Procreation


ClefJ's avatar
My apologies if this has been in the thread before, but it's something that's been a curious note in my head I can't help but listen to.

Procreation of the species. Humans, in particular. Is it a non-issue? Or is it something we could classify as a moral or immoral act? Does it depend on the situation, supporting a Socratic view of things? Or is it an absolute rule that we must procreate in our lives to be morally human?

Do we have a moral duty to have children? Is it a 'good' thing because it brings happiness and life? Or is it a 'bad' thing now, because it creates a strain on resources and wellbeing of the species?

Or, again, is it just one of those things that have no moral implications, like a tree falling on someone, and should just happen naturally?
Comments57
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
RosleinRot's avatar
Morality doesn't have anything to do with procreation: every species procreates. I think many feel the need to attach some grander idea to something fairly mundane.
ClefJ's avatar
And you may be right.

Of course, every species has a natural equilibrium. Except us, as evidenced so far, thus my point. We have to make a conscious choice about what to eat, what to kill, what numbers to make, therefore my argument is that since it is a choice it can become a moral one.
RosleinRot's avatar
*can* doesn't mean it is.
ClefJ's avatar
Deizzan's avatar
I'm currently not interested in children. I can't say that I ever will be. As long as I am uninterested in children I wouldn't have a relationship with someone that does want children. I see no moral obligation to have or not to have children of my own.
Raven-Gold's avatar
Morality of procreation? Well it'd depend on a case-by-case basis. As a species, it is our duty to make sure we prosper, breeding is the obvious method, but that can cause overpopulation problems. China enforces a 2 children per couple to help stabalise the nation's population for good reason.

Genetics and other diseases is also a very valid consideration when choosing to procreate, but it is complex. If your grandfather had cancer, it isn't enough to say you or your child will either, but if your father, your grand father and your great grandfather all suffered from the same thing, then it'd be a good indication that you should probably nip this genetic problem in the bud and not have children of your own. Adoption is always a good compromise in a situation like this.

Having HIV isn't a reason on it's own to not have children, there's procedures out there that would make it so the child isn't born with the disease, but I don't know if there's anything to prevent it from passing on to the partner.
carusmm's avatar
Sex is always a risk.
Knightster's avatar
We're at the point where not having children is not the issue (there's enough of us around).
Solum-Ipsum's avatar
I think procreation is an ability, like our ability to offer sacrifice to a god, or jump off a cliff, or take a step, or think rationally, or ignore carusmm's topics. Just because you can, doesn't imply you must.

Also, morality is overrated.
Chromattix's avatar
I have said for ages now that there are just too many humans. And when there becomes too much of any species for the environment to cope with and provide for - usually mass starvation or disease follows. Almost like nature's own way of pruning some of the branches off a family tree that's grown way too fast for its own good :nod:

But it will always remain an issue. Having kids is a basic instinctual right after all - how do you tell 7 billion people that they can't have kids, or are only allowed to have 1 or 2 maximum :O_o: If people aren't willing to stop having large families, then they should be willing to be more resourceful. We can't keep on consuming resources like we do now if we still want our population to get bigger. Something's gotta give :p
ClefJ's avatar
Well, China's getting there, generation by generation. Hopefully they'll shrink by one or two billion in the next fifty years.
Chromattix's avatar
Yeah, the shinkage needs to be slow, just so the ratio of seniors doesn't become too large for the younger population to support :granny: But a gradual population drop is one of the best things we can do for our world and ourselves, at least until we find cleaner and more reliable renewable sources of energy, and less-wasteful ways to utilize water :nod:
maejonin's avatar
I don't know how making babies makes us more human or moral because mammals and many animals do the same thing.

Having babies is not the bad thing.
ClefJ's avatar
Ah, here's where the argument is: All animals make babies because, eventually, they hit a natural equilibrium in their population. Deers and wolves kind of thing. Humans don't have that, so we're given a choice where animals do not. Not that they could choose, really. But there's the logic to it, we have no balance being the top of the food chain.
maejonin's avatar
I still don't see how morally its wrong not to create a baby. Just because someone or an animal has less of a choice doesn't mean its morally wrong. And just because something done in nature, does not mean humans should imitate too. Like I can say animal drink out of the river, that doesn't mean I should do it too.

For humans, like the natural equilibrium, I don't think we even have reached that point. Maybe the billion populations. But its a bit extreme and rash thinking that we need population control.

It pretty much falls under population control. Its pretty much that tyrannical aspect that population control seems to give off that Im trying to figure out from what your saying.
ClefJ's avatar
Its not an idea that we need population control. I'm trying to suggest that we will not reach our population apex, because nothing is keeping tabs on us. We have no wolves to thin us out and we have no true limit on manipulating our environment. Humans have and will force other animals to extinction before we hit our population balance.

Animals drink out of the river because they're a part of their ecosystem. We dam rivers to force the landscape to accommodate thousands more of us than what would normally be allowed.

I'm not saying we should force a balance, but it would be preferable to be more conscientious.
maejonin's avatar
You should really explain what you mean by morality in another post. It did sound like a force thing.
ClefJ's avatar
I wouldn't be able to define what I mean is 'moral' in any post; There is no unifying moral theory quite yet. Many competing ideas on what is good.
Totally-dead's avatar
You need a basis in social psychology.
View all replies
maejonin's avatar
Excuse me, Scientists and other majors trying to solve the problems in that study.
maejonin's avatar
Ok, its not morally wrong its a suggestion. Thats different then what you said in your topic.

Its a bit farfetched to what your saying because humans are doing a bad effort on the environment where there are sciencetist and there other people on the job trying to preserve endanger speicies and advice the public.
ClefJ's avatar
A select few to influence the majority, sounds like a force thing to me too.

Perhaps I should reiterate I'm not taking a stance either way, just creating some thoughtful discussion. XD
carusmm's avatar
Babies are cute when they're not yours.
CammieObscura's avatar
Having kids is immoral only if they are the offspring of Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber.