Asking difficult questions: Should we reach 10 billion? Can we?

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people.  — Peter Singer, “Should this Be the Last Generation?” New York Times

In the opinion article quoted above, Singer asks several thought-provoking questions about human existence, population control, and over consumption.

First, he asks,  is a world without humans (sentient-beings) better? Or, put in the negative, is there any way in which a world without humans would be worse than one with us? Considering answers to these questions obviously require a stretch of the imagination — can we imagine a world in which there are no people or humanoid species? If so, what do you see? Do you see a world in which our ivory towers and landfills are dissolved by natural life?

I imagine a world in which our synthetic materials and surfaces become engulfed by vine and tree. Where landfills eventually degrade without the weight of further contribution. And though their materials continue to destroy countless lives through contamination and suffocation, within centuries of our extinction their effect will flat line. The climate will continue on its natural cycle, but it will not be fed by our destructive actions, and the changes that will go unstudied, unrecorded, unpredicted, will readjust to a rhythmic pattern. No artificial intelligence will be created that could remove our “humanity,” our last emotional ties to the natural world — because everything we were will have been given back to the earth. No nuclear war will threaten the existence of every species on the planet, because no petty arguments over territory or ideology will persist. No holocaust or genocide will ever occur, no rape or humanitarian crisis — because non-sentient animals are not capable of such cruelty. The question is, what about this existence would be worse? Can you think of anything?

I could argue that the value of thought itself — the abstract, the fantasy, the creation of art and music, would be lost. Though they hold no natural value, these things are the most valuable we have on earth. But, without mankind, who would miss them? These things are only valuable because we’re here to desire them, to think them.

The next provocative question the article asks, can a being which has not been brought into existence have a right to come into being? Not only do we encounter the issue of sterilization and population control, but also abortion. Can a being which has never lived, have a right to do just that? Can each egg in a woman’s womb have rights? If so, should it not be a crime in itself to not reproduce? This is a frightening thought, but why? Its frightening because we do not require birth, nor do we give birth because it is right or just. We do not reproduce because we believe that our eggs have a right to fertilization. But, when one threatens that non-existent right, we find ourselves offended — not for the unborn, but for ourselves.

China’s one-child law has met extreme controversy — it has also failed in many ways. Parents who desire sons have killed their first child so they could have a second. Families have given away one child in favor of trying for another. Disease and genetic abnormality are an automatic curse for a family that depends on children to take care of them when they are too old to work any longer. These are problems that would not easily be conquered on a global scale. But, my question is, do children that are alive have more rights than those that have never existed? Can we ignore the life of our first born child, for the rights to our second?

The children alive today — my four-year-old cousin or two-year-old niece — are their rights already so secure that we can think of the unborn child’s over theirs? More accurately, we argue for our own rights to give birth, over their rights to a future. We debate population control as if future babies were floating visibly above our heads, waiting to fall to earth. As if they already existed somewhere, and that not reproducing resulted in their death before birth. We ignore the children already among us, the ones who will have to survive in this world long after we’re gone. Don’t they have the right to live in a world that is not so overcrowded that millions have to starve everyday? After all, in 2004, every six seconds a child died of starvation (and population has increased since then). We can’t feed the children already alive on our planet, and yet we have the audacity to argue about the rights of the unborn? Are we really arguing about their rights to live? Or are we arguing our own rights to reproduce and make ourselves feel important, and loved by our children?

On that note, Singer also asks questions about why we have children — do we reproduce for our own interests, or for the interests of the unborn child. If the latter, which I would argue should always be the case, than what are the standards we hold for the child as far as quality of life? If we are giving birth for the child’s sake, then our expectations for their life should be quantified. We should be capable of expressing what terms under which a child should be born — if a child is born for his or her sake, they should have access to basic needs. They should have the opportunity for potential growth, experience, and life expectancy. They should be born into an environment that is healthy, encouraging, and supportive. Otherwise, their birth was not for their own sake, but for ours. Either as a mistake because we were not aware of the risks of sexual acts, because we were not aware of birth control, because we wanted a child for ourselves regardless of the quality of its life. Of course, happiness or quality of life cannot be guaranteed. However, if we are producing children to endow them with their right to life, for their own benefit, than their birth should be beneficial to them.

According to Singer, future generations only face worse circumstances than those we live in today — they will undoubtedly face greater climate disasters and environmental problems, their children will have to make decisions about centuries of waste which we have displaced. They will be born into a world with more technological advances than any other — resulting in ethical decisions about their use. Children born today will live in a world with 37 ongoing conflicts or wars.

Are our own lives so great that we are excited to pass on this experience to another person? Or, do we single-mindedly reproduce because of cultural expectation and personal desires for parenthood? What I’m asking on an individual scale is — do parents, while thinking about and producing children, think — I can’t wait for my child to experience life? OR, do parents think — I can’t wait to experience my child’s life? The difference is the subject. Is the child’s life the subject of desire, or is their own? I often hear future fathers say things like, “I can’t wait to teach him to play catch,” or “I’m going to have a little soccer player.” I have never heard a future parent say, “I can’t wait for him to experience baseball,” or “I can’t wait for her to see Spring.”  On a general scale, we do not reproduce because we want to pass on the joy of life or because we believe birth is a right. We reproduce because we want the joy of bearing life for ourselves.

If we can see past our own desire to be the bearers of life, we could begin to solve a problem that is swallowing our planet, and is already resulting in 1 billion people (1 in every 7) to exist in hunger. Were they born because they had a right to live? Because life is joyful?

I know this is not a politically correct topic. And, whether for my own selfish reasons or not, I like being alive, and other people being alive. I value humanity, in many ways. I do not wish for our extinction (most of the time). But, I do believe that if we don’t quell our reproductive desires soon — we will face extinction whether by choice or not. Through our own violent destruction of one another, or hunger, or natural disaster, we will meet our end. There are more of us than our planet can bare, and we feel it as we fight for territory, for the space our families require to survive. In our rights to food, and water. We kill one another over ideology, over nationalism, over politics — but it all boils down to our rights. We don’t kill one another because of our ideas. We kill one another because we want to survive, because we know that this planet isn’t big enough for all of us and our unborn children.