No. If that were true, then I wouldn’t want anyone to have children, ever, since I don’t want any of my own–I can’t stand them. Clearly, that’s not the way to go, however, since we’d be extinct within a generation. I’m all for people having kids if they should so choose. But, IMO, 18 of them is pushing the boundaries of sensibility.
To put it more generally, if there exists a set of choices A through, say, F and I strongly disagree with choice F while myself excercising choice A, that doesn’t not imply that I also disagree with choices B, C, D and E. Hence the strawman.
My first thought was also “How much in welfare and food stamps do they get?”, but upon learning “none” I figured it’s not bothering me other than the empathetic ewwww that anyone would want to have that many (but that’s total projection from somebody who doesn’t have and doesn’t want even one).
I will admit that everytime I see them interviewed I do thing of Meaning of Life.
Sure, if you think all morals are subjective, and what counts as selfish vs. what is morally permissible is subjective, then we can’t criticize the Duggers (although you can’t criticize us for criticizing the Duggers either, so there’s that problem for you). But it’s a basic tenet of fairness that people taking far more than their share (e.g., of the earth’s public resources) are being selfish, and it is not right. The fact that some people can get away with it just shows that the system can tolerate a certain number of free riders before crashing.
Take another look at the human population growth curve. Having too many kids–whether it’s 8 or 18–is immoral because no ecosystem can sustain the exponential growth of any species. It is mathematically impossible. Those who contribute to this explosion of the human population by overbreeding are creating a burden on the Earth and its environment that is more serious, in fact, than someone driving a Hummer, because people driving Hummers wouldn’t be such a serious problem if there weren’t so goddamn many of us.
How do you know that they consume as much as the average American? Maybe through resource sharing their share of resources is below the statistical mean.
No it can’t but since it’s not experiencing an exponential growth rate, and in fact trends tend to point toward a significant reduction in the growth rate, I see your fears as unfounded. It is already established that the United States would have a negative rate of growth if not for immigration. Most of the first world has negative population growth, to such a degree that is a cause for economic concern and governments worldwide are beginning to take it very seriously.
Also, a person is not a Hummer. A Hummer is a consumer good, whereas each person that is born can at some point be expected to carry their own burden, so having another child isn’t the same thing as purchasing a wasteful and garish, poorly constructed vehicle for the point of being seen in it.
Mr. Dugger can afford to support his children. I happen to receive a lot of handouts for my single daughter as well. Is there some sort of shame I should feel for receiving free strollers and clothing from my friend’s daughter? Will it be shameful when I pass some of it along to my sister? The Dugger family, it can fairly be assumed share a lot of resources, thus reducing their level of consumption per person.
A child is not a consumer good, nor the equivalent of it in any way shape or form. Our problems with living within the means of our environment have to do with greedy overconsumption, and poor economic efficiency.
Maybe, maybe not. We can’t predict what the population will ultimately wind up doing. But, why should we wait until it’s an obvious (and possibly unavoidable) problem before doing something about it?
What we can’t predict is what the limit is and when we’ll reach it. Nevertheless, much of the available evidence suggests it will become a problem eventually. Now, granted, it’s a self-correcting problem. One way or another, it will take care of itself. The thing about that is, we might not like the way it goes about it. See the second link above for one possible scenario which I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t enjoy. What’s wrong with being a little proactive?
I believe overpopulation may be a problem. I believe that the Earth can definitely NOT sustain an exponential growth rate. I also believe that if every family had as many children as the Duggars, it would be a very bad thing.
But the fact is that very, very few families have that many children. So it’s not worth worrying about.
I’m a lifelong liberal and environmentalist, but to me this feels like an attack on a fundamental human right. Yes, I know people are saying they aren’t promoting laws against having that many children, they just feel that it’s “not right”, in their opinion. Well, let me say that in my gut this sounds exactly like someone saying he doesn’t think there should be a law against interracial marriage, but they just feel it’s “not right”. It’s just the same feeling I get in the pit of my stomach.
And that’s why it’s so different, in my mind at least, than buying a Hummer.
I am completely with you on the question of population, and I’m sad to see that it’s become pretty much a lost issue with regard to the environment as a whole. This development was unavoidable; since it’s impossible to address these concerns to the cultures and countries that tend to have the highest fertility rates, without appearing to be racist, culturist, or chauvinistic. On the other hand, it is difficult for me to disapprove of a family like the Duggars who obviously raise their kids very well. Are we better off with 18 well-raised children who grow up and become productive adults, or two badly raised ones who don’t?
I didn’t have any kids of my own, and I don’t think I’d have been that great a dad. So the Duggars can have my two reproduction credits by all means!
(I have one stepdaughter; my wife’s one child from her previous marriage. So I think that’s one more reproduction credit for the Duggars, making three in all.)
Well the problem with being a little proactive is that Eugenics has a pretty storied history. You are not asking to volunteer yourself, you are asking to volunteer others. You are willing of course to give up a right that you don’t care about, as are we all. Our system however, is designed to prevent that sort of tyranny. The Chinese ‘One Child Policy’ has been rather catastrophic.
Demographic projections also show that the rate of increase is declining, and nearly every first world nation is below replacement rate. Even Iran is close to negative population growth. The third world nations that are still continuing to breed beyond replacement rate have still reduced the rate of increase over the past few decades.
The evidence seems to point to the idea that modernity lends itself toward a decrease in population growth, so I don’t see how there can be any benefit to regulating breeding. Forced sterilization leaves me feeling cold personally. I believe for American citizens the birth rate is at 1.9 children per family, and replacement rate is 2.1, so it would appear to me that we voluntarily mitigate the effects of the rare Dugger clan. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Dugger children will follow in their parents’ footsteps. Plenty of children are abandoning their traditional values at a rapid clip. You can look at the decline in the number of West Texas ranchers if you want to see one example of such abandonment.
What you are suggesting seems to me to be pointlessly divisive, a solution to a problem that seems to be resolving naturally, as most of us are becoming modern cosmopolitans. It’s a great way to lead people like this to believe that you really ARE persecuting them, because well, you would be. The most likely insurgent force in this nation would come from poor right-wing Evangelicals. That’s a hornets nest that need not be stirred, particularly for a problem that seems to be statistically irrelevant.
I pointed out (by implication) that your argument, point by point, also applies to flies: flies live on the Earth, which is a closed system, and by implication there will someday not be enough resources to support all the flies at some point – if that point has not already been reached.
Now, it’s clear you were baffled by that argument, and, unable to respond, you indicated honestly that you couldn’t see it. I appreciate your honesty, by the way; many people in your position would try to bluff when the argument passes beyond their reasoning ability.
But what you need to do is somehow distinguish the human and fly populations, as Really Not All That Bright has attempted to do.
In fact, the flies have already reached that point – the fly population is no larger can the environment can support, and is no longer growing.
At some future point, the human population may well reach the maximum that this planet can support. That point is not now.
Nothing’s wrong with it. But you have shifted the goalposts. “What’s wrong with being a little proactive?” you ask. Nothing; a perfectly reasonable decision. But apparently failure to choose to be a little proactive is worthy only of the utmost scorn, and “socially irresponsible.”
I wouldn’t be so sure. The planet cannot support 6 billion people who live in affluence, like Americans or Western Europeans. We’re starting to see that with the development of China, which although poor *already * burns 1/3 of the world’s coal, and whose greenhouse gas emissions are skyrocketing. As nations become wealthier, and their citizens use more energy and demand more consumer goods, it will become apparent that 6 billion people is not sustainable, if people want to live the sorts of lives affluent people want to live. So to bring 18 more people into an affluent, resource-wasting country (one statistic cited in this thread is that they do 200 loads of laundry per month; and how much energy do you think is required to heat and cool 7000 square feet of living space?) is irresponsible.
I don’t believe I’ve been any of those things to you, but if you show me where I have, I’ll be more than happy to apologize for it as it certainly wouldn’t have been my intent.
