Parenthood

• Natural habitats are being decimated, the world is growing hotter, and scientists fear we are experiencing the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history.
• Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to bring a child into the world?
• Recently, my work has explored questions where these two fields intersect, such as how climate change should affect decision-making about having a family.

A lifelong footprint

• Many people who care about the environment believe they are obligated to try to reduce their impact: driving fuel-efficient vehicles, recycling and purchasing food locally, for example.
• So, if you think you are obligated to do other activities to reduce your impact on the environment, you should limit your family size, too.
• In response, however, some people may argue that adding a single person to a planet of 8 billion cannot make a meaningful difference.

Crunching the numbers

• For example, statistician Paul Murtaugh and scientist Michael Schlax attempted to estimate the “carbon legacy” tied to a couple’s choice to procreate.
• They estimated the total lifetime emissions of individuals living in the world’s most populous 11 countries.

• Driving a more fuel-efficient car, on the other hand – getting 10 more miles to the gallon – would save only 148 metric tons of CO2-equivalent.
• He found that the average American contributes roughly one two-billionth of the total greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

Collective toll

• One common thought in ethics is that people should avoid participating in enterprises that involve collective wrongdoing.
• Suppose someone considers making a small donation to an organization that they learn is engaged in immoral activities, such as polluting a local river.
• We could reason the same way about procreation: Overpopulation is a collective problem that is degrading the environment and causing harm, so individuals should reduce their contribution to it when they can.

Moral gray zone

But perhaps having children warrants an exception. Parenthood is often a crucial part of people’s life plans and makes their lives far more meaningful, even if it does come at a cost to the planet. Some people believe reproductive freedom is so important that no one should feel moral pressure to restrict the size of their family.

• Is there a way to balance the varied and competing moral considerations in play here?
• I believe this allows a couple an appropriate amount of reproductive freedom while also recognizing the moral significance of the environmental problems linked to population growth.
• It is also possible, as ethicist Kalle Grill has argued, that none of these positions gets the moral calculus exactly right.
• Regardless, it is clear that prospective parents should reflect on the moral dimensions of procreation and its importance to their life plans.

Trevor Hedberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.