If you’re worried about “idiocracies” and think your genes would make the difference, donate your sperm/eggs, and call it a day.
Sperm donation in particular doesn’t produce a new child; it displaces another donor, because there are many more people who apply to donate than get accepted. And the donor you displace is already likely to be above average in intelligence, health, and professional success, because those are the people who pass screening and get selected by prospects.
My disagreements are these. Point 4 - if you choose not to have children, you are harming the children you might have had by not giving them the opportunity to exist. There is nothing incoherent about this. A person has an interest in existing, and this interest can’t depend on them existing at a particular arbitrary point in time. Otherwise murder wouldn’t be wrong. The intuition can maybe be driven better from the other side. Imagine a particular child—your child, or a friend’s child, or whatever. Would they be harmed if history were changed such that their parents never chose to have them? Of course they would be harmed by that. When deciding to have or not have a kid, you are viewing the same question from an earlier point in time, and that shouldn’t change the moral calculus. (Note that I am not making any argument about how this interest should be analyzed or weighed against other interests, I am just rejecting your position that this interest is incoherent.)
I also don’t think an inclination to have or not have children is similar to an inclination to have or not have romantic relationships. Many people go from not wanting children in early adulthood, to wanting children later. This can definitely sometimes be a product of environmental influences. People whose peers have kids are much more likely to end up wanting kids! And this can definitely sometimes be influenced by ethical arguments. We have seen many people in recent decades not have kids, or have fewer kids, out of concern for how those kids would impact global warming. That’s an ethical argument. If it is right, then I think it is honorable that people chose to act on it. If it is wrong (as I think it is), then it is important that it be countered by other arguments. If demographic collapse is a catastrophic risk, then that is an ethical argument for having kids which should cause some people to act. So I think making ethical arguments is good.
All that said, I agree that having kids will not be right for everyone, and that whatever your model of the world, there are other ways to improve the world at which some people will be more effective.
Sperm donation in particular doesn’t produce a new child; it displaces another donor, because there are many more people who apply to donate than get accepted. And the donor you displace is already likely to be above average in intelligence, health, and professional success, because those are the people who pass screening and get selected by prospects.
My disagreements are these. Point 4 - if you choose not to have children, you are harming the children you might have had by not giving them the opportunity to exist. There is nothing incoherent about this. A person has an interest in existing, and this interest can’t depend on them existing at a particular arbitrary point in time. Otherwise murder wouldn’t be wrong. The intuition can maybe be driven better from the other side. Imagine a particular child—your child, or a friend’s child, or whatever. Would they be harmed if history were changed such that their parents never chose to have them? Of course they would be harmed by that. When deciding to have or not have a kid, you are viewing the same question from an earlier point in time, and that shouldn’t change the moral calculus. (Note that I am not making any argument about how this interest should be analyzed or weighed against other interests, I am just rejecting your position that this interest is incoherent.)
I also don’t think an inclination to have or not have children is similar to an inclination to have or not have romantic relationships. Many people go from not wanting children in early adulthood, to wanting children later. This can definitely sometimes be a product of environmental influences. People whose peers have kids are much more likely to end up wanting kids! And this can definitely sometimes be influenced by ethical arguments. We have seen many people in recent decades not have kids, or have fewer kids, out of concern for how those kids would impact global warming. That’s an ethical argument. If it is right, then I think it is honorable that people chose to act on it. If it is wrong (as I think it is), then it is important that it be countered by other arguments. If demographic collapse is a catastrophic risk, then that is an ethical argument for having kids which should cause some people to act. So I think making ethical arguments is good.
All that said, I agree that having kids will not be right for everyone, and that whatever your model of the world, there are other ways to improve the world at which some people will be more effective.