In Gerald Harrison and Julia Tanner’s Better Not to Have Children, procreation is shown to be without moral ground, and humanity must consider its cessation entirely to stop the harm it causes to the earth and life generally.

I: Harrison and Tanner’s Views

Humans are harmful. Humanity is the most destructive lifeform on earth, so a solution would be to remove said destructive force (113). Further, that humanity is responsible for the largest era of mass extinctions displays human demise as a net benefit to nature (115). Humans are harmful to their surroundings and life across the planet. Wherever humans settle, the environment is typically destroyed. Pollution has warmed the planet at a dangerous rate causing extinctions to other species. The potential for nuclear annihilation also seems to conclude that human existence is an unwelcome danger to anything nearby. Morally, why would one desire to bring such a hurtful creature into existence?

Procreation is neither beneficial to the child or parent. Even if one’s life appears good, the final harm will eventually come in death, so “it may be better never to have lived at all, than to have lived and died” (117). As for parents, surveys have shown most parents regret having children while feeling no happier for having them (119) and that since in the west children do not usually care for elderly parents “the childless are more financially secure and in better health” (120). Children are thrust into a world they may not want or even enjoy (to starve, slavery, war). Parents are similarly mostly harmed by having children in failing to find ‘fulfillment’ and becoming financially unstable. Neither child nor parent is necessarily benefitted from procreation. A life of misery or eventual disappointment in losing a good life is net negative compared to never being born, which leaves suffering at a sterile zero.

Procreation is a gamble. An individual life may be good or horrendous, the parent does not suffer this new life, and procreation ignores the harm humanity already causes (119). Procreation assumes “future generations will behave responsibly” (114). There is no saying with certainty that bringing another life into this world is a good. That child may be born to suffer, a choice their parents made on their behalf knowing well that humans are incredibly hurtful to the environment, animals, and each other. It also cannot be guaranteed that the next generation will not just double down on pollution and war. Considering the progress of technology (our nuclear bombs and weapons have become more powerful and efficient), it is likely that the next world war would be the annihilation of much of earth’s life cradling potential. Overall, the choice to bring another child into the world is not made with certainty but with hope. Considering the harm humans cause the earth, animals, and each other, the more certain answer is a great amount of harm would cease if humans were gone.

This does not advocate a mass suicide nor war of extinction. “Only those who exist, did exist, or will exist, can have rights” (114). A living thing already born, has rights that cannot be violated. Harrison and Tanner advocate that humanity should let itself become extinct by not creating the next generation. A thing that does not exist cannot be harmed or violated in their rights as they are a non-entity. The ‘will exist’ above is a bit unclear. It is more likely Harrison and Tanner meant in cases where an embryo or unborn thing will be existing shortly has moral consideration (discussion). While this begs the question of ‘where does life begin?’ and the ethics of terminating a pregnancy, the fact that such things are not discussed in their paper indicates this as a foothold for potential debate, and to defend technically ‘unborn’ lives from being completely overlooked for moral consideration.

II: Application

Procreation oversteps humanity’s appetite for certainty. To justify something in the sciences empiric proof must be founded in rigorous testing of hypotheses. Those closest to their demise, those who have lived the longest lives, and people generally do not agree on life being good or bad: uncertainty is even disputed. A scientific answer to the meaning of life as of now would come from anecdotes, opinions, and lies. Consider the arts and philosophy which rely on logical argument and proofs to make an assertion. Broadly, philosophy asks the universal ‘why?’ be it ethics, understanding, or what is. In thousands of years of ethical systems and logical arguments asserting various understandings of the universe no absolute definitive answer can be given to life being good or bad. Why then if life cannot be proven so readily ‘good’ is it so assumed that bringing another life into such an existence is even morally proper? Following this line of thinking, Harrison and Tanner have ground in stating that procreation itself must be considered, especially given humanity’s tendency to cause suffering.

III: Reflection

One can justify the cessation of life entirely. There is no harm in not bringing a life into existence. One could end suffering by preventing all procreation. No lifeform is harmed according to Harrison and Tanner as only non-entities are prevented from existing. If it is the morally correct thing for humans to stop the suffering they cause, what of the suffering that exists in nature? Humans will be gone, but volcanos will still engulf forests, lions will eat baby elephants, and a cataclysm can still occur. There is no guarantee that life is good so a solution would be to cease the ‘gamble’ all together. If there is nothing to suffer then suffering vanishes.

This logic is where Harrison and Tanner’s thought falls short. It reduces life down to an equation of net suffering/happiness. Happiness cannot be guaranteed, but humanity can stop all suffering by preventing the next generation of life. This is a kind of utilitarian-nihilism that answers the question of harm by preventing the agent of experience. Logically, this is true: I cannot experience suffering if I was never born. Humanity will kill nothing, only prevent potential ‘I’s or anything that can suffer. It prevents questions by turning experience off. Human harm is a massive issue, but destroying the chalkboard is not the solution we should strive for.

As much as life is not guaranteed to be great, it is not necessarily bad. A net account of experiences fails to understand a single good experience can outshine a sea of bad ones.

Sources:

Gerald Harrison and Julia Tanner. Better not to Have Children. From ‘Think Spring’ (2013) pg. 113-121