I’m very torn on this question, so let’s shoot for 60%.
Many people are probably thinking about the impact on animals, which most EA forum readers will probably agree is a far stronger argument for anti-natalism than climate.
There’s a set of arguments, recently articulated by Bentham’s Bulldog, which looks like this:
High birth rates are good because human lives tend to be good
But humans kill animals for food and incentivise factory farming, which clearly overwhelms the positives of a human life, therefore high human birth rates might be bad (meat-eater problem)
But humans also incidentally prevent the lives of billions of insects and fish, and insect lives are net-negative, therefore this clearly overwhelms both farmed animals and the value of a human life, therefore high birth rates are actually good!
And more humans are likely to make the far future even better for animals, so high birth rates are even more good!
Of course we should take this argument seriously, but:
1) Having children seems an incredibly inefficient way of maximising your destruction of insects! If insect suffering does overwhelm other effects, this fails to provide an effective utilitarian argument for human pronatalism.
2) Based on current human values and preference for environmental protection/rewilding, it seems plausible to me that the marginal human may not decrease wild insect numbers. Similarly, I can see a far-future where more humans make the world worse for both farmed and wild animals.
3) Practically, I suspect you’ll lose most ethically minded individuals, or people who have very low estimates of insect/fish consciousness, at step 2 - the meat-eater problem. Step 3 requires taking quite a bitter pill in terms of cross-species anti-natalism and the disvalue of existence more generally. “Open Phil-brand EA”, which generally disregards insect and wild animal welfare, would also have to reject step 3, and may therefore have to conclude that anti-natalism is good.
4) More personally, it does seem a bit weird feeling that my wonderful little baby’s main source of value in the world is his insect-destroying potential.
I’m very torn on this question, so let’s shoot for 60%.
Many people are probably thinking about the impact on animals, which most EA forum readers will probably agree is a far stronger argument for anti-natalism than climate.
There’s a set of arguments, recently articulated by Bentham’s Bulldog, which looks like this:
High birth rates are good because human lives tend to be good
But humans kill animals for food and incentivise factory farming, which clearly overwhelms the positives of a human life, therefore high human birth rates might be bad (meat-eater problem)
But humans also incidentally prevent the lives of billions of insects and fish, and insect lives are net-negative, therefore this clearly overwhelms both farmed animals and the value of a human life, therefore high birth rates are actually good!
And more humans are likely to make the far future even better for animals, so high birth rates are even more good!
Of course we should take this argument seriously, but:
1) Having children seems an incredibly inefficient way of maximising your destruction of insects! If insect suffering does overwhelm other effects, this fails to provide an effective utilitarian argument for human pronatalism.
2) Based on current human values and preference for environmental protection/rewilding, it seems plausible to me that the marginal human may not decrease wild insect numbers. Similarly, I can see a far-future where more humans make the world worse for both farmed and wild animals.
3) Practically, I suspect you’ll lose most ethically minded individuals, or people who have very low estimates of insect/fish consciousness, at step 2 - the meat-eater problem. Step 3 requires taking quite a bitter pill in terms of cross-species anti-natalism and the disvalue of existence more generally. “Open Phil-brand EA”, which generally disregards insect and wild animal welfare, would also have to reject step 3, and may therefore have to conclude that anti-natalism is good.
4) More personally, it does seem a bit weird feeling that my wonderful little baby’s main source of value in the world is his insect-destroying potential.