Is having children a moral duty? - Moral Maze

[poppymango]

Not an AIBU but I don’t quite know where else to put it - I just listened to this on BBC Sounds and I found it fascinating and at times a little infuriating. I thought it would make for a good discussion/debate!

“Is having children a moral duty?”

Featuring Ash Sarkar, Sarah Ditum, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, James Orr, Caroline Farrow, Prof Anna Rotrich, and Prof Lisa Schipper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002db9t?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Absolutely fascinated to hear the opinions of other mumsnetters.

The trouble with saying that we need more younger generations to support the older generations is that population growth (on that kind of scale) isn't sustainable. There are only finite resources, and those in positions of power certainly don't seem inclined to establish the kind if system where those resources can be divvied up reasonably fairly across the masses. If the population growth curve kept going up and up, where will the food, water, energy etc needed to sustain that population size come from? Maybe we've just reached the upper population limit that were able to cope with, given the consumerism/capitalism/politics of society?

She's in a borough that is closing primary schools but has a massive social housing list for families.

London is ageing faster than any other city due to the lack of babies & young families.

"the average age of Londoners has risen by two years since 2011 – from 33.8 in 2011 to 35.8 in 2023 – the fastest increase of any major city in the UK. Where most large cities like Manchesterr, Birminghamm, Bristolland Cardifff, have seen the median ages of their residents either remain on a par with 14 years ago or, in the case of the latter two, fall, London has just been getting older."

@EnterFunnyNameHere who is saying the population should keep going up? We already have more over 65 yr olds than under 15 yrs old. Saying people should have more babies or that we are in some for tough economic times due to the changing demographics doesn't mean people should have millions of dc. Plus that is never going to happen, no country despite various incentives has managed to reverse a declining birth rate. It's still important to have the conversation though & a softer landing would be a better alternative.

where will the food, water, energy etc needed to sustain that population size come from?

But where will it come from when you have a population large comprised of older people? And if you think globally about finite resources which countries "deserve" them? Rich, older countries that have already consumed more than their fair share?

No, the world is already overpopulated.

If anything it's a moral duty not to have children for the sake of the planet.

I'd say it's a moral duty not to bring child into the world if you aren't in a stable long term relationship and/or can't financially provide for said child to grow up in a safe environment.

And as a society what do you propose we do that would allow a young working couple to have a house to bring kids up in?

Easy answer- no it's not.

No
With the invention of contraception, this provides the freedom of choice

Yes housing is such an issue. On our street, 5 of the houses are each lived in by a single elderly woman. They can't keep on top of the maintenance or the garden. They cant heat it. They're afraid of being burgled. They want to move to something more suitable, but there isn't any housing stock available. Bungalows in our town are very rare and come at an enormous premium (a 2 bed bungalow costs more than a 4 bed detached house).

Another easy answer just build enough council housing so that everyone who wants one can have one with no RTB.
Council housing for working people would solve so many problems in this country

Why dont councils do that then?

Agree

How could any sane person even propose this as a debate ?

we need less people on this planet and only those who really want kids to have them

And the same demographic, boomers and gen x (of which I am one) vigorously and angrily oppose any planning application to build new homes. I know, I go to the public meetings about them. They are packed with furious older people, all very nicely housed themselves, who will do everything they can to prevent a single house being built. You never see younger, insecurity housed, at these meetings.

Didn't listen to the podcast and NRTFT (stupid fecking "load newer posts" botton) but I think if there was morality associated with having children, surely the "right" thing would be to not bring children into the world at all?

The world is a mess and I cant see it getting any better. Even in the kast 10 years it has changed so much for the worse. I worry about what I have bought my daughter into.

I think there is also the discussion about the policing of women's bodies. Look into the USA. Women being kept alive for unborn babies against everyone's wishes, Trump talking about cash bonuses if you have lots of kids but then refusing to put in place support for that...

A whole host of reasons. The main one being any councillor who stood on a 'we're going to built lots of council housing in your back yard' ticket would never be elected.

I don’t see how it can be a moral duty to have kids? Very tenuous to try and link the two to justify having children.
A (fucked up) religious duty, yes.

A moral duty to not have kids I can get behind. Planet Earth would be most happy.

I think it’s your moral duty to very carefully and honestly assess your ability to care for a child long term BEFORE getting pregnant and only having a kid if you can genuinely give them a good and stable life.

So if someone thinks it's our moral duty as a society to make sure these houses are built, what can we do to change things?

However, I believe we have a moral duty to become the sort of person who will naturally want to have children.

Why? And how, even?

This is spot on. I personally can't morally justify kids (work in the environmental sector and know too much!!).

I'm no economist, but it sounds like we need a tax or care mechanism that allowed these women to move in together to form a mini commune, or to move in a relative, without being tangled in "deprivation of assets".

Mind you, I'd want a high proportion of loos and kitchens to bedrooms, because I'm an untidy cook and wee a lot.

Insofar as morality is a set of social norms which are conducive to the long-term survival of a particular society/group of humans - it's probably not just a moral duty but the primary one!

There are many duties we have to society though so for some people, children might be one they let slip in favour of other obligations, but any society which doesn't put it fairly high in the list of priorities is bluntly not going to be too relevant in a few generations.

We can't. Unless there is cross party support with nowhere for voters opposed to housing to go, this is never going to happen. Likewise building railways and other infrastructure.

China can build high speed railway (for example) with speed and efficiency, because its a dictatorship. We are a democracy and if enough people oppose stuff, it just doesn't get done. I'm not suggesting we bin democracy, but it does have its problems.

• Lack of money
• A need to maintain agricultural land so we can feed ourselves (or at least go the majority of the way to feeding ourselves)
• Refusal by developers or councils to pay for the infrastructure needed - upgrades to drainage, sewage, internet and electricity. New schools, surgeries, dentists, road junctions etc.
• Objections by the voting public who (not unreasonably) do not want their children taught in classes of 40+ or to have raw sewage bubbling up in their gardens.