This is the ethical view for further procreation in a world where we are already are the ‘dominant’ species. For the against side, go here. For background on this (and what I mean by dominant), go here, part 1 of this series, and part 2.
Neil Strauss says (or at least he used to), that the purpose of life is to 1) survive and 2) to replicate.
And it’s possible that it’s true. Despite there already being 7 billion humans on this planet, perhaps it is our duty to keep creating as many more new humans as possible, to maintain our dominant position on this earth, and minimise the effect catastrophic events can have on humanity as a whole (hmmm… but, and a huge but… what about overpopulation and its effect on causing catastrophic events?…).
If we all took the ethical viewpoint that we must all devote our time, effort, money, support and guidance to all the kids on the planet who are without parents, or living and growing up in neglected, terrible circumstances, humanity would soon die out (unless we instilled within those kids the wisdom that despite us having helped them, we do it so we can create a universally generous humanity, so that then they can procreate within the confines of that universally caring place.)
It may be our duty, for humanity, to just keep pumping out as many kids as possible (are there population control measures taken in any other biological populations? You don’t see sloths making ‘One-sloth-child policies’, and in essence we are competing against all other species.
So, the biological view is: Keep having kids. Lots and lots and lots of them. And then have lots more (as many as environmental conditions allow).
Even our most bitter, capable and historic of biological rivals –bacteria– enforce the exact opposite of population control (apparently there are more bacteria in your gut alone than there are people who ever lived.)
What’s the ethical conclusion to this? Well, I’ll be posting it –or at least my wayward one– tomorrow (and guess what, it’s got something to do with Mars).