Are women obligated to have children? This man thinks soby Katie Herzog|#Woman |
Vox recently commissioned an essay by Torbjörn Tännsjö,
Swedish professor and public intellectual, and then rejected it after
finding his submission too loony for their tastes. In his manifesto,
Tännsjö argues that humans have a moral obligation to reproduce -- and
to do it early and often. "I am very, very uncomfortable telling anyone
that it is their obligation to bear child after child, starting at the
moment of first fertility and ending only at menopause," editor-in-chief Ezra Klein explained after
Tännsjö published his rejection letter. "And I didn't think the piece
made its case convincingly enough for us to stand behind a conclusion so
sweeping and dramatic."
After the piece was rejected by Vox, Gawker decided that it fit their editorial guidelines just fine, and published the essay in full. It begins:
You should have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest. You should have kids because it’s your moral duty to do so.My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty to maximize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation to make the world as populated as can be.Of course, we should see to it that we do not overpopulate the planet in a manner that threatens the future existence of mankind. But we’re nowhere near that point yet, at least not if we also see to it that we solve pressing problems such as the one with global warming. In the mean time, we’re ethically obligated to make as many people as possible.This idea, that having children is a moral obligation, is controversial, so much so that it’s known in philosophy as the “repugnant conclusion.” But I don’t think it’s repugnant at all.
Where
should I begin? Let's start with happiness, which Tännsjö seems to
believe to be the default state for most people. Now, I've heard that life is good in Sweden,
but where is Tännsjö getting his data? Perhaps he looked around his
office, saw his own reflection beaming back at him from his darkened
iMac screen and thought: "Look at that happy fellow! Life is good!" He
certainly didn't ask me.
Aside
from the sweeping assumption that people are mostly happy,
the idea that we are "ethically obligated to make as many people as
possible" is, frankly, dangerous -- andexactly the opposite of the conclusion of many bioethicists. Population scholars have posited that there are already too many people on this planet (I can think of 17 in particular right
now) and it cannot sustainably support exponential growth. Tännsjö
acknowledges the hazards of a growing population, but he seems to think
that cumulative happiness is more important than quality of life -- not
that the two have anything to do with each other, of course.
Contrary
to Tännsjö's beliefs, more people won't mean more happiness -- more
people will mean fewer resources for everyone. It's like when your whole
building is stealing your neighbor's WiFi at the same time and no one
can watch Netflix. Don't they steal WiFi in Sweden? My metaphor may be
flawed, but not so much as Tännsjö's logic.
Ironically, one study suggests that parents are actually less happy
than non-parents. If we all listened to Tännsjö and started expelling
children as soon as we're old enough to bleed, we won't just be fighting
for resources -- we'll also be in terrible moods because our kids won't
stop bickering and no one ever helps with the laundry. To add insult to
injury, it's not like Tännsjö is the one who has to bear all these
hypothetical children anyway. After all, it's a lot easier to argue for
childbirth if you never have to go through it.
I'd say Ezra Klein was right to pull this one. But free speech and unpopular opinions have value,
and I'm glad to know there's a place for insane ideas. I thought they
lived on Reddit, but it seems that Gawker's made a home for them as
well.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for message