More than two children is unethical?

Check out the ethics of people-hating.

In its white paper on “The Ethical Implications of Population Growth“, Population Matters states,

3. Reproductive ethics: It is also a fact that if two people with two living children have a third child, they will ratchet up the population of the planet, and thus: ratchet up damage to the environment; bring nearer the day of serious ecological failure; and ratchet down everyone else’s share of dwindling natural resources to cope with this. So individual decisions to create a whole extra lifetime of impacts affect everyone else (including their own children) – far more than any other environmentally damaging decision they make. We need to be aware of the ethical implications of having large families; and sex education in schools should include it.

Click for the Grist.org interview with the chairman of Population Matters.

Click for the Population Matters white paper.

20 thoughts on “More than two children is unethical?”

  1. Isn’t population reduction the secret agenda of the greens? Less population makes sense from a conserving land and resources perspective. However, I specifically had 3 kids to go against studies like this. I especially like the part in the article where rich people can off-set their extra children by paying for contraception in other countries. Why don’t the green’s just add a little bit of contraception drugs to the humanitarian aid we provide to developing countries?

  2. Problem: it ain’t secret. This has been an open endpoint since Malthus and even worked its way into Captain Planet in the “bad future” episode.

  3. I can’t understand how these self appointed saviours of the planet see new humans as mouths instead of minds. Sad

  4. Hmmmm….If I wanted a third, can I make up for it by killing one of these greenies (or inducing them to self terminate)?

    /snark

  5. Any of my potential progeny would have been meat eating, large pickup driving, fireplace burning, gun owning, bible clinging, imported conventionally produced food purchasing consumers. I think that qualifies me for at modifier of 1.5 per child. I am quite sure they would have squandered several hundreds of millions of dollars of precocious natural resources. So at (1.5 * 2 children) * $300,000 it is still a bargain.

  6. We can create the new renewable energy credit (REC) called the renewable child credit (RCC) and give two to every woman once past puberty. In order to have a child, you must have at least one RCC or purchase one.

  7. Somehow I have a hunch that the future will take care of itself. It always has and always will. Limiting children is a socialist dream, and a one-world government dream. Who chooses? Perhaps we should have fewer Obama’s!

  8. Richer countries have lower populations than poorer nations because children become impracticalities in richer nations.

    For instance, a family that needs to grow their own food and farm their own land to make ends meet in a poorer country is a common sight. These families will tend to have 7-10 children to use as (free) labor. These children are practicle and are often nesscary for survival.

    However, in countries like the US, 2 children is a huge cost. These children don’t do much in the way of assisting survival at the current moment.

    This is why richer nations have less kids than poorer nations based off of the demographic transition theory.

  9. Let’s just wait thirty years when China’s system implodes under their one child law. They can’t continue this way indefinitely. Then, it will be time for I-told-you-sos.

  10. “It is also a fact that…”
    When I was a graduate student I was taught that this is a code phrase for “I haven’t bothered to look for the original peer-reviewed work and I don’t want anybody else to, either.”
    The *historical* facts are that when the earth’s human population was smaller and comparatively stable, families of 4 to 14 children were very common. The growth rate was kept in check by higher mortality. We haven’t had a good decimating pandemic since before the population ‘explosion’ started.
    In the 1918 flu epidemic, the last Great Epidemic, 20-40 million people died out of about 1800 million global population – 1-2% of the population. In contrast the Hong Kong flu ‘pandemic’ of 1968-69 killed about 1 million of the world’s 3000 million population, the SARS ‘epidemic’ killed fewer than 1000, and H5N1 (Avian Flu) killed a total of 59 people.

  11. We were warned in the radical 1960’s of the impending apocalypse of overpopulation, and nothing like that happened. Our current world population is about to hit seven billion, and we are still carrying on.

    Yes, there is still poverty, plague, starvation in poor, old and under-developed countries that can never seem to lift themselves into the 21st century because of wars, devout islam, etc. The majority of our world’s populations continue to thrive, and reproduce despite the dire predictions of the misanthropic enviro-nuts.

    China has developed into a lopsided male-centric society that must import foreign women for brides because they killed off too many female babies. They are already paying the price for their one-child ration, and will continue to fail.

  12. We know that the High Priests of Gaia, who lead the cult of environmentalism, hate humanity and wish to see it debased, but few people know that high on their list of “problems” that need to be solved is the Earth’s overabundance of brown babies.

    Yes folks, environmentalism is the last socially acceptable form of racism. The only way that white upper class Americans can take action against black and brown people without being shunned as hateful bumpkins.

    Think about it.

Comments are closed.