Previously, it was the Catholic Church that controlled discussions about reproduction, but of late, such discussions have had a peculiar shift to anti-immigration zealots and erratic multibillionaires. Elon Musk, a father to nine kids, recently shared his opinion about declining birthrates predicting an end to human civilization if this trend carries on. This issue highlights the ongoing preoccupation of some alt-right groups with the perceived underpopulation in wealthy nations.
They are quick to point fingers at feminism as the culprit and also condemn “Birthstrikers”, women who consciously opt not to have children due to environmental concerns. Some conservative political leaders like Viktor Orbán from Hungary, are implementing financial incentives to encourage population growth. After four decades since Monty Python’s song, Every Sperm Is Sacred was released, nationalist politicians appeal to patriotism, arguing that not having children is wasteful.
However, having a child out of obligation to your country is arguably a flawed reason to procreate. But then, what constitutes a valid reason? This is the primary question of Mara van der Lugt in her new book, Begetting. Van der Lugt is a philosopher who doesn’t shy away from following a line of thought, no matter how uncomfortable it makes one feel.
She challenges us to consider five philosophical inquiries before deciding to procreate, one poignant question being why one would willingly bring more suffering into the world. Some philosophers, known as anti-natalists, are of the view that procreation is fundamentally unethical because it creates sentient beings who’ll inevitably experience suffering . A vocal supporter of this idea, David Benatar, believes avoiding harm is more crucial than granting benefits– implying the joy a child might experience cannot negate the suffering they will undergo.
A majority of people reject this point of view, arguing that it’s challenging to prove Benatar wrong. Accepting that it is ethical to contribute to global harm could assist in finding value in human suffering. Conversely, why shouldn’t I argue it’s morally acceptable to inflict pain upon others if I believe it’s what’s for their good? Arguments continue to roll, including questioning the uniqueness of one’s genes.
Van der Lugt suggests that the concept of passing on your genes as a means of transcending death or leaving a “legacy” is somewhat shallow, likening it to someone boasting about their many sperm donations. She underscores the fact that there are multiple paths to creating a lasting legacy and warns against prioritising the continuation of one’s genes over caring for existing individuals, who could fundamentally benefit from our love and attention, either through parenting or various other ways.
But is it right to bring a child into the world without their consent?
Attempting to comprehend the idea of a baby giving consent to its own birth may come across as absurd, yet it forces parents to comprehend the full scope of their duties. One way of counterbalancing the inherent lack of consent is by incorporating the future child’s viewpoint into parental pledges, as is seen in formal ceremonies in The Netherlands, wherein the couple assures things such as prioritising their offspring’s welfare in decisions that would affect them. Van der Lugt supports these pledges conveying the notion that “children deserve the best of what their parents can provide, rather than the parents simply having a right to a child.”
Should the idea of denying your parents the joy of becoming grandparents trouble you?
The aspiration to witness one’s parents embracing their roles as grandparents resonates with many, and the inability to make this a reality can elicit unique anguish, as stated by Van der Lugt. However, she dispels any associated guilt, contending that a lot of our thoughts are poisoned by negative language. Referring to someone as being “deprived” of something implies that they’re inherently supposed to possess it. “We need to discard this concept of entitlement to either children or grandchildren in thought and speech.”
Are you hopeful about the future?
Consider the query of deciding to procreate: this decision should be based on whether you’re the sort of individual who can handle the responsibility. Erich Fromm, the psychoanalyst, suggested that parents need to teach their kids a zest for life, reinforcing the idea that being alive, being a child, and being on this planet is something to be cherished. However, what if your disposition leans towards the negative, like van der Lugt, who was previously interviewed for his appreciation of a “half-empty glass” perspective? Should a gloomy – or starkly truthful – viewpoint exclude you from the parenting sphere?
Van der Lugt contradicts this, maintaining that being a pessimist could potentially be beneficial as a parent. After all, it’s often the pessimist who steers clear of baseless or hasty assumptions, thus, presumably, they’re more equipped to handle whatever the future may bring.
In the end, when deciding whether to bring a child into the world, she posits: “Each of us… must endeavour to answer this question within the context of our own lives – in a manner that omits judgement or narrow-mindedness.”