Should This Be the Last Generation?

[ailamos]

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.

 

All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered — and why they fail — I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?

If there were to be no future generations, there would be nothing for us to feel to guilty about. Is there anything wrong with this scenario?

 

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

 

Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.

 

Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

 

Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

 

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

 

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

 

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. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

 

I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

 

What do you think?

 

Readers are invited to respond to the following questions in the comment section below:

 

If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence?

 

If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence?

 

Is life worth living, for most people in developed nations today?

 

Is a world with people in it better than a world with no sentient beings at all?

 

Would it be wrong for us all to agree not to have children, so that we would be the last generation on Earth?

 

Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save.”

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/

[Ibtisam]

I was thinking along these lines the other day, probably because I watched "Children of Men"

 

He is just ranting though, no such thing as everyone will agree, anything that depends on everyone agreeing on is always going to be left behind.

 

I don't agree with professor [he is talking for the interest of the world where as I was thinking less radical version would be interesting] some sort of population control much like the Indians, Japanese and Chinese. Although again it won't work on 3rd world countries.

 

It would be nice to have a missed generation in places of conflict, for example in Somalia most of the 17-18 year old living there have only known war, they probably have heaps of psychological problems that would never allow them to integrate into normal society and they are more likely to settling confrontations with the gun. Now these xabad faluuq will have kids and it starts a cycle of a new generation who again see conflict as normality. If we had a missed generation, there will be less people (more chance of consensus on things) society will not be burden or stuck with conflict born and raised adults who are hard to rehabilitate.

[NGONGE]

The type of privileged nonsense people have whilst sipping a glass of wine in some middle class living room. A non argument really.

 

Ibti, Ibti, Ibti catch yourself, dear.

[Ibtisam]

^^^I did saY i was wondering about it after a film Ngonge. It is not an election idea

 

Anyway I would like to see who would tell a Somali man or women to miss a generation even for their own safety.

 

P.s. I was eating popcorn is a working class living room,

[NGONGE]

^^ Your last paragraph sounded ugly.

[Ibtisam]

It is ugly, but it does not make it untrue, and yes I know their parents and families love them, but the reailty is they did not have a normal growth process. Poverty and conflict as suppose to peace, education and social manners. Anyone under 14 can be re-programmed but 17+ young lads, dac iyo boobo and guns is the story.

 

The good ones tahrib ba nafta ka qaadey,

[NGONGE]

^^ You believe there is an age limit for reform?

 

Ugly. Ugly. Ugly. Do what the article say and is dil dee.

[Ibtisam]

^^^Yes there is an age limit for reform when resources are so limited, as is the case in Somalia. It is more difficult to reform adults than children.

 

Lool @ Is dil, now you think I am the new Marx/ B?

[Juxa]

ilmo yaa la dhalin maala dhahay?

[Malika]

^Yeah,and more so those in third world should commit a mass suicide,their lives are not worth living..Lol

 

Stuff iyo Nonsense..@ article

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by *Ibtisam:

^^^Yes there is an age limit for reform when resources are so limited, as is the case in Somalia. It is more difficult to reform adults than children.

 

Lool @ Is dil, now you think I am the new Marx/ B?

Nonsense. You are trying to apply western methods and thoughts to an eastern problem. Plus, if that is the case, where would you put the sudden achievements of the Islamic Courts two years ago? Where does the concept of tooba come into this sandle-wearing-bead-dangling-whale-saving view of yours?

[Ibtisam]

^^I don't have to explain the Islamic courts achievement because it fell apart faster than it was put together, and you are forgetting they too replied on the power of the gun.

 

As for the concept of tooba as in repentance to allah?, adiga aya wax isku khaladya atheer, tooba and reform or rehabilitation is NOT the same thing. Of course tooba has no age limit and you can turn to your lord anytime assuming you have the Islamic education to realise this, but rehabilitation of social ills is independent of this. Wax fahan as you would say.

[NGONGE]

^^ Social ills such as? Can you have tooba without reform?

[-Lily-]

Well obviously if you think the height of life is sitting in your sunny garden having a fag & a glass of wine, as so many of these intellectuals think, you have no reason to live.

 

Ibti, despite its dark content, I thought Children of Men was an excellent film.

[Ibtisam]

^^^I agree, the film was great.!

 

Ngonge: today you want to go in cicles.

 

1) Tooba is to Allah SWT not society, you can be qof aan toobad iyo ayyo toon lahein but who lives and exist as a contributing member of the society.

 

2) Tooba does not happen "en mass" what is the chance everyone is going to have tooba and decide to reform at the same time in Somalia??

 

3) Tooba is private individual reform which in the long term can affect society in trickle down mode, but cannot be used as a rehabilitating program.

 

4)Just because someone has made tooba, it does not mean that they are now psychological fit or not traumatized by their experience and past.

 

5) Islam is not new to Somalia (at least in theory) so if Islam was going to address the social problems we have, it either has not been given a chance (people dont know) or it has failed to impact on the population (they know and decided to ignore it). It is only fair to concluded that it needs a helping hand, at least until people have the facilities, enviornment and education system to teach and help implement Islam as governing social behavior and addressing current problems.