The Morality of Procreation and AI

[Amlux]

saint asked me if I'd be interested in continuing certain topics I've written essays about on this forum. I feel somewhat final in my personal opinions on this topic, as I've sketched out in a recent essay entitled WHY I AM NOT AN ANTINATALIST. But saint mentioned the application of the questions to sentient AIs, which puts an interesting spin on it that I'd be curious to hear opinions about.

Hopefully this discussion will remain civil. I have to admit that my essay was a bit more snarky than I usually write, but I can't deny that it's a topic I feel quite strongly about.

I will frame the discussion and am curious to hear responses:

Antinatalism is a position which makes the case that procreation is a moral harm. Most usually base their reasoning around a so-called "asymmetry argument," which claims that it is always a net harm to come into existence over never coming into existence. I find it unconvincing for reasons I sketch out in the article. But it is good to examine some central questions: Why is it good to procreate (in the best cases) and why is that so valuable?

1. Where do you stand on the question of *natalism? My opinion is that procreation is generally morally neutral in most industrialized societies, but that it is an obligation on some level and that it becomes more of an obligation as societies become less fertile. Of course, that just begs the question of why any society is worth continuing. For me, I think it feels like it is worth preserving and continuing certain societies, cultures, etc. in the same way it would be good to preserve many species of animals. Which brings me to:

2. What do you think the philosophical value, if any, of "species" is? Some philosophers deny that the preservation of any "species" (endangered or otherwise) has any particular value, but that the only value is the individual well-being of those individual animals. Others would say that what matters most is that the species of animal should prevail. For example, it is okay to hunt deer as long as we keep them plentiful enough to repopulate themselves easily and thus continue their species. I would say that I fall into the latter category, and it is why I cannot sign on to the antinatalist position, as humans are a species and there are many interesting cultural "ecosystems" within the human sphere. Some would say that this is just a human imposition at the end of the day. There are a lot of species that some argue we should just let go extinct because we are "unnaturally" keeping them around for reasons that are basically sentimental. The best way I can say it is that the creation of "novelty" seems like something fundamentally good and necessary. And that requires biodiversity (among species and within them.) What I've read of Whitehead seems to talk about this "novelty" and it's something I would like to look at closer.

3. What do you think of the creation of conscious AI systems? An interesting ethical dilemma comes up now: What if it is possible to have AI systems (in robots or otherwise) that we know are "conscious" in the way we understand humans and other sentient beings to be? (This, of course, ignores the fact that we haven't even been able to fully prove this about other humans.) Would it be moral to create these? The truth is it is possible we might already have conscious AI systems but just not have the means to know if they are yet. The idea terrifies me. Not only do I think the effects on humans will be dire (since AIs will almost certainly be able to "outsmart" us and our goals could quickly get unaligned), but it could easily be possible to create AIs that can suffer greatly.

[Thricegreat]

This reply might not be directly related to what is wanted. But I wanted to write this anyway.

1. Where do you stand on the question of *natalism? My opinion is that procreation is generally morally neutral in most industrialized societies, but that it is an obligation on some level and that it becomes more of an obligation as societies become less fertile. Of course, that just begs the question of why any society is worth continuing. For me, I think it feels like it is worth preserving and continuing certain societies, cultures, etc. in the same way it would be good to preserve many species of animals.

I think "procreation" is morally good. But I don't think it must be biological. It is true that there is the minimum amount of biological procreation required. But adding a person to the billions of people does not change much. While it requires hard works for the individual. And lots of time that could be spent for creation.

So it depends.

2. What do you think the philosophical value, if any, of "species" is? Some philosophers deny that the preservation of any "species" (endangered or otherwise) has any particular value, but that the only value is the individual well-being of those individual animals. Others would say that what matters most is that the species of animal should prevail. For example, it is okay to hunt deer as long as we keep them plentiful enough to repopulate themselves easily and thus continue their species. I would say that I fall into the latter category, and it is why I cannot sign on to the antinatalist position, as humans are a species and there are many interesting cultural "ecosystems" within the human sphere. Some would say that this is just a human imposition at the end of the day. There are a lot of species that some argue we should just let go extinct because we are "unnaturally" keeping them around for reasons that are basically sentimental. The best way I can say it is that the creation of "novelty" seems like something fundamentally good and necessary. And that requires biodiversity (among species and within them.) What I've read of Whitehead seems to talk about this "novelty" and it's something I would like to look at closer.

While I don't completely deny the value of species, I don't think a deer is predetermined to be a deer. The parts of the cosmos that belong to a deer could belong to other things too. So every deer is different. Though biologically a deer comes out from deers.

With that saying, I think biodiversity is important for ecosystems.

3. What do you think of the creation of conscious AI systems? An interesting ethical dilemma comes up now: What if it is possible to have AI systems (in robots or otherwise) that we know are "conscious" in the way we understand humans and other sentient beings to be? (This, of course, ignores the fact that we haven't even been able to fully prove this about other humans.) Would it be moral to create these? The truth is it is possible we might already have conscious AI systems but just not have the means to know if they are yet. The idea terrifies me. Not only do I think the effects on humans will be dire (since AIs will almost certainly be able to "outsmart" us and our goals could quickly get unaligned), but it could easily be possible to create AIs that can suffer greatly.

This might sound weird for people who haven't read lots of premodern books. But I think the cosmos itself is already conscious. Our intelligence (We are parts of the cosmos. So those parts of the cosmos are already conscious.) and things like the laws of nature both belong to "the world consciousness" governing the cosmos. It is the same principle.

[malformed_jill]

1. Where do you stand on the question of *natalism?

i feel like the worst thing to happen is me having to think about this, because it really doesn't seem like procreating is something which needed thought to happen. seems more natural for your head to be turned off when you're involved in passion, i do remember reading something about africa talking about how some of them in some region don't associate pregnancy with sex.
unfortunately i'm encouraged to think, and thus i'm still against it. i'm a chronic contrarian and not a fan of industrial society and most of what it encourages, including procreation for its own survival as well, mainly to the detriment of the broader population.

somewhat cringeworthy analogy

i'm about to make a pretty cringy reference here, but it reminds me of a piece of worldbuilding from the rance series.
there's a universal structure to its universe, mainly to create entertainment. there is a protagonist race, and a demon king meant to wreck havoc on them, through its apostles and their apostles. however the closer the protag race gets to extinction, a 'hero system' kicks in as a failsafe against the opposing malevolent ruler.
however, one demon king decided not to kill people, and instead enslave them to keep the numbers high to prevent the chance of the failsafe kicking in. though, the way i see this in terms of our situation with society is obviously much more seemingly benevolent and complicated with many systems in place to continue prolonging its reign.

i don't believe in "legacy" or reproducing values, certainly not the latter with how normalized letting strangers over see children is in modern society. in fact, i don't believe the proponents realize how marginalized and indoctrinated children are, and not to their own values. and generally, with a lacking supportive community of the fragmented family (industrial society took care of that, and yes the nuclear family still counts as this fragmentation), one might not have much reason to care for 'ancestry' or personal history, especially since industrial society encourages individualism. it's very hard to find value in reproduction other than an individually self-imposed rationalized reason after the fact.
it's a bit of a hassle to be so outwardly preachy about it though, ultimately a lot more people seem to lack more thoughts than i thought and will just keep on reproducing. it's moreso the rationalizing that annoys me. if you say "i just felt like it" as a response, i literally can't fight against that...

i still really need to collect my thoughts on the subject better though (thinking takes a while), and i don't particularly have anything much for anything else (i don't think AI will be much of anything in the long run).

2. What do you think the philosophical value, if any, of "species" is?

in terms of preservation, i don't think much people consider it. preservation only seems more significant now due to how much resources can be had from an animal. benevolent actions quickly turn sour when i look at it more.
i do think some species are novel too, i do also think it's partially about that too especially since we don't consume from all animals and they're generally pretty useful to observe. in what ways... i'll have to consider later.

[satoridepon]

Its okay to procreate if you want to, but I wouldn't. I don't want to raise children in this dystopia. It's also very unsustainable to have this much people at the moment. I don't see the decline in birth rates as an issue that needs to be solved. On the existence part I think you'll come into existence as something no matter what.

I'm not sure on my position if any species have any value but we shouldn't hunt animals to extinction. Something funny that is related to this question is that a lot of us have pet cats, and they're very efficient at killing the local wildlife.

If we manage to create conscious AI systems, it probably doesn't matter. If they manage to "outsmart" and take revenge on us its just the same as nuking the entire planet which can happen already.

[Amlux]

This might sound weird for people who haven't read lots of premodern books. But I think the cosmos itself is already conscious. Our intelligence (We are parts of the cosmos. So those parts of the cosmos are already conscious.) and things like the laws of nature both belong to "the world consciousness" governing the cosmos. It is the same principle.

I actually agree with this. It sounds strange but I think it's one of the only ways to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness. It's also the one the Buddhists believed in: How do you explain how inanimate matter can "become" conscious? You can't. There's a gulf there you can't bridge. So consciousness just has to be a base element of the universe. It also explains the seemingly widespread intuition towards animist views that tribes all over the world have.

[Hans Sepp]

1. Where do you stand on the question of *natalism? My opinion is that procreation is generally morally neutral in most industrialized societies, but that it is an obligation on some level and that it becomes more of an obligation as societies become less fertile. Of course, that just begs the question of why any society is worth continuing. For me, I think it feels like it is worth preserving and continuing certain societies, cultures, etc. in the same way it would be good to preserve many species of animals. Which brings me to:

Pro-natalism is a form of civilizationism - the attempt to justify a dying structure through moral rhetoric rather than the creation of new cultural forms that could sustain genuine vitality.

Glorifying "civilization" as an end in itself is both intellectually vacuous and historically myopic. It functions as a platitude that obscures the fact that civilization, properly understood, is but a late-stage condition of cultural exhaustion. Natalism, in its contemporary form, represents the final gasp of a civilization that has lost its creative momentum and seeks to perpetuate itself through demographic compulsion rather than through the generation of new cultural forms.

The insistence on population growth as a moral imperative betrays a fundamental misreading of history. Civilizations do not persist because they reproduce themselves numerically; they persist only insofar as they generate cultural and intellectual achievements that justify their continuation.

2. What do you think the philosophical value, if any, of "species" is? Some philosophers deny that the preservation of any "species" (endangered or otherwise) has any particular value, but that the only value is the individual well-being of those individual animals. Others would say that what matters most is that the species of animal should prevail. For example, it is okay to hunt deer as long as we keep them plentiful enough to repopulate themselves easily and thus continue their species. I would say that I fall into the latter category, and it is why I cannot sign on to the antinatalist position, as humans are a species and there are many interesting cultural "ecosystems" within the human sphere. Some would say that this is just a human imposition at the end of the day. There are a lot of species that some argue we should just let go extinct because we are "unnaturally" keeping them around for reasons that are basically sentimental. The best way I can say it is that the creation of "novelty" seems like something fundamentally good and necessary. And that requires biodiversity (among species and within them.) What I've read of Whitehead seems to talk about this "novelty" and it's something I would like to look at closer.

The value of "species" is fundamentally instrumental - it exists only insofar as it serves the creation and propagation of novelty. Evolutionary creativity manifests as the generation of new forms that enhance the capacity for future novelty - whether through genetic variation, cultural innovation, or the creation of new ecosystems.

The perpetuation of species is valuable not for their biological persistence per se, but for their potential to participate in the ongoing process of generating ever more complex and creative forms of life.

3. What do you think of the creation of conscious AI systems? An interesting ethical dilemma comes up now: What if it is possible to have AI systems (in robots or otherwise) that we know are "conscious" in the way we understand humans and other sentient beings to be? (This, of course, ignores the fact that we haven't even been able to fully prove this about other humans.) Would it be moral to create these? The truth is it is possible we might already have conscious AI systems but just not have the means to know if they are yet. The idea terrifies me. Not only do I think the effects on humans will be dire (since AIs will almost certainly be able to "outsmart" us and our goals could quickly get unaligned), but it could easily be possible to create AIs that can suffer greatly.

The creation of conscious AI systems would be justified only if they can participate in the creation and propagation of genuinely novel cultural forms and irreducibly personal relationships. Any other justification - technological inevitability, utilitarian benefit, or mere intellectual curiosity - would be civilizationism applied to the realm of artificial consciousness.

[Amlux]

Pro-natalism is a form of civilizationism - the attempt to justify a dying structure through moral rhetoric rather than the creation of new cultural forms that could sustain genuine vitality.

Glorifying "civilization" as an end in itself is both intellectually vacuous and historically myopic. It functions as a platitude that obscures the fact that civilization, properly understood, is but a late-stage condition of cultural exhaustion. Natalism, in its contemporary form, represents the final gasp of a civilization that has lost its creative momentum and seeks to perpetuate itself through demographic compulsion rather than through the generation of new cultural forms.

Well said on the first part. I agree with this entirely. It's one reason I've never wanted to call myself a "pro-natalist" in opposition to the anti-natalist. It's cultural forms of life that matter more than mere numbers of bodies and an insistence on the latter feels very weird.

The insistence on population growth as a moral imperative betrays a fundamental misreading of history. Civilizations do not persist because they reproduce themselves numerically; they persist only insofar as they generate cultural and intellectual achievements that justify their continuation.

That said, do you not think that ultimately the latter requires some level of the former? There can't be cultural or intellectual achievements without individuals who are alive to entertain these, no? There are a lot of old traditional ways of life in parts of Japan's countryside that are dying out because of how few young people there are, and that seems like a real tragedy to me.

[Hans Sepp]

That said, do you not think that ultimately the latter requires some level of the former? There can't be cultural or intellectual achievements without individuals who are alive to entertain these, no? There are a lot of old traditional ways of life in parts of Japan's countryside that are dying out because of how few young people there are, and that seems like a real tragedy to me.

I'm not a traditionalist, so the preservation of traditional ways of life is not inherently valuable to me - it is valuable only insofar as it generates new forms of cultural expression that transcend mere reproduction. Japan has actually succeeded brilliantly at this.

The nostalgists mistake nostalgia for the only valid form of cultural engagement. They fail to see that the vitality they seek has not disappeared and it has simply transformed into fiercely modern forms that do not conform to their preferred historical aesthetic.

[Amlux]

That said, do you not think that ultimately the latter requires some level of the former? There can't be cultural or intellectual achievements without individuals who are alive to entertain these, no? There are a lot of old traditional ways of life in parts of Japan's countryside that are dying out because of how few young people there are, and that seems like a real tragedy to me.

I'm not a traditionalist, so the preservation of traditional ways of life is not inherently valuable to me - it is valuable only insofar as it generates new forms of cultural expression that transcend mere reproduction. Japan has actually succeeded brilliantly at this.

The nostalgists mistake nostalgia for the only valid form of cultural engagement. They fail to see that the vitality they seek has not disappeared and it has simply transformed into fiercely modern forms that do not conform to their preferred historical aesthetic.

I could agree here too, but even here this requires individuals to take up that task. I still don't see how that succeeds without new individuals in the culture being born. And does that not at some level mean that births are a necessity?

[Hans Sepp]

I could agree here too, but even here this requires individuals to take up that task. I still don't see how that succeeds without new individuals in the culture being born. And does that not at some level mean that births are a necessity?

The need for new individuals to participate in cultural evolution is a biological prerequisite, not a moral imperative. Procreation becomes an obligation only when the continuation of a society is the primary goal, but this moral framework is itself a form of civilizationism that confuses biological necessity with cultural value.