And there are some people online who promote this, but I think for most of them they had kids for the usual reasons (they wanted them) and then post hoc came up with reasons for why it’s actually the best thing for the world.
You can tell because they don’t actually do cause prioritization like they do with the other causes. There are no cost-effectiveness analyzes comparing having children to mentorship etc.
It usually feels more like how most people talk about ordinary charities. Exaggerated claims of impact and no attempt to do genuine cause comparison and feeling offended if you try to bring up alternatives and do a systematic comparison of the options.
Mostly this show’s up as people saying it is unethical to not have children even if the person is an EA and they know that that time and money would be coming out of donations to effective charities, so they are making the claim that it is more effective to have children than it is to donate more.
Within EA? Because the normal EA argument I’ve heard is “don’t have kids, use the time/resources more productively” (ex: Rachels (2014)) or “have kids if you want to, since we should all have some budget for doing things that are important to us” (ex: me in 2013, a couple in 2023)
Will MacAskill is positive towards having children, although he doesn’t say it’s the best thing you can do. From What We Owe The Future:
But given the benefits of having children and raising them well, I do think that we could start to once again see having kids as a way of positively contributing to the world. Just as you can live a good life by being helpful to those around you, donating to charity, or working in a socially valuable career, I think you can live a good life by raising a family and being a loving parent.
“Pro-natalists” do, although that tends to be more associated with specific ideas that the world needs more people like them (often linked to religious or nationalistic ideas) than EA. The average parent tends to think that bringing up a child is [one of] the most profound ways they can contribute to the world, but they’re thinking more in terms of effort and association than effect size.
I also think it’s pretty easy to make a case that having lots of children (who in turn have descendants) is the most impactful thing you could do based on certain standard longtermist assumptions (large possible future, total utilitarian axiology, human lives generally net positive) and uncertainty about how to prevent human extinction but I’m not aware of a strand of longtermism that actually preaches or practices this and I don’t think it’s a particularly strong argument.
Do people actually have kids because they think it’s the most effective way to improve the world?
I’ve known a few people who say this.
And there are some people online who promote this, but I think for most of them they had kids for the usual reasons (they wanted them) and then post hoc came up with reasons for why it’s actually the best thing for the world.
You can tell because they don’t actually do cause prioritization like they do with the other causes. There are no cost-effectiveness analyzes comparing having children to mentorship etc.
It usually feels more like how most people talk about ordinary charities. Exaggerated claims of impact and no attempt to do genuine cause comparison and feeling offended if you try to bring up alternatives and do a systematic comparison of the options.
Mostly this show’s up as people saying it is unethical to not have children even if the person is an EA and they know that that time and money would be coming out of donations to effective charities, so they are making the claim that it is more effective to have children than it is to donate more.
Within EA? Because the normal EA argument I’ve heard is “don’t have kids, use the time/resources more productively” (ex: Rachels (2014)) or “have kids if you want to, since we should all have some budget for doing things that are important to us” (ex: me in 2013, a couple in 2023)
Will MacAskill is positive towards having children, although he doesn’t say it’s the best thing you can do. From What We Owe The Future:
“Pro-natalists” do, although that tends to be more associated with specific ideas that the world needs more people like them (often linked to religious or nationalistic ideas) than EA. The average parent tends to think that bringing up a child is [one of] the most profound ways they can contribute to the world, but they’re thinking more in terms of effort and association than effect size.
I also think it’s pretty easy to make a case that having lots of children (who in turn have descendants) is the most impactful thing you could do based on certain standard longtermist assumptions (large possible future, total utilitarian axiology, human lives generally net positive) and uncertainty about how to prevent human extinction but I’m not aware of a strand of longtermism that actually preaches or practices this and I don’t think it’s a particularly strong argument.