Tag: reproduction

Posted on

Population Ethics: How Many Children are Enough?

Fresno Bee, August 18, 2024

Fewer people are having children. Some are warning ominously of an impending population collapse in Europe and North America, but the U.N. projects that the global population will continue to grow through this century to about 10 billion people.

The issue is polarizing and politicized. It is connected to J.D. Vance’s “childless cat ladies” remark, as well as concerns about global warming, women’s rights and reproductive healthcare. Young people are also confronting an epidemic of loneliness and fear for the future of the planet.

If human life is good, it’s good to have lots of children. Traditional religion says, “be fruitful and multiply.” If life is a gift of God, and God wants us to be fruitful, then we ought to multiply. But modern revolutions in agriculture and medicine have caused a population boom that archaic religions could not have imagined.

The ancient idea of fruitful multiplying is less salient in a hot, crowded world.

Ethical judgment often involves questions of quantity: How long is too long to live, or to serve in political office? How much wealth or freedom is the right amount? And what is the optimal number of people?

Quantitative questions quickly lead to questions of quality. In planning for retirement or thinking about healthcare at the end of life, the number of years of life is less important than the quality of those years. Something similar holds with regard to population: More is not always better when it comes to people. The ethical question is not merely how many people, but how to optimize the quality of life for children, parents and everyone else.

The question of optimal population is a concern for those who manage crowds. We understand this when we stand in line for a bathroom or a beverage at a stadium or look for a parking place in Yosemite National Park. At some point, the quantity of people ruins the quality of the experience for everyone. This is especially true under conditions of scarcity — basic carrying capacity can be altered with innovation and technology, but there are limits.

Stadiums could be built with more amenities, but there are costs and trade-offs. When the limit is reached, the crowds become unbearable. The natural world imposes objective limits. Yosemite Valley is a narrow valley bisected by a river. On busy weekends, traffic and parking are difficult. In response, Yosemite has imposed a system of reservations during the summer. Fewer people in the park preserves the quality of the experience for everyone.

In my own field of education, the quantitative issue concerns student-faculty ratios and class sizes. This depends on the quality of instruction, as well as the abilities and interests of the students. Kindergartens ought to be small. Private coaching is necessary for elite performers. But massive online courses can work well if the teaching is good and the students are motivated. This all depends on what we expect of the overall quality of education.

So, the more general population question is not merely quantitative, it is also qualitative. The snide remark about childless cat ladies is not about population size. Rather, it is about what counts as a good life. The question here is whether having children and raising a family are an essential part of the good life. For much of human history, this was taken for granted. But these days, there are alternative paradigms of human flourishing.

Other complex and contentious ethical questions involving optimizing quality of life emerge. Will there be adequate housing for 10 billion people? Should affluent countries with declining populations bring in immigrants from the developing world? How should we structure the economy to care for our elders? Do childless people have an obligation to pay taxes to support children? And how should we manage fragile ecosystems in a hot, crowded world?

The conversation about population and reproduction is ultimately about our basic conception of the good life, and deserves careful and critical thought. People will disagree about this topic, since it touches upon our deepest beliefs and commitments. But clearly polarization is not helpful. We need philosophers, theologians and political leaders to think carefully and critically about the quality of human life and the question of optimal population.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291087225.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Reproduction, Sex, and Ethics

Scientists are developing a technique by which a human embryo could be created from three different “parents,” by combining mitochondrial DNA from one mother with regular DNA from another. In related news, scientists in the UK have been permitted to do research involving human gene editing.20070319_Bird_bee

Both technologies have therapeutic benefits. The three-parent process would provide a remedy for diseases connected to defective mitochondrial DNA. Gene editing could help delete genetic diseases.

WE OUGHT TO ASK OURSELVES WHETHER WE ARE REALLY WISE ENOUGH TO MANAGE THE BUSINESS OF THE BIRDS AND THE BEES.

WE SHOULD ALSO REALIZE WHAT WE RISK LOSING WHEN CUPID GOES COMMERCIAL AND REPRODUCTION BECOMES AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM.

We are slowly developing the know-how to produce designer babies. But our technological prowess may be outpacing our capacity for moral judgment. We should be especially careful with regard to interventions that tamper with the genome – which would be heritable by future generations.

Are we ready to confront the brave, new world of reproductive technology? I’m not sure. We are still not great at dealing with ordinary reproduction. Venereal disease and unwanted pregnancies continue to plague us. Until we prove wise enough to control the normal business of the birds and bees, maybe we should avoid opening the Pandora’s box of genetic manipulation.

We have only recently gotten used to the idea of in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, surrogacy and genetic screening. Gay marriage and adoption are recent innovations. And abortion remains controversial. We are preparing to add a whole new layer of complexity to a world reeling from rapidly changing reproductive practices.

Our developing repertoire of reproductive technologies is part of a general demystification of sex and love. We used to speak of soul mates and true love. And we used to view reproduction as both private and miraculous. Those days are over.

Fewer Americans are marrying. According to the Pew Center, only half of American adults are married. That’s a major decline from 1960, when 72 percent of adults were married. And 40 percent of babies in the United States are born out of wedlock. Indeed, that phrase – and related terms like “illegitimate” – have quickly come to sound old-fashioned.

NFL celebrates sex

Our cavalier attitude toward baby-making was on display during the Super Bowl, where the NFL celebrated “Super Bowl Babies” – cute singing children, supposedly conceived after the Super Bowl in the cities of Super Bowl-winning teams.

Who knew that the Super Bowl was an aphrodisiac? But more importantly, who would want the circumstances of their conception splashed across the airwaves? In the old days, it was nobody’s business how or when conception occurred. We used to think that private mysteries of baby-making were better left unexplored. That’s true no more.

The magic of love is rapidly giving way to a view of sex and reproduction as mere transactions. In that climate, it is easy to imagine taking it for granted that offspring could be “programmed” in a lab.

Of love and money

The Super Bowl Babies ad also reminds us of the lurking problem of commercialism. This year, Americans will spend nearly $20 billion on Valentine’s Day. Cupid has become a capitalist.

And baby-making has succumbed to the profit motive. Surrogate mothers rent their wombsfor tens of thousands of dollars. This adds another important moral wrinkle. Rich people have access to expensive reproductive technologies, while poor people risk exploitation. Indeed, surrogacy is often outsourced. In India, for example, poor women give birth to the babies of the affluent.

Poverty has quite a lot to do with reproduction. In the U.S., poor women are five times more likely to have unwanted pregnancies, while affluent women tend to defer child-bearing to focus on career goals. Control of fertility is expensive. It is essential for women’s rights – but it is unevenly distributed.

Given all of this, the romantic, mysterious view of reproduction is nostalgic nonsense. Progress seems to require further demystification of sex and greater control of reproduction. Reproductive control is certainly in the interests of women. It may also help us eradicate diseases.

But before we embrace this brave, new world, we ought to ask ourselves whether we are really wise enough to manage the business of the birds and the bees. We should also realize what we risk losing when Cupid goes commercial and reproduction becomes an engineering problem.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article60063161.html#storylink=cpy