What do you call it when a couple has two children? Understandable.
Three kids gets to be a little antisocial.

Which means that the woman who gave birth to octuplets (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_re_us/octuplets), after already having given birth to six children, isn’t only antisocial but downright misanthropic.

While breeders everywhere may cry hallelujah at yet another marvel of modern fertility medicine, I scratch my head and wonder if this is a new symptom of collective insanity or just a biological impulse gone wrong. Surely the Biblical injunction to “go forth and multiply” – reasonable at a time when the overall human population was relatively small, life was really tough and the mortality rate was high – bears a certain amount of blame for this obsession with reproducing at rates that would put several animal species to shame.

Overpopulated Planet

I can’t help but think about population projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population). In 1950, the world human population was around 2.5 billion. Forty-eight years later, that number has almost tripled, to 6.7 billion. To put that in perspective, the human population in 1750 is estimated to have been around 791 million. The projection for 2050 is 9 billion. The mind, it boggles.

If we had unlimited space and resources, this wouldn’t be a problem. But however much population activists may have underestimated the planet’s capacity to support humanity in the past, our impact – as evidenced by global warming, water scarcity, ecosystem destruction and so on – is no longer deniable. Our good green earth simply cannot support unlimited population growth. For a microcosmic example, just consider L.A.’s problem. The fact that the freeways are logjammed as often as they are is but one example of having a population that exceeds our infrastructure’s capacities. And that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

But that’s the high-falutin’ objection to human overbreeding. The more prosaic objection stems from the shocked expression people get on their faces when faced with a total lack of interest in having children. Being asked “So, you going to have kids?” was surely one of the most annoying questions I received when I first got married. While I understand that this is the cultural expectation – get married, have kids – and certainly don’t begrudge people for doing what we evolved to do, the idea that choosing not to have children is selfish has always been deeply insulting. The reason is rather simple. Not everyone is suited to be parents, whether by temperament or skill or interest or financial resources. In fact, not having children is predicated on acknowledging the great responsibility that comes with giving birth and raising a child; a responsibility that too many people take for granted with devastating consequences on children. As strange as it might seem coming from me, I actually respect parenthood too much to believe that we should simply throw money at fertility technologies for people when there are children who need adopting.

When Having Children Is Selfish

In fact, isn’t it possible that it’s the people who have children who are the most selfish, DNArcissists who insist on having their own genetic offspring, no matter what? All this money spent on fertility technologies – if covered by insurance, this means that everyone who pays premiums into the insurance is subsidizing these fertility treatments – all the money spent on subsidizing tax breaks for people with their own children – points in that direction. Then there’s all the cultural hoopla, the gift-giving of baby showers, the inflated rhetoric. I would be the richest man in history if I had a dime for every time I hear the word “miracle” used to described the birth of a baby. Note: We, along with many other animal species, have been having babies for a long, long time. It’s what our bodies are evolved to do. It’s not a miracle.

I’m sorry. I’m getting a little curmudgeonly, and that’s not quite my intention. I wholeheartedly appreciate the joy children bring to the many people, even if I don’t share it myself. But there is a reason to be suspicious of the sincerity underlying people’s desire to have children – and I’m talking about the strength of desire that results in multi-plets. If people love children so much, if they want to be parents so badly, why not adopt? There are plenty of children in need of families, both in the U.S. and internationally – the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org) has very useful resources and information. It seems to me that if the point is to be a parent, adoption is a very rational choice in an increasingly overpopulated world. If the point is to view only genetically-related children as “our own,” instead of taking a global, human perspective, then the charge of selfishness stands.

It’s About Sustainability

The question isn’t only about spending money on fertility treatments that could be better spent elsewhere; it’s a question of individual, social and environmental responsibility. A question of ethics. We can allow ourselves to suspend our rational faculties and continue to breed like rabbits, regardless of the high costs population growth has on our economy, ecosystems, urban infrastructure, natural resources and way of life. We can try to force people to stop having sex, which is both impossible and, frankly, unnecessary, given contraceptive technologies. Or we can shift our perspective to valuing comprehensive sex education, easily accessible contraception, and a culture that is sustainable instead of precarious.