Or is it the impossibility of consent? Yes, a child is unable to consent to being born. Just as we are all unable to consent to the world being created, or nature's whims. I cannot consent to a state on the other side of the world making policies, but I can still react and do things about it.

Is it morally wrong to let animals have children?

[–] Lag@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If one animal species is harming an ecosystem then I don't see how it's morally wrong to limit their reproduction.

[–] Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago

Usually, a better way to help an ecosystem balance itself is to reintroduce predators or similarly.

the deer population in yellowstone was destroying the soil, this was solved by reintroducing wolves.

there's a big difference between this, and f.ex castrating a lot of the deer, or going on a shooting spree.

It also goes with the assumption that the ecosystem is either outside the moral spectrum, or morally good.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

What's f.ex mean?

[–] Cignul9@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

A guess, but “for example”? That’s how I’m reading it, anyway.

[–] pixelbound@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago

It's the norwegian / danish way of writing e.g

[–] Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

"for example"

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

There's also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.

But, from the negative utilitarianists I've known and seen, I've found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it's a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.