PeopleCreatingChange:AProposalforaSystemofOffsettingtheEnvironmentalDamage
ofProcreation
ByKayleighDoherty
Among environmentalists overconsumption is deemed as immoral. Within
American culture there is a growing consideration that it is morally unacceptable if a
persondoesnotconsiderherenvironmentalimpacts.Overconsumption,oreco‐gluttony,is
oftendescribedasusingmoreresourcesthanneeded,orsimply,theconsumptionhabitsof
that of an average American. Americans makes up only five percent of the world
population,however,theyconsumetwentypercentoftheworld’sresources.1Somebelieve
that it is inconsistent to believe that overconsumption is immoral but still allow for
procreationinthedeveloped‐world,sinceprocreationcreatesmorepeopleusingmoreof
theworld’sresourcesatadeveloped‐worldrate.
In his article, “Overconsumption and Procreation: Are they Morally Equivalent?”
philosopher Thomas Young tries to argue that if oneis opposed to overconsumption and
eco‐gluttony,onemustalsobeopposedtohavingchildren.Whenachildisbroughtintothe
world, especially born to Americans, that child counts for one more person in the world
overconsumingresources.Youngposesthetwoissues,procreationandoverconsumption,
onequalterms.However,hefailstorealizethatoverconsumptionandprocreationarenot
analogousinthesensethatprocreationprovidesamultitudeofotherbenefitstotheworld
whereas overconsumption almost never increases happiness for the greatest number of
peopleintheworld.InthispaperIwillarguefromautilitarianstandpointagainstYoung’s
1“PopulationandEnergyConsumption.”
1
thesisthatitisunethicaltohavechildrenifonealsobelievesoverconsumptionisunethical,
inrelationtothearticle“LivingonaLifeboat”byGarrettHardinandthebookTheLifeYou
CanSavebyPeterSinger.Furthermore,Iwillintroduceasystemofoffsetsthatwouldallow
foronetoprocreate,liveaneco‐friendlylifestyle,andstillbeconsideredmorallysound.
Thomas Young argues that if one judges eco‐gluttony as “selfish, short sighted,
imprudent,ormorallyirresponsible”2thenoneisrequiredtobelievethathavingchildren
in an overpopulated world is also selfish, imprudent, short‐sighted, or morally
irresponsible.However,Youngdoesnotconsidertheviewthatoverconsumptioninitselfis
unethicalbecauseoneistakingmorethanone’sshare,whereashavingchildreninitselfis
notunethicalinmostinstances.Youngdescribesafamilyoftwo,consumingateco‐friendly
levelstohaveaconsumptionlevelofE2.Afamilyoffour,thatconsistingoftwoadultsand
two children, to have a consumption level of E5 based on the fact that the children will
carryonlivingatleastfortyyearspasttheirparents.Thus,havingchildrendoesnotsimply
replacetheparents.Youngalsosuggeststhatitisimpracticaltobelievethatitispossibleto
have environmentally conscious children and reducing one’s lifestyle to the level of E2
consumption(thatoftwoaverageAmericanadults),becausethefamilyoffourwouldhave
todecreasetheirownconsumptiontoalevelof2.5timeslessthanthatofafamilyoftwo.
In saying this, Young fails to recognize the true problem with overconsumption.
Throughouthisarticle,Youngattemptstogoaroundtheissueofoverconsumptionsothat
peoplecancontinuetoconsumeatthelevelstheyaretoday.Youngrecognizesthatthere
are finite resources in the world and he tries to alleviate the problem by decreasing the
2Young,p185
2
supplyofpeopleintheworldratherthanfocusingondecreasingthedemand.Inthisway,
Youngisreallyavoidingthepracticeofoverconsumptioninfirstworldsociety.
A more utilitarian approach to overconsumption would come with changing the
patterns of consumption in first‐world countries. The World Hunger Education Service
Associates reports that there is enough food to feed each person in the world seventeen
percent more calories today then able to thirty years ago.3 The problem is that food is
allocatedinanunequalmannerduetolackoflandtofarm,orlackofmoneytobeableto
purchaseenoughfoodtofeedone’sfamily.However,firstdecreasingconsumptioninfirst‐
world nations would allow for third‐world nations to have the opportunity to increase
consumption,thuscreatingamoreequalglobalconsumptionpattern.
This approach can be applied to Garrett Hardin’s article “Living on a Lifeboat.4”
Hardinproposesthescenariothattheworldisdividedintotwolifeboats,bytherichand
thepoor.Sincethepoorpeopleofworldcountfortwo‐thirdsoftheglobalpopulation,the
poor lifeboat is much more crowded than the rich lifeboat. In fact, in addition to having
moreroomintherichlifeboat,therichalsohavemoreresourcesforsurvival.Hardinthen
askswhetheroneismorallyobligatedtogivespaceandresourcestothepeopleinthepoor
lifeboatastheyfalloutoftheirlifeboatintothewater.Hardinarguesthatiftherichwereto
give up space and resources in the lifeboat, eventually so many poor people would latch
onto the boat that it would sink, killing everyone. Instead, Hardin believes that the rich
should not save any of the poor people, so that there is room and resources on their
lifeboat for more than adequate survival and for future generations. Like Young, Hardin
3“WorldChildHungerFacts”
4Mappes,“Chapter8:EconomicJusticeandIndividualResponsibility”.Hardin,Garrett.“LivingonaLifeboat”
3
does not allow for the concept of decreasing consumption habits in order to benefit the
largest amount of people. From a utilitarian perspective, if people decrease their own
consumptionhabitsandthenfilltheremainingspotsinthelifeboatwiththepeopleinthe
water,oneisincreasingthehappinessforthegreatestnumberofpeople.PhilosopherPeter
Singerwouldalsoarguethatonceitgetstothepointwherethelifeboatcannotholdany
morepeople,thatiswhenoneisnolongermorallyobligatedtocontinuepullingpeopleout
ofthewater.
InreadingYoung’sarticle,healsosuggeststhatpeopleindevelopingcountriesare
lessobligatedtonothavechildrenthanarethosepeopleindevelopedcountries,duetothe
factthatonechildinadevelopedcountryconsumesonaveragemorethantenchildrenina
developing country combined5. Additionally, Young notes yet dismisses the idea that
procreationprovidestheopportunityfornewtechnologiesandpossibleadvancementsto
decrease or change consumption habits. Since children in the developed world have
greateraccesstoresources,money,time,andeducation,thereismuchmoregoodthatcan
bedonethroughthesechildren.Ofcourse,notallchildrenwillgrowuptoleadmeaningful
lives in terms of global justice, but the possibility that they might is still greater in the
developed world than the developing world. Developed‐world children have the
opportunity to affect both the environment as well as aiding the third world countries.
These children have the possibility of receiving an education where they can go on to
change how the world uses resources. This being said, a utilitarian would opt for the
decrease in the birth rate in developing countries while at the same time maintaining a
5"PopulationandEnergyConsumption.”
4
responsiblebirthrateindevelopedcountries.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatitshould
beencouragedindevelopedcountriestohaveaquiverfulofchildreninordertoincrease
theamountpotentialforgoodtobedoneintheworld,sinceanAmericanfamilycanonly
go so far to reduce its carbon footprint and eventually procreation will turn into
overconsumption.Insteadonemustkeepinmindthatfiniteresourcesarestillanissueand
that to have a quiverful of children would be increasing consumption far past
sustainability.
Therefore, there must be a commitment to helping the poor. In response to this
commitment,Iproposethatifacoupleweretohavechildren,theyshouldoffsettheirlevel
of consumption by donating to a charitable organization that promotes practices that
wouldresultinthedecreaseoftheglobalbirthrate.Suchorganizationswouldfocusonthe
education of women to prevent early pregnancy, distribution of birth control and
contraception,andworkwithgovernmenttocreateasocialsecuritynetsopeoplewould
notfeelthattheymusthavechildreninordertosurviveinoldage.Bydoingthis,people
wouldbeconfrontingtheproblemofoverconsumptionandoverpopulationdirectlyrather
than attempting to temporarily alleviate the problem by simply not having children and
continuetoconsumeingrossquantitiespercapita.
Additionally, Peter Singer could encourage a model of offsetting based on income
level. A similar model of offsetting was described in his book The Life You Can Save, in
relationtogivingaid.Forexample,thoseindividualswhohaveagreaterincomeshouldbe
requiredtodonatemoretoanorganizationtooffsettheglobalbirthrateduetothefactthat
since they have more money and more resources, their child would also have access to
more money and resources. Wealthier families must give more in order to encourage a
5
more equal distribution of resources. However, it should also be said that the wealthier
families,orthoseconsumingmoreresourcesmustalsocommittoleadinganeco‐friendly
lifestyle. This system of offsetting is not simply an excuse for continuing patterns of
overconsumption. If the government were to implement a system of taxes for the more
resources a family consumes, each family would be encouraged to reduce their
consumption habits, and thus create a more equal system of resource distribution and
conservation.
Furthermore,theissueofadoptionalsoariseswhendiscussingtheethicsofhaving
children.InthecaseHardinpresents,ifchildreninthedevelopingworldweredrowningin
the water, it would be morally encouraged to give those children a place in the lifeboat
ratherthanproducingone’sownchild.Byadoptingachildfromthedevelopingworldone
isalsoabletogivethatchildtheopportunitiesaregulardevelopedworldchildwouldhave.
Thus,bypullingthechildoutofwaterandgivinghimaspaceinthelifeboat,touseHardin’s
scenario, one would help alleviate the problem of overconsumption and overpopulation.
However,itmustalsobenotedthatinadoptingachildfromthedevelopingworldoneis
encouraging irresponsible procreation. With this being said, when one adopts a child I
think that there must also be an effort of offset that child’s adoption into a developed
world, as to discourage the idea that it is okay for people in the developing world to
procreate irresponsibly knowing that someone in the developed world will simply adopt
whoevertheydonotwant.
Singerwouldalsobeinfavorofadoptiononthegroundsthatnopersonshouldbe
valued greater than another. Singer notes in his book The Life You Can Save that people
tendtothinktheirownchildrenasmoreimportantthanotherchildrendyinginthethird
6
world.Withadoption,however,apersoniscommittedtotheideaoftreatingallpeopleat
thesamelevelwhetherornottheyarebiologicallyrelated.Itwouldbeinterestingtoseeif
peoplewhoadoptedchildrenratherthanhavingtheirownwouldpromotemorecharitable
giving in the future to help those people they are unable to adopt due to the amount of
resources.
To bring these ideas to Singer’s terms and utilitarianism, the route to decreasing
consumptionIproposeinthispaperwouldcreatemorehappinessforthegreatestmajority
of people than Young’s route of simply not having children. This can be said because in
addition to the greater potential developed‐world children have in producing good over
developingworldchildren,itmustbenotedthatchildreneverywherebringhappinessto
theirparentsaswell.Youngarguesthatthehappinessaparentgetsinhavingachildisstill
less than the happiness the world would have if consumption were decreased. Young is
correct in saying this. However, in conjunction with adoption, the effort to decrease
birthrate in developing countries, and the idea of having children responsibility in the
developedworldwouldproduceevenmorehappinessthansimplynothavingchildrenin
thedevelopedworld.
Lastly,theviewsonconsumptionexpressedinthispaperwouldcommitmetoPeter
Singer’s version of utilitarianism, that is act utilitarianism over rule utilitarianism. Young
attempts to argue from a utilitarian standpoint in suggesting that procreation would
produce greater levels of happiness around the world. However, it should be noted that
childrendoprovidehappinessandifthathappinessistakenawayfromsomepeople,they
would be putting themselves in a worse position emotionally and psychologically, and
possibly in a position that would not encourage them to give to charitable organizations.
7
Thereisstillnoexcusefornottryingtoraisethechildreninaneco‐friendlyenvironment
orattemptingtooffsettheircarbonfootprint.
Overall,ThomasYoungandGarrettHardinacknowledgethatthereisaproblemof
overconsumptionandoverpopulationintheworldandtrytheirbesttocreateapractical
route to solving the problem. However, neither example really fixes the problem of
overconsumption but instead goes around the issue and promotes the idea that
overconsumption is ethically right as long as one is committed to decreasing population.
However, population is not the problem itself but simply part of the problem of
overconsumption. If one were to face the problem of overconsumption then one would
havetoagreethatconsumptionmustbedecreasedindevelopedcountries,birthratemust
fall in developing countries, and a more equal distribution of wealth and resources must
occur.Bydoingthisonewouldbetrulycommittedtotheutilitarianidealinprovidingthe
greatestamountofhappinessforthegreatestmajorityofpeople.
8
References
Mappes,ThomasA.,DavidDeGrazia,andJaneS.Zembaty.SocialEthics:MoralityandSocial
Policy.NewYork:McGraw‐Hill,2012.Print.
"PopulationandEnergyConsumption."WorldPopulationBalance.2012.Web.08Apr.
2012.<http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy>.
Singer,Peter.TheLifeYouCanSave:ActingNowtoEndWorldPoverty.NewYork:Random
House,2009.Print.
"WorldChildHungerFacts."WorldHungerNotesHomepage.18Dec.2011.Web.08Apr.
2012.<http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/child_hunger_facts.htm>.
Young,Thomas."OverconsumptionandProcreation:AreTheyMorallyEquivalent?"Journal
ofAppliedPhilosophy18.2(2001):183‐92.Print.
9