Recently, a number of people have expressed to me that they don't believe this world is a good place to bring new lives into anymore.
Part of me can't help but agree, though part of me also thinks that every generation echoes this same sentiment at one point or another.
I will say however, that this is the first time I'm hearing it on a fairly frequent basis and I can't help but wonder if there is more validity to it now in contrast to previous generations.
That said, I can't help but think about an article my brilliant friend/artist/philosopher Elk sent me from the New York Times a few weeks back. It raises a number of important questions, namely, why people decide to have children, and how much thought they really put into it - taking into account a variety of factors, including overpopulation, whether or not your child will be happy, history of family illness, and the value of life overall, based on general satisfaction.
Peter Singer, author of the blog, references a few philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer, who basically felt that life inevitably only brings fleeting satisfaction, and David Benatar, author of the book, “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.”
Needless to say, both paint a pretty negative picture of reproduction and its ramifications.
Peter Singer takes it a step further, proposing a future world with no sentient beings at all, so that those of us who are here now could, "...party our way into extinction." Clearly a radical idea, and an idea that would never fly - but an interesting concept nevertheless.
In any case, the article further contributed to my confusion about whether or not to have children, though it did push me further in the direction of adoption if we decide to kid...
I've barely done Peter Singer's full NYT piece justice, so you can read it all here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/
In the meantime, I'm seriously contemplating picking up a copy of David Benatar's book.
Despite my hesitancy to rush into reproduction unquestioningly, I'm not a big believer in the whole "the world is a terrible place - therefor we should not bring new people into it" argument.
ReplyDeleteNor am I a fan of Schopenhauer or pessimism in general as a philosophy.
To quote a much more level-headed philosopher, Michael J. Nelson (of Mystery Science Theater 3000 fame from his book 'Mind over Matters' - some of the finest reading there is), " - a philosophy is without value until it is applied to the human condition it attempts to explain. " He goes on to apply Schopenhauer's world view in several scenarios - one of which goes (paraphrasing):
SITUATION #1 - Debbie owns a candy shop and has become friendly with Susan who supplies her with divinity... Debbie decides to invite Susan to a social event.
DEBBIE: Say, Susan... my husband and I go boating every Fourth of July... would you like to join us on the lake this year?
SUSAN: (kills self).
Nelson goes on to opine (correctly in my view) that the only real application of a pessimistic philosophy is suicide - one that Schopenhauer himself never partook in.
The point is, every generation has its horrors that it must weather through. Consequently, the terrors of modern living don't sway me one way or the other when it comes to the argument for or against having kids.
For me, the question is whether or not we will be able to provide a good life for them REGARDLESS of what life may throw our way.
We've already muscled through some tough times, so I'd like to think we have some chops... but having kids brings in a whole new tidal wave of challenges the likes of which we probably can't really imagine.
So who knows?