by People born in the future can inherit a planet in the midst of a global ecological crisis. Natural habitats are being destroyed, the world is getting warmer, and scientists fear that we are facing the sixth major extinction event in Earth’s history.
Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to bring a child into the world?
My philosophical research deals with environmental and creative ethics – the ethics of choosing how many children to have or whether to have them at all. More recently, my work has explored issues where these two areas intersect, such as the impact of climate change on decision-making about having a family.
Procreation is often viewed as a personal or private choice that should not be scrutinized. However, it is a choice that affects other people: the parents, the children themselves and the people who live in the world alongside those children in the future. Therefore, it is an appropriate subject for moral reflection.
A lifelong pursuit
We begin to think about why it might be wrong to have a large family.
Many people who care about the environment believe they have a duty to try to reduce their impact: driving fuel-efficient vehicles, recycling and buying food locally, for example.
But the decision to have a child – to create another person who will adopt a lifestyle similar to your own – far outweighs the impact of these activities. Based on the average distance traveled by a car each year, people in developed countries can save the equivalent of 2.4 metric tons of CO2 emissions each year by living without a vehicle, according to one literature review. By comparison, one less child saves 58.6 metric tons per year.
So, if you feel obligated to do other activities to reduce your impact on the environment, you should also limit your family size.
In response, however, some may argue that adding a single person to a planet of 8 billion cannot make a significant difference. According to this argument, one new person would be such a small percentage of the total contribution to climate change and other environmental problems that the impact would be morally negligible.
Crunching the numbers
Environmental ethicists discuss how to quantify a person’s impact on the environment, particularly their lifetime carbon emissions.
For example, statistician Paul Murtaugh and scientist Michael Schlax attempted to estimate the “carbon legacy” tied to a couple’s choice to procreate. They estimated the total lifetime emissions of individuals living in the world’s 11 most populous countries. They also assumed that a parent was responsible for all the emissions associated with their genetic lineage: all their own emissions, half their children’s emissions, a quarter of their grandchildren’s emissions, and so on.
If emissions remained similar to 2005 levels for several generations, an American couple with one less child would save 9,441 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, according to his calculations. On the other hand, driving a more fuel-efficient car would only save 148 metric tons of CO2 equivalent – getting another 10 miles to the gallon.
Philosopher John Nolt has attempted to estimate how much harm the average American causes over their lifetime in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. It found that the average American contributes about two billion of the total greenhouse gases that cause climate change. But since climate change could harm billions of people over the next millennium, this person could be responsible for the serious suffering, or even death, of one or two people in the future.
Collective toll
Such estimates are, to say the least, imprecise. However, even if one accepts that the impact of each individual child on the environment is relatively insignificant on a global scale, that does not necessarily mean that the creators are off the hook morally.
One common idea in ethics is that people should avoid participating in enterprises that involve mutual injustice. That is to say, we should avoid contributing to institutions and practices that produce bad results, even if we ourselves contribute little to that result.
Say someone considers making a small donation to an organization he/she learns is engaged in immoral activities, such as polluting a local river. Even if the potential donation is only a few dollars – too small to make any difference to the organization’s operations – that money would indicate some degree of intelligence in that behavior, or perhaps even an endorsement. The morally right thing to do is to support the organization whenever possible.
We could reason in the same way about procreation: Overpopulation is a collective problem that is degrading and harming the environment, so individuals should reduce their contribution whenever possible.
Moral gray zone
But you may need to make an exception with children. Parenting is often a vital part of people’s life plans and adds much more meaning to their lives, even if it comes at a cost to the planet. Some people believe that reproductive freedom is so important that no one should have moral pressure to limit their family size.
One point of general consensus among ethicists, following the lead of the philosopher Henry Shue, is that there is a moral difference between emissions linked to vital interests and those linked to convenience and luxury. Emissions related to basic human needs are generally considered permissible. It is not wrong for me to emit carbon by driving to the grocery store, for example, if I have no other safe or reliable transportation available. Going to the store is important to my survival and well-being. In contrast, it is more difficult to justify driving purely for pleasure.
Reproduction is in the messy conceptual space between these two activities. For most people today, having their own biological children is not essential to health or survival. But it is also far more important to most people and their wider life plans than a frivolous luxury trip. Is there a way to balance the various and competing moral considerations in play?
In previous work, I have argued that the proper way to balance these competing moral considerations is for each couple to have no more than two biological children. I believe this allows couples an appropriate amount of reproductive freedom while acknowledging the moral importance of the environmental problems associated with population growth.
Several authors have different reasons for this question, however. Philosopher Sarah Conly argues that it is permissible for a couple to have only one biological child. Primarily, her position rests on her argument that all the fundamental interests of raising children can be satisfied with one child. Bioethicist Travis Reider argues in favor of having a small family, but without a specific numerical limit. It is also possible, as the ethicist Kalle Grill has argued, that none of these positions get the moral calculus exactly right.
Regardless, it is clear that prospective parents should consider the moral aspects of procreation and its importance to their life plans.
For some, adoption may be the best way to experience parenthood without creating a new person. And there are many other ways for expectant parents to do their part to alleviate environmental problems. Carbon offsets or donations to environmental organizations, for example, are hardly a perfect proxy for limiting procreation – but they certainly could be more attractive to many prospective parents.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit, independent news organization that brings you reliable facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Trevor Hedberg, University of Arizona
Read more:
Trevor Hedberg does not work for, consult with, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article this, and did not disclose any relevant connections beyond their academic appointment.
