Is Having Children and Bringing Another Human into This World 'Ethical'?

Having children or not? One of the most controversial questions that can be asked. Last week was the International Day for those who choose not to have children. Many in this group consider bringing another human into this world to be unethical and consciously choose to remain childless. Their opponents argue that reproduction is a natural, necessary, and instinctive act and are concerned about the extinction of the human race. In this program from Taboo, sociologist Hossein Ghazian and women's rights researcher Zhila Mohaddesh Shari'atpanahi discuss this topic. If you allow, let's start the program with Ms. Shari'atpanahi. We just passed the International Day for those who are childless and do not wish to have children. Some in this group argue that having children is fundamentally unethical in today's world. Ms. Shari'atpanahi, I want to know what you think about this proposition? Zhila Mohaddesh Shari'atpanahi: Having children is a beautiful human instinct, and deeming it unethical, assuming it is accepted by all humans, would lead to the extinction of humanity. Therefore, any theory that results in the extinction of humanity through its universality can be concluded to be unethical itself. Very well. Mr. Ghazian, Ms. Shari'atpanahi touches on a point that may be very difficult to respond to and argue about. They say that this could lead to the extinction of humanity, and anything that leads to the extinction of humanity is indeed unethical. Hossein Ghazian: You see, humanity has no external counterpart. It is an abstract concept. What exists is human beings. If you eliminate a person, of course, you are ethically committing a wrong act. But there is no such thing as humanity. Humanity is a concept. Therefore, eliminating it does not necessarily constitute an unethical act. In terms of common understanding, there are reasons to argue why having children is not a matter that can be easily overlooked and considered very natural and normal. The first issue is the issue of rights, which is that as a person, what right do I have to decide for another person and bring them into the world? This is what we do with childbirth. The question is, where does this right of mine come from? Why can I decide about the future of another human being and bring them into a world that I myself may not be happy with? A world filled with dissatisfaction and threats that may lie ahead. The second issue is empirical reasons. We see that in this world there is not enough space and resources for the people living in it, and the population pressure on resources is so great that it has created numerous problems. From global warming and the dangers that actually threaten humanity to the economic and social hardships that humanity faces today. In fact, with the idea you raised, Mr. Ghazian, you take us to another level of discussion and another question we can raise. You said, what right do we have to bring another human into this world that is filled with suffering, but some also say that there are good things in this world and the beauties of the world are not few. Why then should we deprive a being of this unique experience of living? Therefore, it is unclear which is unethical here. Ms. Shari'atpanahi, you may want to add a point? Mohaddesh Shari'atpanahi: If we also want to take help from biology, evolution and development result from reproduction. If the reproduction of a living being stops, its evolution has actually stopped, and if we want to set aside religious and spiritual issues and rely solely on science, we see that one of the characteristics of living beings is reproduction, and it is through the process of reproduction that adaptation occurs. You see, are human sufferings in our time greater than in previous eras? For example, think about the time before the discovery of bacteria and viruses and microbes and see what the plague and cholera did to people. But now, with human advancements, this ability is embedded in humanity [everything has changed]. A very tangible and live example is this person who won the Fields Medal. He was born in a village where there was not enough water and managed to become one of the top mathematicians. Because this ability for improvement is embedded in every human being. Even slavery was abolished by humans themselves; although some apparently liked it a lot. It is this human suffering that has led to evolution throughout all eras, including today. Problems have been created by humans themselves, and hopefully, humans, including ethical humans, can improve them. Mr. Ghazian, Ms. Shari'atpanahi points out that the world has become a better place to live throughout history, although as you said, in terms of resource destruction and the state of the world's ecosystem, it is not in a good condition and faces a worse situation ahead. But some say, why should we prevent the birth of new children instead of making the world a better place and creating a place where it is not so difficult? Is this proposition very romantic? Because so far we see that global events have created other outcomes, or do you think this angle can also be considered? Ghazian: You see, even if you say that there is pleasure in this world, there is happiness, there is bliss and satisfaction, these do not solve our problem. Because no one can hold you accountable for giving joy and pleasure to another, but they can hold you accountable for causing me suffering. And this is entirely plausible. Therefore, by stating that there is happiness and satisfaction in the world, the problem is not resolved. The second issue regarding whether humanity can make the future better. Well, humanity has always been in this effort and has done it. Instead of discussing abstract concepts like humanity and the like, we should talk about specific people. That is, how can I, as a human, and you as a human decide about the future of another person you want to bring into this world? Not about humanity, not about the human race, not about improving the future of humanity and the like. Even if we want to look at the subject from this angle, the issue of population pressure on the Earth's biological resources remains. You see that this trend, with the increase in population and the pressure it puts on resources, has caused human life to be more destroyed, and this is a trend, and we know it is a threat to what we refer to as humanity or the human race. Therefore, when humanity is currently unable to create a suitable life for the number of children it has brought into this world, what reason do I, as an individual, have to bring another person into this world with all the potential future sufferings? Another dimension of the issue, Ms. Shari'atpanahi, is that you mentioned the natural evolution of humanity in your talks. In any case, this proposition is also raised that having children is a 'natural' act. Just as we see that it happens in all other dimensions of nature, it is a natural occurrence for humans, and not having children is actually 'unnatural.' I want to know your view on this angle. Do you consider having children a 'natural' act? Mohaddesh Shari'atpanahi: Let me briefly respond to Mr. Ghazian's objections and return to the question you raised. You see, no one can predict the future with 100% certainty, and if we accept this thesis that Mr. Ghazian and some others have adhered to, since not all humans want to live ethically or do not know or accept it, in this case, educated people and those who accept ethical living will gradually decrease, and irresponsible people and those who live carelessly will fill the world. And then the future of humanity will worsen day by day. In fact, I want educated and responsible people to have more children and then be able to raise future humans with the help of proper education and this immense technology that is now at our service. You see, we have infinite solar energy. Some people extract water from the air, and this is an inexhaustible resource. Now there are those who want to create a place on Mars, which fortunately has also found water for the future lives of humans. We have all this technology and artificial intelligence. How can we be pessimistic about the future of humanity? I am personally very optimistic... Ms. Shari'atpanahi, but before we go to answer my question, I want to say that there is no guarantee that thoughtful and enlightened people will necessarily have wise and enlightened children. Mohaddesh Shari'atpanahi: Well, consider the probability. In educational theses, a large percentage is attributed to genes and an even larger percentage to upbringing. Statistics show this. If a child is born into a criminal family with addicted parents, it is statistically clear that it is much harder for this child to grow than in a family where the parents are enlightened individuals who have taken care of their responsibilities. But regarding naturalness. In my opinion, childbirth is instinctual and a very beautiful instinct. If you see what those who are infertile endure in terms of suffering and expenses to at least have one child, especially in America, where technology has advanced so much, and then when they have children, they act with full responsibility. I do not see many parents who act very well regarding their children. Instinct should be nurtured, but it should not be opposed. Mr. Ghazian, Ms. Shari'atpanahi described reproduction as instinctual, and I want to ask you whether in the discussion of natural and unnatural, we can perhaps raise the question of whether everything that is natural is good? Ghazian: There is a time when we use natural in the sense of inherent. That is, there is something in the biological essence of humanity that is designed to reproduce. Well, in this sense, natural equals inherent, and if something is inherent, it is universal or general. It encompasses all individuals of that type and is therefore non-deviable, but we see that there are people who do not have children and people who do not want to have children. Another possible meaning of naturalness may be that we are programmed machines that are designed to reproduce. This is what Ms. Shari'atpanahi refers to as instinct. Well, we know that this is not the case. We see that this is not the case. It is true that our biological or biochemical structure is such that at certain times we need sexual relations, but sexual relations and the need for sexual relations and the instinctual nature of sexual relations - in quotes - does not mean that reproduction is instinctual. The fallacy that is somewhat hidden in her statements is that if something is natural, it is good, but many other things are also natural, and we stand against them. For example, diseases. Many diseases are natural, and we confront them. We confront many natural disasters. Therefore, the idea that 'anything that is natural is good' is not the case. Secondly, 'if something is confirmed by science, it is good.' For example, evolution. Again, the same fallacy exists here. If you line up a million scientific statements that say 'is,' you cannot extract a 'must' from them that says humanity must do this. Mohaddesh Shari'atpanahi: You see, I did not say that this issue is natural and did not commit a fallacy, but I said that this issue is instinctual, and my reason is that primitive humans who did not even know how children came into being had children. But we have come to nurture our instincts, for example, eating. Has our diet not been placed under a better dietary regime? Have we not created a science called nutrition? Well, there is also a science called child-rearing. Not that we say that because this is unethical, no one should have children, and this is better. Mr. Ghazian himself is avoiding musts and must-nots, but the very fact that he says that having children is an unethical act; means that he has a must and must-not for humanity. Enlightened individuals and ethical individuals should participate in raising the next generation. One of the points that Ms. Shari'atpanahi emphasizes is that if enlightened individuals bring another being into the world, the state of the world can improve in the future. Ghazian: The first issue is that I do not want to talk about musts and must-nots here. I am actually discussing that humans should think about these musts and must-nots and the ethical aspects of the subject. That’s it. Secondly, I may not be able to say what humans should or should not do as a sociologist. That is, I absolutely cannot say because sociology or any science cannot actually say what humans should do and what they should not do. But I invite those who wish to live ethically to consider this question with themselves: do I have the right to bring another into this world or not? It is clear that not all people live ethically or logically. Therefore, the concern that if people do not address this ethical question...