Ethical To Raise A Child Today?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Given the impending threat of escalation in the Middle-East and Peak Oil, is it actually just to allow yourself to have a child now when there are so many major problems on the horizon?

I was discussing a the topic with a colleague today, and she was pretty concerned at the prospect of raising more children given the resource predicaments we are running headlong into (and not just minor annoyances; society destroying events).

It may sound somewhat defeatist, but given you'd be bringing another mouth to feed into the world and likely not into a society you'd want any sane child to grow up in without being in the deep country, is it worth it?

[TithonusSyndrome]

It might be quite a few years before I could consider having children seriously under normal circumstances, but even so I'd say that I'd want to wait until the Peak Oil projections come and go before I'd have a kid. It's one thing to say you'd be able to feed the child, which isn't even something you can promise; but how happy would you be if you were my child?

"Oh, great, eggshells and grass clippings for dinner. Thanks for conceiving me, dad."

[Thirdfain]

I can't believe you are actually saying this. Most Western nations have negative population growth- even the United States is only growing at a modest rate. Our society, while certainly not perfect, is probably one of the most accepting and open in history. Any kids you have will probably live long, happy lives. Come on, now! The Middle East crisis is hardly the worst crisis to hit civilization. If the folks who made it through World War 1, the Spanish Flu, the Depression, and then World War 2 managed to raise kids, I think you can find it in yourself to do the same.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I won't be even looking at marriage for a few years yet, short of anything spectacular happening, so kids are right out for now.

However, by that point it may already be beyond PO, into the end game. We're already seeing Iran being targeted here and if Bush is going to go to war with them, it'll be before the year is out. That will sky-rocket oil prices, along with the more obvious repercussions of counter-attack on Iraq and Israel etc.

In such an overcrowded world with such strain on our planet, it's hard to see why anyone would want to bring someone into such a reality for the ride. Course, in HIV and war ridden Africa they breed like rabbits just to try and keep food coming in (seems paradoxical in ways), and I doubt anyone thought this trend was stupid and selfish.

I can't believe you are actually saying this. Most Western nations have negative population growth- even the United States is only growing at a modest rate. Our society, while certainly not perfect, is probably one of the most accepting and open in history. Any kids you have will probably live long, happy lives. Come on, now! The Middle East crisis is hardly the worst crisis to hit civilization. If the folks who made it through World War 1, the Spanish Flu, the Depression, and then World War 2 managed to raise kids, I think you can find it in yourself to do the same.

I see you've missed how none of those can compare to the end of cheap energy. And dwindling population numbers are a pragmatic concern, not ethical. I'm talking about whether it is right to bring someone into a world that is more than likely heading for the shitter, not how this effects population.

[TithonusSyndrome]

In such an overcrowded world with such strain on our planet, it's hard to see why anyone would want to bring someone into such a reality for the ride. Course, in HIV and war ridden Africa they breed like rabbits just to try and keep food coming in (seems paradoxical in ways), and I doubt anyone thought this trend was stupid and selfish.

I'm sure you meant to say that nobody in Africa thought this trend was stupid. I'm sure they liked getting food and I'm not against giving it to them, while we can still spare it, that is; but the ethics of child-rearing aren't quite as polemic for a barely post-tribal society who still associates child-rearing with the strength of the tribe's numbers and a badge of verility.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well, I'm really asking whether you would consider, if at that point of a relationship, of going for a child now given all that you know, since in reality I'm far from it currently anyway.

As an addition, to those who already have kids, how do you feel about their upbringing in this world compared to, say, the height of the Cold War?, where I know a lot of children and adults fret over the instability globally.

[The Grim Squeaker]

There's a good many years yet until I can even think of kids (I'm still 3.2 years before even starting uni, and I'll be doing at least 2 degrees), but I do intend to have them, though only 1-2 kids (3 would be the maximum, and anyway I only intend to have as many children as I can support and sustain to a minimally high level, even if it might be 0 unlikely as it might be).

I will probably live during "Peak oil" (Within 40-60 years, easily within my lifetime), and shall see the beginning of it within my life-time (Though global warming will arrive in a noticeable form after I "plan" to have children).

[Darth Wong]

My kids will be OK. I will be in my 40s when they reach adulthood and are capable of fending for themselves. They'll have education and a modicum of money, and they'll be living in one of the world's wealthier nations.

Really, any first-worlders who think they'll be doing the world a favour by not having kids are being ridiculous. If anything, the world needs more educated first-world people and fewer ignorant savages.

And to those who think "oh woe is me, how will my kids survive", here's a fucking news flash: YOU ARE THE GODDAMNED PARENT, and you will be around long enough to safeguard them into adulthood. Our ancestors protected their offspring from goddamned lions and tigers on the motherfucking African serengeti, you can protect your kids against the Internet and Peak Oil. It's your job. Deal with it.

[Lord Zentei]

What a bizarre question. That it should not be ethical to conceive a child because s/he maybe won't live in the same standards of living as we do now? Bah.

And the idea that a child would/should be ungrateful for having been born because s/he has to live in poverty is bloody retarded. Ask any person living in poverty today whether they would have preferred to not have been born on account of their being poor, and you are likely to receive a well-deserved knuckle sandwich.

Moreover, if our technology level is about to take a dive, a sharply declining population is not going to be beneficial to the economy - particularly with the baby boomers retiring in increasing numbers.

One can always point to problems on the horizon, as you pointed out yourself vis-a-vis the Cold War. Would it have been "unethical" to conceive a child then? Nope. Moreover, I'd think that giving in to despair about the viability of the species is very much unethical in its own right.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Global Warming is the lesser of the two "Carbon Twins" that threaten our planet. The major effects of AGW will occur within a century, whereas the impact of PO will occur if not now, within a decade or maybe two and that will have profound impact on global society.

Actually, that raises a good point. Factoring in climate change too would be another aspect. I already know of one or two people who consider it a big enough threat to wait and see what we do as a people before bringing any offspring into it. Course, others see humanity as being more worthy of praise and optimism too.

My kids will be OK. I will be in my 40s when they reach adulthood and are capable of fending for themselves. They'll have education and a modicum of money, and they'll be living in one of the world's wealthier nations.

Really, any first-worlders who think they'll be doing the world a favour by not having kids are being ridiculous. If anything, the world needs more educated first-world people and fewer ignorant savages.

I find that is always the issue I get to as well. I know so many families that have bred like rabbits also, yet, they all seem to be lazy, underachievers who are more a potential burden on society than any benefit. And then there's the idea of people requiring a licence to have children, given some people and their newsworthy cruelty.

And to those who think "oh woe is me, how will my kids survive", here's a fucking news flash: YOU ARE THE GODDAMNED PARENT, and you will be around long enough to safeguard them into adulthood. Our ancestors protected their offspring from goddamned lions and tigers on the motherfucking African serengeti, you can protect your kids against the Internet and Peak Oil. It's your job. Deal with it.

The fact that times have changed so much since then is the bigger concern. That, and we're nearing seven billion people who will be starving, with little to no power and likely not friendly. Of course, any parent will do what they can for their kids, but that still means surviving in a world vastly different to what we have now and I doubt many but the radical red-neck survivalist kind (oh the irony) are prepared to become self-sufficient in a world without modern living as we know it.

[Lord Zentei]

The fact that times have changed so much since then is the bigger concern. That, and we're nearing seven billion people who will be starving, with little to no power and likely not friendly. Of course, any parent will do what they can for their kids, but that still means surviving in a world vastly different to what we have now and I doubt many but the radical red-neck survivalist kind (oh the irony) are prepared to become self-sufficient in a world without modern living as we know it.

Again: a rapidly declining population is not the way to go if our technology base is about to take a nosedive. This is true regardless of what happenes (even assuming that PO is going to be as catastrophic as the doomsayers claim).

[Darth Wong]

I find that is always the issue I get to as well. I know so many families that have bred like rabbits also, yet, they all seem to be lazy, underachievers who are more a potential burden on society than any benefit. And then there's the idea of people requiring a licence to have children, given some people and their newsworthy cruelty.

It is an unfortunate reality that the people least equipped to raise children are the ones who will have the most children. Not to be overdramatic, but I think it is the duty of all educated people to combat this trend.

The fact that times have changed so much since then is the bigger concern. That, and we're nearing seven billion people who will be starving, with little to no power and likely not friendly.

The people with the biggest grievances are also the ones who can't really do anything about them. This is not the 5th century, when ignorant barbarians can overwhelm civilization through sheer fanaticism and hordes of screaming peasants. How exactly are Africa's enraged hordes going to cross the Atlantic and assault Canada's shores?

Of course, any parent will do what they can for their kids, but that still means surviving in a world vastly different to what we have now and I doubt many but the radical red-neck survivalist kind (oh the irony) are prepared to become self-sufficient in a world without modern living as we know it.

"Without modern living"? As much as I hate the anti-environmental Pollyannas, this is the opposite extreme: irrational alarmism. Modern living won't disappear; it will just become a lot more expensive. A lot of people are going to drop out of the bottom, but it's my job to make sure my kids aren't among those people.

In the past, there was an educated class that could afford a lot of niceties. Today, even dumbshit manual-labourer white-trash can afford a pickup truck and a big-screen TV. That might change, but it doesn't mean all of society is headed back toward the 17th century.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It is an unfortunate reality that the people least equipped to raise children are the ones who will have the most children. Not to be overdramatic, but I think it is the duty of all educated people to combat this trend.

That's certainly something that's always been on my mind.

The people with the biggest grievances are also the ones who can't really do anything about them. This is not the 5th century, when ignorant barbarians can overwhelm civilization through sheer fanaticism and hordes of screaming peasants. How exactly are Africa's enraged hordes going to cross the Atlantic and assault Canada's shores?

I'm thinking of our own people. Remember the police strike in Montreal in 1969? I think our own kind are violent enough without going into the hordes abroad.

"Without modern living"? As much as I hate the anti-environmental Pollyannas, this is the opposite extreme: irrational alarmism. Modern living won't disappear; it will just become a lot more expensive. A lot of people are going to drop out of the bottom, but it's my job to make sure my kids aren't among those people.

In the past, there was an educated class that could afford a lot of niceties. Today, even dumbshit manual-labourer white-trash can afford a pickup truck and a big-screen TV. That might change, but it doesn't mean all of society is headed back toward the 17th century.

No, full PO effect without mitigation means the economy collapses overnight. It will get expensive up until then, as we're seeing now and have been since the millennium. When we're right down the opposing slope with ever dwindling oil reserves, you're looking at either total society reform from organised demand destruction, or chaos from disorganised demand destruction. When fuel is at over $10 a litre, problems start coming in. Big ones. Modern living will survive for a time yet after the peak. Later on, without some magical new energy source, you're going to have to be more frugal with your energy, and that's already been an issue in the UK with the prospect of intentional power-cuts to certain parts of industry in 2005 during a fairly cold spell in winter.

Now, I'm normally sceptical of such doomsaying, but having been reading a lot into this, if we're really at PO now, there's no hope of mitigation. If it's still a decade away, as the more optimistic figures put it at, then acting now may allow us to be ready.

Additionally, we're not quite heading for the 17th century. We don't have the infrastructure or low population for that. Instead, we have something worse when you have a growth economy that isn't growing, a lack of energy to meet the demand of several times the 17th century populace globally and a Western world that is used to the suburbs and cities of today which, in the former case, are horribly energy inefficient.

[Magus]

I've always been annoyed that the people who actually consider the socio-economic impact of having children are the ones who should have many, many well-raised children to counter the flaming idiots cranked out by people who don't give such things second thought.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That does remind me of a sketch from some documentary, the name of which escapes me, where an intelligent couple are compared to a hick couple. The latter have a whole town of kids almost, while the former don't even have one thanks to unforeseen predicaments.

[PeZook]

We're heading into problems. So, say - who's gonna be the ones to fix them, eh?

That's right. Whether or not it is just, our children will take over the world with all its problems, and it's a responsibility of every educated parent to try and make sure they are actually suited to doing this.

Short of a cataclysmic asteroid strike, our civilization is not going to end with peak oil. It will simply have to adapt.

Even if society does break down, somebody will have to start rebuilding. It won't happen by itself, and young people are better suited to survival in a post-apocalyptic scenario than 50 year olds.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We're heading into problems. So, say - who's gonna be the ones to fix them, eh?

That's right. Whether or not it is just, our children will take over the world with all its problems, and it's a responsibility of every educated parent to try and make sure they are actually suited to doing this.

Short of a cataclysmic asteroid strike, our civilization is not going to end with peak oil. It will simply have to adapt.

Even if society does break down, somebody will have to start rebuilding. It won't happen by itself, and young people are better suited to survival in a post-apocalyptic scenario than 50 year olds.

No one said society would end. It will change though, and seven billion people are not going to be living afterwards given the only reason they exist is because of a cheap oil fuelled agriculture.

For those that survive through the ordeal, they are the ones to start repopulating again, but not insanely. The idea that we don't have enough humans on the planet when the current crisis is caused by humans being overa-bundant and incredibly apathetic to energy efficiency, is folly.

[Psycho Smiley]

AV, I think the sketch you were speaking of is from Idiocracy.

From what I've been reading, if PO happens and goes unchecked, we're severely fucked. All of what you said, plus the added bonus of pushing climate change into overdrive as we burn whatever we have left with little to no interest in losing efficiency by minimizing environmental impact.

I never saw myself as the type for having kids, and things like this do nothing but reinforce that decision.

[PeZook]

No one said society would end. It will change though, and seven billion people are not going to be living afterwards given the only reason they exist is because of a cheap oil fuelled agriculture.

For those that survive through the ordeal, they are the ones to start repopulating again, but not insanely. The idea that we don't have enough humans on the planet when the current crisis is caused by humans being overa-bundant and incredibly apathetic to energy efficiency, is folly.

You're a highly educated specialist. If civilization collapses, the world will need young, highly educated people and you have (or will have) the means to provide your child with skills and expertise that higher education brings. We have an overabundance of humans, yes, but well educated humans are still a relative rarity and one more certainly won't hurt.

[Admiral Valdemar]

AV, I think the sketch you were speaking of is from Idiocracy.

Ah, that sounds like the one, ta.

From what I've been reading, if PO happens and goes unchecked, we're severely fucked. All of what you said, plus the added bonus of pushing climate change into overdrive as we burn whatever we have left with little to no interest in losing efficiency by minimizing environmental impact.

I never saw myself as the type for having kids, and things like this do nothing but reinforce that decision.

It does depend on how we react to such an oncoming crisis, but past events have shown that the market doesn't adapt even with prices going sky high (severely inelastic commodities do that) and alternatives aren't seen as investable until oil is more expensive to pump out. By that point, PO has happened and it'll take too long to deal with the depression that follows. Keep in mind, in the Great Depression, people we're worrying over how to feed themselves, nevermind play Xbox or go to the movies. Without WWII and America still exporting oil, that situation could've got far worse.

[Darth Wong]

You also have to look at the current population density in your country. The UK has a vastly higher population density than, say, Canada, so they're going to have more problems in terms of coping with decreased agricultural output and resource availability per capita. It makes sense for people in Canada to keep having kids. The same cannot be said of the really high population-density areas.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You also have to look at the current population density in your country. The UK has a vastly higher population density than, say, Canada, so they're going to have more problems in terms of coping with decreased agricultural output and resource availability per capita. It makes sense for people in Canada to keep having kids. The same cannot be said of the really high population-density areas.

A good point. That is why I consider it more of an issue for us, because even at WWII levels of population, the UK was hard pressed to feed everyone or supply basic necessities, nevermind luxuries. This is one major factor that will make the problem vary in impact.

[Darth Wong]

Some stark numbers:

Canada: 33 million people in 9 million square km of land.
UK: 61 million people in 1/4 million square km of land.

Hell, you could write off 90% of Canada's land area and the relative situation still looks brutal for the UK.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I know we all have a thing against rural communities, but using the depression of '29 as a guide, a great many people in the US emigrated from cities to family homesteads in the country. When those farms failed too, they went on the trails, the infamous dust bowl.

If you look at the economic situation now, it is almost exactly matching the run up to the '29 crash, with the Fed. Reserve adjusting interest rates to curb on this massive credit expenditure. If the bubble bursts, it may not need PO to do it, then you've got a bigger issue than '29. You don't have any net energy exports unlike 70 years ago, meaning energy is going to be brought in, very likely at far higher prices. You also have a population that has an industry that is stalling and there's no WWII to engage in to drag you out of that, assuming Bush's legacy isn't to drag us into some global war now (though Cheney alluded to such resource wars in '99, along with talks of going into Iraq even before 2001).

I'm sure most of the US can survive by moving to the country and using your massive coal reserves, which even with current global use, could last another couple of decades for the purer anthracite.

While the UK has coal, we do not have as many coal fired plants which means the national grid dies. Good as renewable is, it is also intermittent and nuclear ain't happening with decade long build times and masses of oil needed to make that happen.

Too bad the countryside in the UK isn't as vast as that in the North American continent, since there's no way in hell I see over sixty-million people all moving to the country and living self-sufficiently. Not without massive die-off and general movement problems, to say nothing of people who've never even been to a farm before and are now expected to not rely on supermarkets (a recent BBC kid's show with children today living in conditions circa 1940 showed how hard this will be). If I had a kid now, I'd be sure to make them learn basic maintenance of machinery, how to live off the land and be economical with limited resources. These are skills we just don't need today thanks to our growth economy and reliance on this brief period in human history where cheap energy has brought everything to our doors. To do this is a good thing regardless of PO anyway, given the AGW threat and rising taxes and fuel prices already adding to food etc. Being efficient and knowing how to maximise what you have help no matter what happens.

The move will happen. Just not for everyone.

[TithonusSyndrome]

How much of that land area is practical to inhabit, though? When you take away all the frozen tundra and expanses of rock in northern Quebec and Labrador, it's not quite so vast. Not crowded by any stretch of the imagination, of course, but at least half of 9 million sqkm.