How many kids to have?
I am a smart veterinary student, and my husband is an uncommonly intelligent engineer. We have degrees from prestigious universities. However, diabetes and heart disease run in my family, and my husband has Crohn's disease and a congenital heart problem. If we had three kids, we would contribute to overpopulation, but perhaps (even despite the medical issues) marginally increase the quality of that population (aren't I pretentious!). May we ethically have more than two children?
(Someone's gotten ahold of a first-year philosophy text.)
March 25th, 2007 6:40pm
Two similar (ethical) posts in quick succession from people we've never heard of.
Or just someone who recently watched "Idiocracy" ?
March 25th, 2007 6:40pm
You are so modest too.
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a severe underpopulation problem at the moment. There is a declining birth rate amongst the quality, educated people such as yourself, and the difference is being made up by immigrants. If you don't want the country to be overrun by ignorant peasants, your duty is to have as many children as possible.
It would be best to get sterilized and then put all your efforts into your career. Any extra cash you have, donate to charities helping feed people in the third world.
To be honet, if I were you i'd be thinking of creative ways to kill myself.
Implying that one social class is more entitled than another to have children tiptoes toward the goofball eugenics that should be an ugly anachronism. Even as a matter of nurture, not nature, those who attend "prestigious universities" have no greater moral right to reproduce than those at community colleges. Or no college. In fact, one might argue that it is in nobody's interest to replicate Harvardians. And by "one" I mean me, and by "Harvardians" I mean Robert McNamara. Or do I mean Henry Kissinger? Or is it the jealousy talking? If there is a strong chance of your passing on a serious malady to your children, you might forgo having (but not adopting) kids. How great a chance? That's something for you and your husband to discuss with your doctor.
There are, as you suggest, economic and social arguments against having a third child, but they need not automatically preclude your doing so. What's critical is that in the country as a whole, and on the planet as a whole, the fertility rate does not exceed the replacement level, which in the United States is just over two kids. Some families will have one or no kids, and thus others may choose to have three.
One key factor in achieving this global average is to raise the standard of living for all. Families in wealthier places like the United States or Western Europe tend to be smaller. (Other significant factors include the empowerment of women and increased access to education.) If you are committed to not increasing the population, to not risking passing on a serious health risk and to having a big family, consider adoption. It's not just DNA that determines how kids turn out.
March 25th, 2007 7:37pm
Again, someone here is forgetting the quotation marks. This is a reprint from another web site, http://www.uexpress.com/onethics/index.html?uc_full_date=20060212.
Did some of you major in plagiarism?
>Did some of you major in plagiarism?
Everyone I went to University with did!
This is dumb. The eugenics tone is more amusing than scary (at least it's honest -- it's what most people think: "if there were only more awesome people like me").
Just have as many kids as feels right (and your Excel worksheet says you can afford to send to college). How will you know? Don't worry. You'll know.
Ethics is easy. It really is.