Philosophical Vegan Forum

This is a complicated issue. I think we can at least all agree that:

Fostering (not adopting or having kids) is probably the best possible thing to do because you can influence hundreds of children over a lifetime and the state pays you to do it. But if you don't do that (e.g. don't have the personality type for it to deal with that many children likely with behavioral problems, or can't emotionally stand to lose them as soon as you start to bond because their shitty parents get them back or whatever):

Vegans with very high IQs who will raise their children to be happy, sustainable, and intelligent members of society who will have a small footprint themselves and influence the world positively and carry on those ideas should probably have kids. Bonus points if you're an interracial couple too.

Carnists with very low IQs who would not raise their children to be any of those things should probably no not have kids.

The in-between is more complicated.

Is the anti-natalist message when tied to veganism more likely to make carnists who favor anti-natalism vegan, or more likely to make vegans anti-natalist or turn people who want kids off veganism?
The latter two seem much more likely.

1. Committed carnists are not particularly interested in environmental arguments (otherwise they wouldn't be carnists). So carnist anti-natalists are not anti-natalists because they care about the world, they're anti-natalists because they dislike children. Anti-natalism will not attract them to veganism because it's not an ethical thing for them. They even say things like: "I didn't ask to be born, I'm going to eat whatever I want while I'm here I have no moral obligations because I didn't ask for this life", they'll only add on things like "and I'm better than everybody else (and vegans) anyway because I won't have kids" out of ego or to spite others and show them up/shut them up.

2. People who otherwise wanted children would only abstain for moral reasons, and because that's a very big ask, those people are very likely to go vegan for the same reasons (something that's much less of a sacrifice), meaning an anti-natalist message will disproportionately affect vegans and people who care about sustainability, which are precisely the people we don't want it to affect.

3. People who are only willing to make modest sacrifices and want children may be put off veganism by it -- like by being called "breeders" and insulted in the community. It's not just that they think all vegans are anti-natalists (they obviously aren't), but most people need community to stay vegan when they're having challenges, and this "toxicity" pushes a lot of people out and can easily leave them alone to relapse. You may call these people weak, but consequences are consequences and the animals don't care if people aren't harming them because they were strong on their own or supported by a community to do it.

To put it another way:

If you care enough about the world to abstain from having children because of that ethical concern, you're the kind of person who should have children.
If you don't care about the world, an ethical argument against or for having children won't affect you anyway because you were going to do whatever you wanted no matter what.

It convinces people you don't want to convince, and fails to convince the people who need convincing.

The anti-natalist message can only be harmful because it will only affect people who would have the lowest impact children, and beyond that there's a serious risk of alienating people (since some 99% of people want children). And probably the most intelligent, since vegetarians have higher IQs too. Vegetarians also tend to be more liberal, so fewer interracial babies as well.

There's every pragmatic reason to oppose anti-natalism within veganism.

Now whether we should support pro-child government policies that may convince low IQ carnists who were on the fence about having kids to reproduce after all? That's a totally different matter. And maybe we should oppose monetary incentives. We'd have to look at the social consequences in detail.

Good post, Brimstone. Here are my current thoughts.

Antinatalism could be a harmful message as it has more of an impact on those who should have kids(high IQ couples) vs. those who shouldn't have kids(low IQ couples). However, I believe average IQ people also should not have kids. Since 85 percent of the population have an IQ under 115 the message may still be worthwhile.

Fostering/adopting is morally superior to breeding and this is a message that is not harmful. Hence, the central message should be "foster/adopt rather than breed" and not "abstain from raising children".

Any association between veganism and antinatalism must be avoided. Instead, vegans should focus on the adopting/fostering message.

Breeding should be made more costly (by removing subsidies and tax breaks) while adopting needs to be made more affordable.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:24 pm Antinatalism could be a harmful message as it has more of an impact on those who should have kids(high IQ couples) vs. those who shouldn't have kids(low IQ couples). However, I believe average IQ people also should not have kids. Since 85 percent of the population have an IQ under 115 the message may still be worthwhile.

For the grey area, I don't think it's clear if they should or should not. Most of them will have children by accident anyway.
I prefer to focus on more certainly good messages like veganism. It's very possible that given the accidental child rate, and that the message would be more likely to be put into practice effectively by people with higher IQ, it would still affect them disproportionately vs average people despite being a minority.

While I think it's worth taking a risk on different methods of promoting veganism (one guy made a video game to try to do it once, failed terribly, but he tried and we learned something from it), when it's not even clear than the content of the message is good I think that's an indication we should look for something else to focus on.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:24 pmFostering/adopting is morally superior to breeding and this is a message that is not harmful. Hence, the central message should be "foster/adopt rather than breed" and not "abstain from raising children".

Fostering, yes. But I don't think adopting is.

1. Adopting is too expensive. Better to have a kid of your own and donate the would-have-been adoption fees to an effective charity instead.

2. Young children are in too high demand for adoption, and inability to fill that demand likely drives more people to alternatives like surrogates. It's not like adopting a pet where there's a surplus, adopting a baby is denying another couple the ability to do so, and potentially making them find another way to get a baby (some may give up, but they don't all). Adopting instead of having a baby may not meaningfully reduce the number of children.

3. Many children up for adoption are coming from bad situations where alcohol, drugs, and poor prenatal nutrition were factors. They're likely to have much lower IQs even after the environmental effects you provide to boost it. You're looking at maybe 90 IQ, which is better than it would have been but you're going to be investing a lot of time into a child who will not have the ability to do very much in the world due to unfortunate prenatal brain damage (and you can't really screen for that in a young child).
Children NOT form those situations are coming from rich anti-abortion Christian families, and you can't typically adopt them because they're going through Christian agencies and will only go to Christian families (you might be able to trick them, but again there's a lot of competition there).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:28 am1. Adopting is too expensive.

Not where I live. I actually think it's free or nearly free. High adoption costs are indeed a problem in countries like the U.S. I would like to see government initiatives that make it easier and less expensive to adopt children from areas of war and famine.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:28 amYoung children are in too high demand for adoption

Again, not where I live. Here children sometimes spend their hole childhood in orphanages and I don't even live near a war zone. I think this is related to the previous point. Again. government intervention needed.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:28 amMany children up for adoption are coming from bad situations where alcohol, drugs, and poor prenatal nutrition were factors. They're likely to have much lower IQs even after the environmental effects you provide to boost it.

I addressed the low IQ issue in a previous post.

There are young children around the world who need to be adopted and there are couples who want to adopt them. There is red tape, bureaucracy, irrational viewpoints (i.e. Muslim babies should have Muslim parents) preventing this from happening. We need to put pressure on organizations like UNICEF to facilitate (rather than hinder) international adoption.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/unicef-blamed-for-decline-in-international-adoptions

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:11 am Not where I live.

If you live in an area where it's cheap and easy to adopt babies who came from good parents and they're in a major surplus, then that makes much more sense.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:11 amI addressed the low IQ issue in a previous post.

The trouble is that international adoption can be even more expensive, and then you have a bunch of long distance plane trips to add to that.

Children should really be sent to countries like the U.S. in bulk and handed out to anybody who wants one with minimal background checks (are they a sex offender? No? Here's a kid). In particular, we need to start making is VERY easy for gay couples to adopt.
Unfortunately until these issues are address legislatively, I don't think adoption makes sense in most of the world.

Also, bear in mind the advantages of fostering: You influence far more children, and the government PAYS you to do it as opposed to adopting where you take on the full burden.
If adoption were funded like fostering that would make a lot more sense.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:11 amThere are young children around the world who need to be adopted and there are couples who want to adopt them. There is red tape, bureaucracy, irrational viewpoints (i.e. Muslim babies should have Muslim parents) preventing this from happening. We need to put pressure on organizations like UNICEF to facilitate (rather than hinder) international adoption.

How can we do this?

Seems like the tide is against sensible policies due to dogmatic views and overblown fear of abuse based on some kind of deontology (yes, a few kids will end up in child slavery, maybe one in a million, but much much more will have better lives).

I think this is an important issue, but I don't know if the effort required to see changes on those things (human psychology when it comes to kids can be pretty irrational) would be worth the effect.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:31 pm

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:11 amI addressed the low IQ issue in a previous post.

The trouble is that international adoption can be even more expensive, and then you have a bunch of long distance plane trips to add to that.

Children should really be sent to countries like the U.S. in bulk and handed out to anybody who wants one with minimal background checks (are they a sex offender? No? Here's a kid). In particular, we need to start making is VERY easy for gay couples to adopt.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:31 pmHow can we do this?

This is the question each individual needs to ask. All I can do is write letters that most probably will never be read so my time is probably better spent elsewhere. However there is always a chance that someone reading this may be in a position to influence someone with decision making power.

Did you make a mistake when responding to the IQ issue with an adoption cost response?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:31 pmI think this is an important issue, but I don't know if the effort required to see changes on those things (human psychology when it comes to kids can be pretty irrational) would be worth the effect.

For most of the people reading this it probably isn't worth the time and effort, but you never know.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:12 pm Did you make a mistake when responding to the IQ issue with an adoption cost response?

I thought your point with respect to IQ before was to adopt from other countries and warzones where good parents may be been killed vs. losing their children due to being addicts or something?

Or was that not your point?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:37 pm

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:12 pm Did you make a mistake when responding to the IQ issue with an adoption cost response?

I thought your point with respect to IQ before was to adopt from other countries and warzones where good parents may be been killed vs. losing their children due to being addicts or something?

Or was that not your point?

I see now why you would see this but the second part was separate from the first. The first part referred back to this:

1. One must not oversee the probability of ending up with an adopted child more intelligent than a potential bred child. If one adopts domestically the chance of adopting a low IQ child is probably quite high, but if one adopts an orphan from a war zone that chance would decrease as it is likely that the mom consumed alcohol or smoked crack during pregnancy. Haven written that, I agree that people who prefer to adopt are more intelligent than the national average and as such they are more likely to have a more intelligent child if they have their own. I may be a bit of an idealogue here since most stupid people don't know that they are stupid, but what we really want is for low iq couples to adopt instead of breed.
2. Adopting would eliminate the worst case intelligence scenario (like breeding a mongoloid).Yes, you might adopt a child with a lower IQ than the parents' average IQ but at least you can eliminate the probability of having a severely retarded child.
3. Choosing not to adopt because of the IQ factor would be selfish. A low IQ child would do a lot better with intelligent parents than with low intelligent parents.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pm I see now why you would see this but the second part was separate from the first. The first part referred back to this:

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I skimmed the thread a few days ago and remembered that comment.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pm 1. One must not oversee the probability of ending up with an adopted child more intelligent than a potential bred child.

If your IQ is over 115, and so is your mate's, it's unlikely that you'll end up with an adopted child with higher IQ than a biological one. Possible, but with things like this we always have to go with the odds.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pmIf one adopts domestically the chance of adopting a low IQ child is probably quite high,

Yes.

And I was responding to this (with respect to international adoption):

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pm but if one adopts an orphan from a war zone that chance would decrease as it is [un]likely that the mom consumed alcohol or smoked crack during pregnancy.

I agree with that, particularly if it's an Asian country where nutrition status probably would have been better too.
But that's not an option for most people... if you live IN a war zone, you probably shouldn't be adopting kids. Otherwise we're talking about long distance adoption for most people.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pm Haven written that, I agree that people who prefer to adopt are more intelligent than the national average and as such they are more likely to have a more intelligent child if they have their own. I may be a bit of an idealogue here since most stupid people don't know that they are stupid, but what we really want is for low iq couples to adopt instead of breed.

Right, most unintelligent people think they're smart, and intelligent people are more modest and inclined to more social responsibility. This is an issue; any message is likely to backfire, increasing procreation from stupid people and getting smart people to adopt.

Unless your message is specifically IQ centered (in which case it will be received with extreme hostility due to public attitudes about IQ) it very likely to do harm.

I think just a general anti-anti-natalist message is probably the most productive, focusing on choice because it's not clear that the message of not having kids isn't harmful. And talking about how foster care is good because (unlike babies who in most parts of the world will be adopted quickly) older kids are in the most need of good role models, and you can help more kids there. There's probably still net benefit if even an intelligent person fosters many dozens of kids over a lifetime rather than reproducing and raising a single one.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pm2. Adopting would eliminate the worst case intelligence scenario (like breeding a mongoloid).

You can screen for down syndrome (and should always do).
If you're anti abortion even in those cases, then yes, you should adopt instead of taking that risk, particularly if you're over 35 or so where risk increases.
Otherwise, risk is not significant.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pmYes, you might adopt a child with a lower IQ than the parents' average IQ but at least you can eliminate the probability of having a severely retarded child.

I don't think there's a very big difference between 85 IQ and 50 IQ (average for down syndrome).

Both can go to the bathroom and dress themselves and hold menial jobs, and neither will go on to accomplish anything extraordinary or important.
50 may even be better, because you're more likely to get government assistance. And at that IQ the harm of the Dunning-Kruger effect can probably finally be mitigated; people with 50 IQs likely know they aren't as smart as people with 80 IQs think of themselves. Knowing their limits may ensure they seek help and ask for advice rather than getting themselves into trouble.
People with Down syndrome are also significantly less fertile (something like 30-50% in women, probably less in men).

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:56 pm3. Choosing not to adopt because of the IQ factor would be selfish. A low IQ child would do a lot better with intelligent parents than with low intelligent parents.

1. Adopting parents with a high IQ don't make an adopted child have a higher adulthood IQ. The childhood IQ will increase, but the adult IQ will return to that of the biological parents, minus any effects of drugs/alcohol/etc.

2. IQ is important socially. Not selfish at all. Either way, for the duration of the kid's childhood (while you're responsible) his or her IQ will be higher because childhood IQ is more flexible. It's only in adulthood when it will go back down (when you don't have to deal with it). It's when other people have to deal with the child (now adult) that the genetic and prenatal contributions to IQ are dominant over environment. Baby Einsteins don't stay baby Einsteins.

3. High IQ parents will lead to better academic performance in children (temporary, as mentioned above), but that's not very important and will not necessarily be better parents otherwise (the child will not necessarily be happier). Children mainly need love, physical care, lack of abuse, and consistency from parents. A low IQ parent can provide all of those things. As long as they're not homeschooling, the child won't miss much. Young children don't need to learn much that a low IQ parent can't teach.
High IQ parents may be less likely to be abusive, but that's not inherently reliant on IQ, probably more on culture. Anybody adopting a child probably likes children and even if the adoptive parents have low IQs they're probably screened for things like abusive tendency and given parenting information.

That said, orphanages are bad for children, as is being bounced around. While babies will usually be adopted (unless you reach out to war torn countries with a surplus), older children are unlikely to be. If adopting an older child from foster care, you could make a much bigger difference. But if the child was really adoptable, you can probably just continue fostering that child and keep collecting state assistance. I don't think social workers move children between foster homes unless necessary.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:22 pm This is a complicated issue. I think we can at least all agree that:

Fostering (not adopting or having kids) is probably the best possible thing to do because you can influence hundreds of children over a lifetime and the state pays you to do it. But if you don't do that (e.g. don't have the personality type for it to deal with that many children likely with behavioral problems, or can't emotionally stand to lose them as soon as you start to bond because their shitty parents get them back or whatever):

This topic is fascinating to me. I'm not an antinatalist (after all, I've produced two biological children of my own!). But I am a very strong believer that no-one who does not deeply desire children should have or raise them.

I deeply admire good foster parents. My aunt and uncle had two biological children, but also raised a foster child from the time he was 4 until he was nearly graduated from high school. He spent the last two years of his childhood with his biological mother, who, by then, was able to care for him. Their foster son tells everyone that their act of kindness changed his entire life, and my cousins definitely consider him a brother.

It's very unusual for people to foster unless they need the money, which is a tremendous shame. My husband and I did consider fostering or open adoption before we had our first child (perhaps I'll make a video on this topic if my husband agrees, since it's rather personal, but has mostly to do with my own medical issues).

At any rate, it seems absolutely clear that Richard and Jasmine do not want children (and should never have them, in my opinion). No child deserves the fate of growing up feeling unwanted and like a burden on their parents. The last thing anyone on earth should ever do is try to persuade someone who does not want kids that they ought to have them.

Antinatalism is always a valid ideology for the antinatalist. Whether it's a good policy for the rest of society is the real question. I support the idea of small families, and I think most people do. I think we should all encourage the broad adoption of birth control and delaying child birth until the mid twenties (which sounds a bit ridiculous in the West, but is a real problem in much of the world).

On the other hand, I'm not convinced by the idea - popularized by UV and others - that it's good for vegans to have children because they are likely to become vegans - is a little silly. Certainly, statistics show us that good parents tend to have good kids. But it's hard to get much more specific than that. And of course, I also look forward to CRISPR technology allowing people who will make good parents - but might have bad genes - to have children.