses, you'd still have about 4 that could help provide for you in your old age* (old age being a lot less than what you expect now)

While they're growing up.. and before they actually die of an illness currently preventable.. you can get them doing useful stuff, like weeding, firewood gathering.. and other tasks that free you up to do more useful stuff to provide.

So, in short, yeah. Breed. It's the social security of the future. Just get lots of little boxes ready to bury your mumps or measles ridden offspring in...