Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 20, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 56
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconrosleinrot:
RosleinRot Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012   Photographer
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.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconrosleinrot:
RosleinRot Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012   Photographer
*can* doesn't mean it is.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Absolutely.
Reply
:icondeizzan:
Deizzan Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconraven-gold:
Raven-Gold Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Sex is always a risk.
Reply
:iconknightster:
Knightster Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
We're at the point where not having children is not the issue (there's enough of us around).
Reply
:iconsolum-ipsum:
Solum-Ipsum Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconpriteeboy:
priteeboy Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, China's getting there, generation by generation. Hopefully they'll shrink by one or two billion in the next fifty years.
Reply
:iconpriteeboy:
priteeboy Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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:
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
You should really explain what you mean by morality in another post. It did sound like a force thing.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
You need a basis in social psychology.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Had that, passed that, tis part of how I know. Which moral theory do you adhere to, if you can name them?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
Excuse me, Scientists and other majors trying to solve the problems in that study.
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Babies are cute when they're not yours.
Reply
:iconcammieobscura:
CammieObscura Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Having kids is immoral only if they are the offspring of Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This is an interesting path of discourse. I'm rather certain however that Ms. Gaga is adamantly against such a silly notion. Bieber will jump anything if his production manager says it's good for him, perhaps.
Reply
:icondavidscript:
DavidScript Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ahaha :XD:
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
As morality is a system to ensure the well-being of those in a social system, and procreation not only requires multiple people, but brings new ones into the world...

Yes, it is amenable to moral thought. Whether any of the scenarios you raised has a moral answer depends entirely on the specific circumstances in the case.
Reply
:iconi-am-a-retro-lass:
i-am-a-retro-lass Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
in the hit and miss scenario of human evolution, children are mostly cannon fodder until learning and knowledge about the human brain and body makes it possible for all children to be born into a guaranteed life experience of health and safety. xx
Reply
:iconrockstar1009:
rockstar1009 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Both [link]
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
It's a good thing in general. Only problem is, it's very possible to get too much of a good thing, and that's what we have now in many parts of the world.
Reply
:iconajglass:
AJGlass Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Artisan Crafter
Do we have a moral duty to have children?

I'd argue the opposite in certain cases - those with defective genes have the moral duty not to pass them on.

I mean really, if you have some crippling genetic disease that you know could make another person's life terrible, then you shouldn't have children. Adopt instead.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Where do you draw the line on defective genes? That could get to the point where characteristics considered abnormal for modern society, but which could be perfectly adapted to life in another situation. Or worse.

Gattaca, mate, Gattaca.
Reply
:iconajglass:
AJGlass Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Artisan Crafter
I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's hard knowing where to draw the line.

If your genes would have a serious negative impact on your child, then don't have children.

From a personal perspective, when us Jews think about getting married, many of us go in for blood tests to determine if we have the genes for diseases such as Tay-Sachs Disease, Canavan, Niemann-Pick, Gaucher, Familial Dysautonomia, Bloom Syndrome, Fanconi anemia, Cystic Fibrosis and Mucolipidosis IV. These genes are passed down in the Ashkenazi Jewish population (those of Eastern European descent). It's just one of those things that, from a moral perspective, you do to prevent hurting innocent people.

To get an idea of what I mean by "serious negative impact", some of those diseases I mentioned actually lead to early deaths in children. And no parent wants to watch their child die - especially for something that could have been avoided.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I understand. Here the common one is Cystic fibrosis.
I may also be carrying an alzheimers predisposition, which I am not too enthusiastic about.
Reply
:iconbohobella:
bohobella Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Alzheimers sucks and I am very likely the same, doomed to that disease one day, but research has been really positive. It's realistic to think our children might not suffer as our grandparents did. I'm even thinking that there will be hope for when I'm old and grey.
Reply
:iconclefj:
ClefJ Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Adoption is a fantastic middle-ground on the case.
Reply
:iconajglass:
AJGlass Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Artisan Crafter
Indeed. :nod:

     ...and there are so many kids who could use loving parents who don't have anyone at all who cares about them. :(
Reply
:iconcammieobscura:
CammieObscura Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
And there are many who never are adopted. They are shuffled between foster homes until they are finally kicked out on their own.
Reply
:iconajglass:
AJGlass Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Artisan Crafter
Joined DA today? So who are you really? :evileye:
Reply
:iconcammieobscura:
CammieObscura Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Well everyone here had to join at some time. Why is "today" such a point of interest?
Reply
:iconajglass:
AJGlass Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Professional Artisan Crafter
Most people who join don't typically find, nor post, in the forums their first day.

Usually, if someone has just joined and posts here, it means the person has been here before with a different account.
Reply
:iconcammieobscura:
CammieObscura Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
You're kidding right? I explored everything here and clicked on everything to see what it was, including little arrows, which in turn led me to daily deviations and forum. I am not new to forums. I have been on a few, including eHarmony Dating Advice. So I am not shy on forums. So I am not "most".
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Because it means you are someone else, whom we probably know. :evileye:
Reply
:iconcammieobscura:
CammieObscura Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
So anyone who joins DeviantArt is someone who is already a member? That sounds kind of absurd. What would that say about DA that nobody new ever joined. But no, I have never been on this site before.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Morality is an affective human attribution, based on emotion.

Procreation is a fact of life. We have genetically defined urges to procreate, but we also have the capacity to fool them enough so that we do not necessarily feel unhappy. Some believe the urges supersede that("baby fever" hitting certain childless women hitting middle age, etc...) others believe only certain people are a victim to such urges, etc...

Those are all the facts you need.
Reply
:iconiriastar:
Iriastar Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Morals. There's your problem.

Morals shouldn't have a say on anything. Morals aren't absolute and depend on the person who chooses to create them and/or submit to them. It amazes me how much importance people give to such a silly concept.

If having children makes you happy, then it is good. Do you prefer not to have any children? That's also good.
Reply
:iconpakaku:
Pakaku Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
The only reason we have kids is to pass on successful genes...
Reply
:iconeldingagunman:
EldingaGunman Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
I believe this is a matter of case-to-case, and is a decision that should be evaluated based on the situation the child will be brought into. I find it strange that people deem it our 'moral responsibility' to reproduce when everybody else seem to be really good at it. Even stranger that people think that bringing a child into the world is always a good thing, when there are parents who aren't capable of caring for a kid who will grow up living a life that no-one, on closer inspection, would like to live and much less celebrate. As you said, another person to support will add additional pressure to an already overloaded eco system, which is also one to take into consideration.

In conclusion, it is not our 'moral duty' to have a kid. The only moral duty we have on that regard is to decide whether or not we are ready, capable, and willing to take care of it in a responsible way, both economically and emotionally. However, if the answers to those questions are all 'yes', then go ahead and get laid. :shrug:
Reply
Add a Comment: