The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
On Procreation
_J_
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Recently, my lady friend and I talked about having children. She expressed an emotive inclination towards children, and I expressed emotive ambivalence and indecision. To work out my thoughts, I produced a version of what follows. I'm curious about what others think about the larger issues of Procreation, and attempts to justifying it.
Premise 1: The desire to do X, or the desire to not do X, alone, are not adequate justifications for doing or not doing X. A serial killer's desire to kill, and a child's opposition to green beans, are not adequate justifications for either killing people or not consuming vegetables. Rational human beings assess other factors than emotional dispositions when discerning whether or not a particular act is right, good, proper, virtuous, moral, ethical, beneficial, or to be done.
Given that procreation is an act that has many significant consequences, and that emotive inclination is not an adequate justification for action, one needs to assess numerous questions regarding the act prior to pursuing or avoiding it.
Question 1: For whose sake is the child being spawned?
Question 2: Is existence better than, or more preferable than, non-existence?
Question 3: Is the existence of humanity inherently good or preferable, such that its continuation is necessary?
Question 4: Is procreation / parenting actually beneficial and enjoyable, for the parents?
My Conclusion
Those are the four questions that I think most important to the decision of whether one ought to procreate. I'm curious about what others think. Do any of the questions seem needless? Are there other important relevant questions? How did you decide to procreate, or not procreate?
Premise 1: The desire to do X, or the desire to not do X, alone, are not adequate justifications for doing or not doing X. A serial killer's desire to kill, and a child's opposition to green beans, are not adequate justifications for either killing people or not consuming vegetables. Rational human beings assess other factors than emotional dispositions when discerning whether or not a particular act is right, good, proper, virtuous, moral, ethical, beneficial, or to be done.
Given that procreation is an act that has many significant consequences, and that emotive inclination is not an adequate justification for action, one needs to assess numerous questions regarding the act prior to pursuing or avoiding it.
Question 1: For whose sake is the child being spawned?
1: The child.
2: Someone other than the child.
If 1: We must discern which of these two situations is the case:
1A: The child exists in a non-born, non-biologically-concepted state.
1B: The child does not exist in a non-born, non-biologically-concepted state.
If 1A: We must discern the nature of this non-born, non-biologically-concepted existence with respect to the non-born entity's preferences. If the entity prefers to be born, then it seems sensible to consider that preference of the non-born entity and spawn it, unless there are compelling reasons to act against its preference. If it prefers to not be born, then it seems sensible to act in accord with that preference, and so abstain from spawning it, unless there are compelling reasons to act against its preference.
If 1B: If the spawning is to occur for the sake of the child, and the child does not exist in a non-born, non-biologically concepted state, then that non-existent entity would lack preferences. In this case, we can only be acting for the sake of that child in a hypothetical imagined sense. We cannot properly say, in this case, that the child is spawned for its own sake. Rather, we must maintain that the child is born for another's sake, and hope that the child does not mind this once it is born.
If 2: This seems to treat the child as an object. When an individual creates a child for the sake of appeasing their own desires, or for the sake of acting in accord with some reasoned justification for procreation, this act privileges the individual's desires, or the sequences of reasoned justifications, over the child's own preferences. One treats the child as a means to someone else's end.
Generally, if Player A were to treat an entity as an object without due consideration for the preferences of that entity, then we would consider Player A to be acting inappropriately. The question is how one can spawn a child for the sake of someone other than the child, and insodoing not be engaged in an act of domination against the child that treats the child as merely a means to some end.
After considering Question 1, there seem to be two general conclusions.
1C1: Non-born, non-conceived entities exist that prefer to be born. Birthing these entities recognizes and actualizes their desires.
1C2: Non-born, non-conceived entities do not exist, or have preferences. Birthing these entities is an act that forces the entity into an existence for which it had no desire, for the sake of appeasing either the desires of another, or some other end. This reduces the entity to a means for some other's end.
1C1 seems silly. 1C2 seems problematic.
2: Someone other than the child.
If 1: We must discern which of these two situations is the case:
1A: The child exists in a non-born, non-biologically-concepted state.
1B: The child does not exist in a non-born, non-biologically-concepted state.
If 1A: We must discern the nature of this non-born, non-biologically-concepted existence with respect to the non-born entity's preferences. If the entity prefers to be born, then it seems sensible to consider that preference of the non-born entity and spawn it, unless there are compelling reasons to act against its preference. If it prefers to not be born, then it seems sensible to act in accord with that preference, and so abstain from spawning it, unless there are compelling reasons to act against its preference.
If 1B: If the spawning is to occur for the sake of the child, and the child does not exist in a non-born, non-biologically concepted state, then that non-existent entity would lack preferences. In this case, we can only be acting for the sake of that child in a hypothetical imagined sense. We cannot properly say, in this case, that the child is spawned for its own sake. Rather, we must maintain that the child is born for another's sake, and hope that the child does not mind this once it is born.
If 2: This seems to treat the child as an object. When an individual creates a child for the sake of appeasing their own desires, or for the sake of acting in accord with some reasoned justification for procreation, this act privileges the individual's desires, or the sequences of reasoned justifications, over the child's own preferences. One treats the child as a means to someone else's end.
Generally, if Player A were to treat an entity as an object without due consideration for the preferences of that entity, then we would consider Player A to be acting inappropriately. The question is how one can spawn a child for the sake of someone other than the child, and insodoing not be engaged in an act of domination against the child that treats the child as merely a means to some end.
After considering Question 1, there seem to be two general conclusions.
1C1: Non-born, non-conceived entities exist that prefer to be born. Birthing these entities recognizes and actualizes their desires.
1C2: Non-born, non-conceived entities do not exist, or have preferences. Birthing these entities is an act that forces the entity into an existence for which it had no desire, for the sake of appeasing either the desires of another, or some other end. This reduces the entity to a means for some other's end.
1C1 seems silly. 1C2 seems problematic.
Question 2: Is existence better than, or more preferable than, non-existence?
If existence is better than non-existence, then the question of whether the non-born entity prefers existence irrelevant. The entity either prefers the intrinsically preferable existence or the entity's preference for non-existence is mistaken. Again, there are two possible answers:
2A: Existence is not inherently better. So, we're stuck at the conclusions from Question 1.
2B: Existence is inherently better, and we now must explain situations such as suicide and self-sacrifice, as these seem to offer stark conflicts with our conclusion.
Suicide: Suicide seems to indicate that there are situations in which non-existence is preferable to existence, and so reduces the inherent preferentiality of existence to a particular "some" claim, rather than a universal "all" claim. Some existences are preferable to non-existence, while other existences are less-preferable than non-existence.
Self-Sacrifice: Numerous individuals sacrifice their own life for the sake of some notion of a greater good. Yet if existence is inherently better than non-existence, what sense would there be in praising an act that removes an individual's existence? As with suicide, praiseworthy acts of self-sacrifice indicate times when non-existence is preferable to existence.
Given the two examples of suicide and self-sacrifice, the claim that existence is inherently better than non-existence is shown to be fallacious. Instead, it is the case that some existences are preferable to non-existence. With respect to procreation, we must ask whether the transition from non-existence to existence is, overall, preferable. While there are enjoyable aspects of existence, there are also painful, miserable, terrible aspects of existence.
In my estimation, subjecting a particular entity to a state of suffering is problematic, insofar as suffering is problematic. Since the majority of lives involve suffering, the majority of births are acts that subject a previously non-suffering entity to suffering.
One might respond that there is a tolerable level of suffering, and that a life that is 60% pleasurable may be preferable to non-existence. This is fine, but we must then ask a version of Question 1: Does the child to be born prefer a 60% pleasurable life? If so, how do we know this? If not, then it seems problematic to force the child into an existence it does not desire. We could state that the preferences of unborn-entity-B are irrelevant, but then we're back at Question 1.
2A: Existence is not inherently better. So, we're stuck at the conclusions from Question 1.
2B: Existence is inherently better, and we now must explain situations such as suicide and self-sacrifice, as these seem to offer stark conflicts with our conclusion.
Suicide: Suicide seems to indicate that there are situations in which non-existence is preferable to existence, and so reduces the inherent preferentiality of existence to a particular "some" claim, rather than a universal "all" claim. Some existences are preferable to non-existence, while other existences are less-preferable than non-existence.
Self-Sacrifice: Numerous individuals sacrifice their own life for the sake of some notion of a greater good. Yet if existence is inherently better than non-existence, what sense would there be in praising an act that removes an individual's existence? As with suicide, praiseworthy acts of self-sacrifice indicate times when non-existence is preferable to existence.
Given the two examples of suicide and self-sacrifice, the claim that existence is inherently better than non-existence is shown to be fallacious. Instead, it is the case that some existences are preferable to non-existence. With respect to procreation, we must ask whether the transition from non-existence to existence is, overall, preferable. While there are enjoyable aspects of existence, there are also painful, miserable, terrible aspects of existence.
In my estimation, subjecting a particular entity to a state of suffering is problematic, insofar as suffering is problematic. Since the majority of lives involve suffering, the majority of births are acts that subject a previously non-suffering entity to suffering.
One might respond that there is a tolerable level of suffering, and that a life that is 60% pleasurable may be preferable to non-existence. This is fine, but we must then ask a version of Question 1: Does the child to be born prefer a 60% pleasurable life? If so, how do we know this? If not, then it seems problematic to force the child into an existence it does not desire. We could state that the preferences of unborn-entity-B are irrelevant, but then we're back at Question 1.
Question 3: Is the existence of humanity inherently good or preferable, such that its continuation is necessary?
3A: Humanity's existence is inherently good / preferable, and so continuing said existence is inherently good / preferable.
3B: Humanity's existence is not inherently good / preferable, and so continuing said existence is not inherently good / preferable.
3C: Humanity's existence is neither good nor bad, preferable nor non-preferable.
To 3A: If humanity's existence is inherently good, then spawning a child for the sake of maintaining the existence of humanity can be considered to be inherently good as well. The qualifier is that the spawned child needs to foster the existence of humanity, rather than damage it.
To 3B: If humanity's existence is not inherently good / preferable, then its continued existence is not inherently good or preferable. Any particular individual can be considered to be naught but a perpetuation of the problem of humanity, a component of our collective blight on existence. In this case procreation would not be permissible.
To 3C: If we maintain that humanity is not inherent good or preferable then the question is meaningless.
3B: Humanity's existence is not inherently good / preferable, and so continuing said existence is not inherently good / preferable.
3C: Humanity's existence is neither good nor bad, preferable nor non-preferable.
To 3A: If humanity's existence is inherently good, then spawning a child for the sake of maintaining the existence of humanity can be considered to be inherently good as well. The qualifier is that the spawned child needs to foster the existence of humanity, rather than damage it.
To 3B: If humanity's existence is not inherently good / preferable, then its continued existence is not inherently good or preferable. Any particular individual can be considered to be naught but a perpetuation of the problem of humanity, a component of our collective blight on existence. In this case procreation would not be permissible.
To 3C: If we maintain that humanity is not inherent good or preferable then the question is meaningless.
Question 4: Is procreation / parenting actually beneficial and enjoyable, for the parents?
Suppose we ignore our answers to the previous three questions, and adopt the mentality that procreation for the sake of appeasing an individual's emotive desire is inherently justifiable, itself. In this case, we need to ask whether having children actually manifests the intended pleasure or sense of emotional fulfillment the individual seeks. Human beings are notoriously inept at discerning what will actually make them happy, and so it seems reasonable to ask if parenting is an act that, generally, increases the overall happiness of the parent.
A quick googling supplies many empirical studies that indicate parents may be lying to themselves about the actual joy they experience in parenting. For example, this article indicates that when parents are presented with the economic facts of child-raising, they embellish the emotional gratification of parenting as a means of justifying their decision. Were children inherently emotionally gratifying, the two groups in the study would have reported the same quantity of emotional gratification from parenting.
Another article indicates that adults with children experience more stress and depression than childless adults. Given the economic impact of children, and the increased obligations children place upon adults, the results of the study seem reasonable. The question is whether that increased stress and depression is ultimately worth it, given the benefits one might experience from parenting. However, those perceived benefits need to be assessed in light of the previous article, which indicates that parents tend to embellish their emotional pleasure in order to mentally justify their having children when confronted with the detrimental aspects of parenting.
This last article assesses the economic cost of children with an appeal towards the greater societal impact of children with respect to the continuation of the species. While this is a way of undermining the impact of the cost to a particular family by appealing to the notion of a greater social good, it places us back in the conversations of Question 3.
Given this data, it seems reasonable to conclude that parenting manifests both pleasant and unpleasant situations. The question is one of the ratio of pleasure to pain, the economic consequences, the impacts upon the parent's health, etc. It also seems reasonable to assess all of this with respect towards person's general inability to know what will actually make them happy, and so seek out ways to test one's emotive disposition towards parenting prior to spawning the child. One's imagined pleasures or imagined pains may differ from the actual pleasures and actual pains one experiences while parenting.
A quick googling supplies many empirical studies that indicate parents may be lying to themselves about the actual joy they experience in parenting. For example, this article indicates that when parents are presented with the economic facts of child-raising, they embellish the emotional gratification of parenting as a means of justifying their decision. Were children inherently emotionally gratifying, the two groups in the study would have reported the same quantity of emotional gratification from parenting.
Another article indicates that adults with children experience more stress and depression than childless adults. Given the economic impact of children, and the increased obligations children place upon adults, the results of the study seem reasonable. The question is whether that increased stress and depression is ultimately worth it, given the benefits one might experience from parenting. However, those perceived benefits need to be assessed in light of the previous article, which indicates that parents tend to embellish their emotional pleasure in order to mentally justify their having children when confronted with the detrimental aspects of parenting.
This last article assesses the economic cost of children with an appeal towards the greater societal impact of children with respect to the continuation of the species. While this is a way of undermining the impact of the cost to a particular family by appealing to the notion of a greater social good, it places us back in the conversations of Question 3.
Given this data, it seems reasonable to conclude that parenting manifests both pleasant and unpleasant situations. The question is one of the ratio of pleasure to pain, the economic consequences, the impacts upon the parent's health, etc. It also seems reasonable to assess all of this with respect towards person's general inability to know what will actually make them happy, and so seek out ways to test one's emotive disposition towards parenting prior to spawning the child. One's imagined pleasures or imagined pains may differ from the actual pleasures and actual pains one experiences while parenting.
My Conclusion
Once we dismiss one's emotive disposition, I think the most important question is the one with which I started: For whose sake is the child being spawned?
A person who desires to be a parent is generally obligated to be a parent for 18 years. The child spawned for the sake of appeasing that desire is burdened with its existence for, on average, about 80 years. Given that the child is responsible for itself for a far greater amount of time than the parent, it seems sensible to weigh the child's preferences as more significant than the parent's, with respect to its own existence. It seems quite unfair to burden a child with 62 years of personal responsibility in order to appease one's own desires for 18 years of parenting.
I think the question of suffering, and exposing one's offspring to suffering, is also relevant. It's the notion found in this Penny Arcade strip:
Parents seem to wish the best for their offspring. They desire to protect it and shield it from pain and suffering. Yet as the third panel indicates, growing up, itself, involves pain and suffering. One may strive to minimize the suffering, but it still occurs.
It would seem that the only way to ensure that one's child does not suffer is to refrain from exposing it to situations of pain and suffering. If one never has the child, then one never exposes the child to any suffering, at all. So, it would seem to be the case that if one seeks the least possible suffering for said child, then one would refrain from spawning the child. A non-existent child suffers less than an existent child.
That being said, a non-existent child also never experiences any pleasure. One could argue that refraining from procreation is an act that denies a particular non-existent child access to the pleasures of life. While true, I think this places us back in the question of what the child wants, Question 1, with respect to a desirable pain / pleasure ratio, and whether existence, itself, is preferable to non-existence, Question 2.
A person who desires to be a parent is generally obligated to be a parent for 18 years. The child spawned for the sake of appeasing that desire is burdened with its existence for, on average, about 80 years. Given that the child is responsible for itself for a far greater amount of time than the parent, it seems sensible to weigh the child's preferences as more significant than the parent's, with respect to its own existence. It seems quite unfair to burden a child with 62 years of personal responsibility in order to appease one's own desires for 18 years of parenting.
I think the question of suffering, and exposing one's offspring to suffering, is also relevant. It's the notion found in this Penny Arcade strip:
Parents seem to wish the best for their offspring. They desire to protect it and shield it from pain and suffering. Yet as the third panel indicates, growing up, itself, involves pain and suffering. One may strive to minimize the suffering, but it still occurs.
It would seem that the only way to ensure that one's child does not suffer is to refrain from exposing it to situations of pain and suffering. If one never has the child, then one never exposes the child to any suffering, at all. So, it would seem to be the case that if one seeks the least possible suffering for said child, then one would refrain from spawning the child. A non-existent child suffers less than an existent child.
That being said, a non-existent child also never experiences any pleasure. One could argue that refraining from procreation is an act that denies a particular non-existent child access to the pleasures of life. While true, I think this places us back in the question of what the child wants, Question 1, with respect to a desirable pain / pleasure ratio, and whether existence, itself, is preferable to non-existence, Question 2.
Those are the four questions that I think most important to the decision of whether one ought to procreate. I'm curious about what others think. Do any of the questions seem needless? Are there other important relevant questions? How did you decide to procreate, or not procreate?
_J_ on
0
Posts
Procreation is always a selfish act, for some definition of 'self'. On the part of the parent, or the parent's culture, or the parent's species. The child is entirely neutral to the act, being as it doesn't exist. But there's also nothing inherently wrong with selfish acts.
I'd say that the more important question to replace 1 with is whether the child is being born out of an internal desire of the parent(s) or out of the parent(s)' sense of obligation to another party. Do you want kids because you want kids, or because your parents' want grandkids? Or because your society says that good people reproduce?
Presumes that the decision to commit suicide or sacrifice oneself is rational and correct.
Cherry picking.
This isn't really a rational examination of the decision making process so much as an avoidance mechanism because having kids is fucking scary.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If the entity is ambivalent, then I think we could move to questions 2 and 3.
In addition to the internal desire of parents / felt obligation of parents notion it might also make sense to present a question of: Do the parents want to have a child, be parents, or both? Since it seems like in contemporary society we have many individuals who want children, but don't seem to want to be parents, given the degree to which they unload those parental duties onto others: Daycare, babysitters, nannies, etc.
Would you agree that there are some factors, in addition to emotional disposition, that are relevant?
Say a cocaine addict really wants to be a parent, and their offspring is likely to be born addicted to cocaine. Or someone with a genetic disease who is likely to pass the disease on to its offspring. Or suppose a homeless / impoverished person who could not support the child on its own, and so would rely upon government assistance, or allow the child to starve. Or an individual in an impoverished nation whose offspring would be subject to poverty, starvation, etc.
I think those non-emotive considerations are significant and relevant to the decision making process.
Ultimately, it was because at some point we made the decision that this was a unique life experience that we wanted to share together.
It wasn't necessary for the survival of the human race. It is almost certainly a net-drain on our finances. No pro-con lists were done. No cost-benefit analyses.
It's either something you want to do or you don't.
Obviously it would be irresponsible to have kids without the means/support system in place to ensure that they have a stable and healthy upbringing, but the bar for this is a lot lower than most people imagine.
I don't go around telling people they should have kids, nor do I look down my nose at those who don't. But for me anyways, it's been an amazing, challenging and rewarding life experience, second only to developing and growing in a lasting relationship with the woman I love.
I think I would agree that the emotive aspect is necessary but not sufficient. I'm wondering what other factors are necessary, and what, if anything, counts as the sufficient condition for justifying the act of procreation.
Agreed that this is the most important question. You can question the rationale behind feeling one way or the other all you want, but first make sure that it's how you yourself are feeling. No one wants to be the kid of a parent who didn't really want them in the first place.
The only certainties we have is that we aren't doing it for at least five more years and even then not until we can afford to ensure it wouldn't have the same poverty stricken rearing that we did.
Yeah, I'm not sure what to do with this.
I will agree that making another human being is a unique life experience, and raising that created human being, or adopted human being, is also a unique kind of responsibility.
What troubles me is the degree to which some persons take that uniqueness to indicate an inability to rationally critique the consequences, costs / benefits, etc. of procreation. That given the uniqueness of procreation, the emotive inclination, itself, is adequate justification.
It seems that the emotive inclination is significant. As SKFM said, it's a necessary condition. But there are plenty of other factors that merit consideration. I may be incorrect in the questions I suggested, but it seems that economic considerations, the ability to be an adequate parent, the sort of life the child will have, the sort of world into which the child is being born, etc. all play a role in the decision.
Yeah, the hypothetical nature of the conversation is also troubling. If X, Y, and Z occur then having a kid is the desireable reaction. But we're not in a position to discern whether or not X, Y, and Z will ever occur at the same time.
So it's a purely emotive conversation, beholden to hypothetical situations in an undetermined future.
Which is levels of bizzare.
I find myself in agreement with your mentality. In order to be fair, thought, I'd like to also discount my emotive inclination just as much as I want to discount other's emotive inclinations, in order to assess the decision rationally and not unfairly bias my preference over another's. So, the fact that I'm not inclined to have children oughtn't be considered more significant than the other's desire to have children.
As a few other posters have indicated, having a child when one does not want to have a child is problematic for the child, and that seems like a relevant consideration.
But it seems like one could engage in a rational conversation about children, their costs, their benefits, the fundamental nature of humanity and existence, as well as other factors could be discussed, and the conclusions reached by that discussion may impact one's emotive inclination.
That's something I'm trying to figure out: Is it possible to junk the emotive inclinations, and just talk about procreation. Then after the procreation conversation happens, assess it with respect to one's emotive inclination in case the conclusions reached via reason alter one's emotive disposition.
Edit: That, by the way, is why I put this in D&D rather than H/A. I'd like to discern the questions relevant to procreation and its justifiability, and then muck about with emotions afterwards.
by giving up an absurd amount. nobody can really fit children into their life in the way they imagine - everything is more complicated than you plan, and children are like that times eleventeen.
Which isn't to say that children aren't absolute marvels to behold.
Just that everything I've heard says that they are expensive as hell.
Also, I fear this will go in the same direction as the thread regarding communication. It appears to be attempting to seperate something very complex with a wide variety of interwoven factors into something logical boardering on robotic.
... here's where I'm tempted to just put up a picture of a 3D printer creating a copy of itself and flee the thread.
Yes but no. It is ENTIRELY possible to assess in a rational manner the cost/benefit issues inherent in procreation, and in doing so assess the suitability and viability of the act of bringing a child into the world.
However, I don't give a damn how suitable and possible it is, you can't make me have one of the little buggers 'cause I don't want it.
Without the emotional impetus, all the suitability and feasibility is for naught.
Having children, and supporting them to 18, is not complex.
The emotions involved are incredibly mind-numbingly complex.
To me, it seems like most persons start with their emotions, and then try to dump the rational, economic factors on top.
I'd like to sort out the rational aspects, and then dump the emotions on top.
You may end up being correct. I'm not at the point of accepting that the emotive response can't be placed on the back burner, so to speak, in order to allow the cost / benefit analysis to occur.
And then show it to my girlfriend the next time she brings up the topic.
I mean, assuming I want to sleep on the couch for the following week.
it would also be concretely good for the economy because of the lifetime of psychological expenses that would ensue.
Do you run a small-family owned farm that needs a constant source of cheap labor? Did you somehow figure out if your child is likely to be the next president of the United States and usher in a New Age of World Peace and Order?
It seems to me like you are trying mightily hard to do a cost-benefit analysis where you focus on the cost and throw away the benefit. There's nothing rational about this.
"But do you really, or are you simply interpreting the signals from your subconscious in a fashion that leads you, Player 1 in this aside, to believe that a unhealthy concentration of carbohydrates would satisfy you in a way that a more nuitritious choice like this apple wouldn't?"
".... MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!"
Frankly? Having someone to take care of you when you're older so you don't end up in one of those crooked homes on W5.
Also, though it is still emotive, no one wants to be alone when they're older, and if you don't raise a shitty kid they will grudgingly spend time with you as you wheeze away the last rattling breaths of your geezerdom
Just wanted to point out that procreating is more than an 18 year commitment, if you're doing it right. Think more along the lines of from now until you die most likely.
My wife of 7 years and I haven't had children yet, just started trying to think that perhaps we will. My motivation has to do with a desire to raise a child with my wife, impart our knowledge, watch him/her grow to an adult, then hound this fully fledged human to procreate themselves so I can have the pleasure of grandparenthood.
Right, I thought of that too but like you said it's still emotive. If you put the $200k or whatever it is to raise a kid to 18 towards retirement you could afford a pretty nice end of your life.
This is the falsest thing ever said. Sure, when you distill it to "make sure the kid is in good health and educated and knows the tools they need to make it on their own," it doesn't sound complex. The reality is that all of those things are horribly complex, and this isn't even counting the many curveballs life will throw at you, your spouse, the child, and the people who are in your lives frequently. And let's not forget outside influences.
I'm really just pointing at the tip of the iceberg here. But man, raising and supporting a kid is very complex.
But I'll try. I had a child, mostly, because it seemed like one of the great experiences of life, to be a parent, and my wife was 37 when we started to talk about it, so we knew our chance was now or never. And I realised I would regret it tremendously if I never tried to have that experience. So it was an understanding of my own emotional state that started me on this path.
As to whether a child is desirable for the world or not, I swiftly decided that was a non-issue. Other people are going to keep having children whether I do or not. And I decided I would probably be a good parent. So better for my kid to be in the world, being happy and bringing happiness (or utility) to others, than for her to never exist at all. Do you think you would be a good parent? Make your child happy, productive, philosophically insightful?
As to costs and benefits, there was one of each that I could not have anticipated. One cost was my wife suffering from terrible post-natal depression and knock-on mental health issues triggered by that. The surprise benefit was the love I feel for my daughter. It is so intense and abiding that it has transformed my entire world. The experience of adoring someone that much is a truly life-altering experience. And that's a benefit that I couldn't have predicted was coming, but rationally is a huge part of why I am glad we had her.
I don't think you can balance stress, economic cost and depression against pure joy. They're different qualities. We've never regretted having her, even for a moment.
I'm wittering because I'm on the way to work and it's tremendously early, but my basic point is that your analysis of the situation is not the kind of analysis you need to be doing. You need to analyze, using a rationality that acknowledges and respects emotion, how this decision would affect actual you and the actual world, not a hypothetical human. And this analysis has to be done while acknowledging that there is a world around you that is going to keep having children whether you think it is justified or not. And finally, acknowledging that there are unpredictable possibilities and costs to having or not having a child (e.g. regrets).
But then we are getting into deontology again, which happens every time I talk to you...
But that hurt would be worth the risk, because then we'd have a family.
You wanna talk about complex,
I don't like children, and I don't like the idea of having one. I have cousins who have them, and until they turn about 8 or so, they're just a pain in the ass. I have trouble with the idea that I should have children just to make my mom happy (in that she would have grandchildren). I feel like it would be horribly irresponsible of me to have a kid just to make somebody else happy, and bad for not only me, but also the kid.
If there were a risk of humanity being wiped out or something like that, I might feel more compelled to reproduce, too; but the only threat to humanity's existence at this point are threats of our own creation, and having kids is only going to add to that threat. Especially when you're talking about having a kid in the industrialized world.
I mean, I don't judge people for wanting to have kids, provided they keep it reasonable (I don't really see any reason for any couple to have more than two biological children). I personally think we should create a larger tax incentive to adopt or foster children (even moreso for special needs children), and fund that by eliminating any tax incentives for having more than two biological children.
I can understand farmers having children. They need free, cheap labor, and children offer that. Then as the parent gets older and isn't able to work the child takes over the farm, and the parent gets to reap the benefits of its labor, so to speak. That system of procreation / family economics makes sense to me.
I don't own a farm, though. So the benefits I would gain are:
1) Vague sense of immortality.
2) Excuse to buy toys.
I'm not sure what other actual benefits there are.
As it stands, adoption is fucking insanely expensive. My wife and I found out last year that I am infertile and it has been absolutely heartbreaking. In our time looking at different ways to raise a family together, we have found it absurd that using donor sperm is the lowest cost alternative. If you get lucky, you can end up spending a few thousand to get pregnant, while adoption is 15-20k+. It is absolutely nuts.
Note, though, that this is only for adoption. Part of me would really like to foster a child, but I know that if the parent cleaned him/herself up and wanted the child back I would be devastated from what we've already gone through. Emotional cost/benefit brings it out of consideration.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
I agree that parenting can last beyond the initial 18 years. I hope we could also agree that once a child moves out, and starts to financially support itself, the parenting duties decrease. When that happens, the responsibilities of the child's well-being shifts from the parents to the child.
That's the sort of notion I tried to fold into the notion of the child's preferences. The parents economically support it for 18 years, and then it has to support itself for 62 years. Seems strange to burden an individual with those 62 years of responsibility simply because one desires the 18 years of parenting responsibility.
Edit: It's a backhanded way of getting the Existentialist notion that "We're thrown into a life we did not choose, and have to deal with it" into one's initial considerations of having a child. Since the act of procreation tosses another individual into that existential mess of life.
Then you should 100% definitely NOT have a child.