Why do people have children?

[Edwin]

Why do people have children? Don't say it is to further one's genes because that is just stating the question in another manner. Why do people further their genes? Should a person make children if that person can?

[Grames]

Productivity is a virtue. There are many ways to be productive, raising a child is an important one.

There are many other reasons.

[bluecherry]

I find it kind of funny it looks like I'm going to be one of the first to answer this, since I really just generally hate kids and am going to make damn sure I never have any. XD

Anybody who goes into parenting for the right reasons at least doesn't do it with an explicit thought about "passing on their genes." If that was the reason, no infertile people would still want to adopt. People who go into parenting, when they do it for the right reasons, are motivated by a desire pass on not primarily their genes, but their knowledge and their sense of life. They, may take great pleasure and pride in watching a person start from basically nothing and see how that kid develops slowly but surely and what the child will accomplish and what kind of person they will become from the combination of what you put into raising them and what they experience in life and what the child themselves will choose of their own volition. I think parents who get into it with the right motives have to have a good attitude toward human potential and themselves and from this want to make some kind of living product of a human potential grown up by them in the atmosphere they can make for that child based on what they can give them of a sense of what the world and life and people and so on are and can be like. For people for whom any romantic partner is part of the equation, it may be partly about also that they evaluate their partner's sense of life and its likeness to their own as so good they want it to be part of that project. In the case where they do produce the child biologically together too, part of it may be a little symbolic value in having the child quite literally produced from the two of them and, if it doesn't require something special medical intervention to get the job done, in an act born of their love for each other, their own high estimates and values for each other and what kind of people they are.

Has this been helpful to you?

[Tabitha]

Productivity is a virtue. There are many ways to be productive, raising a child is an important one.

There are many other reasons.

True, but one could just as well argue that spending time parenting is highly unproductive. Changing diapers, wasting hours in the car driving people to and fro, not to mention all the extra cleaning and laundry, don't exactly scream "productivity" to me.

I'm not saying that parenting isn't a virtue. In fact, I think nurturing another life is a wonderful thing, and if more parents were Objectivists, we would all be better off. I just have a hard time seeing link between parenting and "productivity." Or, maybe I'm just operating on a different definition of productivity. Obviously people with Objectivists leanings tend to have kids for good reasons; unfortunately they are the minority of parents out there.

I'm just looking around and seeing that 90% of people I come into contact seem to be having kids for the wrong reasons. Like they're doing it out of boredom, or because it's easier "start over" and focus on a new life than it is to further develop their own skills and lives.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Tabitha

[volco]

Why do people have children? Don't say it is to further one's genes because that is just stating the question in another manner. Why do people further their genes? Should a person make children if that person can?

And furthermore, how is Babby Formed?

Those are questions pertaining to Biology, why do you ask them as a Question about Objectivis

I can see a link between your question and the basic tenets of Objectivism, a most fundamental one: if Man is or/and can be a truly unrestrained volitional creature using reason to execute Free Choice, then why should Man, or Woman might be more appropriate, be compelled, forced even, to perform the most selfless act of them all: serving as a vehicle for another power´s purpose. Furthering "one´s genes" is the answer when you phrase it correctly: furthering the agenda of the genes we´re stuck with - almost like eating not to sustain oneself, but to further the existence of one´s intestinal flora.

While it´s true that it´s in one´s nature the command to reproduce; it is also in every animal and bacteria, and piece of software virus as well.

We are stuck with our nature, and changing it is a heroic act; for instance those personalities since the Industrial Revolution onwards who preferred or managed to have mind children instead of biological ones.

I guess having children can satisfy some paternal and maternal instincts, have that sense of accomplishment at the end of one´s life, but it will be the default kind of accomplishment, not the pinnacle of what you could do with your life.

It is a ranging battle between our Genes and our Ego. Between one´s genotype (the inheritable thing) and one´s phenotype (yourself)

Humans are tempted by the sense of eternity that genes can reflect unto their lives, and for the first thousands of years that has been the standard - just as religion. We are now on the knee of a curve that will make that knee seem infinite.

In better words by someone who seems to just now be reading Atlas for the first time:

The question of whether or not we must stick with the neurochemistry we were born with is the question of who gets to rule - our genotype, a dynamic, immortal string of data, with no consciousness, no consciense, no aesthetic sense, or us, thinking, living, feeling creatures.

I find it interesting that the positions taken by many governments & religions is what the genes would say if they had a voice. Forbidding birth control has obvious genetic benefits. Banning drug use helps keep people from realizing that there are alternatives to the course that has been laid out for them, which may make them realize they are slaves. Banning genetic engineering/experimentation and beliefs that "our genome is chosen by god" and we shouldn't tamper with it also serve our genes' interest, keeping them in supremacy. The identification of god w/ genes is strong. Now, I don't think that there is an *actual* conspiracy, because genes don't have a voice, and because the timeframe over which drugs/genetic engineering have become a threat to genes is much too short for evolution to have responded. I had a neat idea about a co-evolution of the memeplex of religion with a geneplex of credulity & desire to believe in religion, but I don't think it holds together - the timeframe is too short. Still, it is startling & intriguing to hear the voices of our masters (genes) sounding from our powerful cultural institutions. Patri Friedman - read the rest of the essay

[Jake_Ellison]

True, but one could just as well argue that spending time parenting is highly unproductive. Changing diapers, wasting hours in the car driving people to and fro, not to mention all the extra cleaning and laundry, don't exactly scream "productivity" to me.

Productiveness is whatever gets you closer to a rational goal. So, unless you consider the goal of having your child clothed and clean irrational, clothing and cleaning him is definitely productive.

Not to say seeking productiveness is the primary motivation for parenting (or any other activity). Just as productiveness in one's career is a virtue aimed at enhancing one's life, productiveness in raising a child is a virtue enhancing the child's life.

That of course doesn't answer why one would have a child in the first place, but Bluecherry's post does. So read that for the answer to the OP, I'm just addressing your specific point.

(P.S. I'm not sure if there's a meaningful distinction between productivity and productiveness, so I'm just going with the term Ayn Rand used, for the sake of consistency - not trying to correct anyone)

[DavidOdden]

Here are some questions that you might ask in order to make the decision. Do you love life? Are you in a permanent relationship with someone who loves life, and whom you love? Do the two of you take joy in successfully creating something good? Do you believe that you can create another human being who shares your values -- can you create another person who would also love life? Is it possible for you to do what is necessary to create such a person (not merely "be a sperm donor", but "be a father" or "be a mother" with all that that means?). If not, then that is why you should not have children.

I have not distinguished between three means of having a child, via unprotected sex, in vitro fertilization, or adoption. Option 1 maximizes the aforementioned positive values, but for medical or career reasons one might need to select option 2 or 3. (And "We're too busy with our careers to have dogs, much less children" is a reason to select none of the options). I do not see any reason to particularly care about spreading your genes, though some people do make deposits at the sperm bank. I can see rationally approaching the question of being a sperm donor as equivalent (in principle, not volume) to being a blood donor. I do not understand the idea of specifically propagating your genetic material.

[Tabitha]

Should a person make children if that person can?

No. A person "shouldn't" have to do anything, just because they can. I "can" take up ceramics, afford to donate 20% of my income to a third world country, and adopt 4 more cats. But I don't want to do any of these things. Why should I if I don't want to? "Can" does not imply "should."

I do not understand the idea of specifically propagating your genetic material.

I never understood this, either. Nor do I understand it when people say they want part of themselves to "live on." The harsh reality is that no one cares and life is going to go on without you once you're gone (as it should). Quick! Name all 8 of your great-grandparents. Most people can't even get that far down the ancestral line.

Also, from an Objectivist POV, this mindset really doesn't make sense. We only have one life, and should be making the most of it. Having children can be rationally selfish and virtuous, insofar as doing so enhances your life.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Tabitha

[Maximus]

If no one had children, there wouldn't be any next generation, and all that we have built would go away. Or, we'd end up with the rational, productive people dying out and the lowest on the totem pole populating the planet.

[Greebo]

If no one had children, there wouldn't be any next generation, and all that we have built would go away. Or, we'd end up with the rational, productive people dying out and the lowest on the totem pole populating the planet.

That's a consequence of not having children. Avoiding that consequence is not a reason to have them.

(Much like prosperity is a consequence of capitalism, but not the reason to *have* capitalism)

Once we're dead, it won't matter to us if all that we have built goes away.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Greebo

[Grames]

Once we're dead, it won't matter to us if all that we have built goes away.

It matters now, while we are alive. Thinking about the future is unavoidable in using concepts because concepts are open-ended and apply to the future. Avoiding the destruction of civilization is a good thing. Not an end in itself, but definitely a good thing.

[Greebo]

It matters now, while we are alive. Thinking about the future is unavoidable in using concepts because concepts are open-ended and apply to the future. Avoiding the destruction of civilization is a good thing. Not an end in itself, but definitely a good thing.

True.

But - "to avoid the end of civilization" is a lousy reason to have kids.

"Because my partner and I value each other as the best in life and want to see those values grow" - that's a good reason.

[Grames]

True.

But - "to avoid the end of civilization" is a lousy reason to have kids.

"Because my partner and I value each other as the best in life and want to see those values grow" - that's a good reason.

When those values are what constitute civilization then it is the same reason, just considered on a smaller scale.

[Eiuol]

When those values are what constitute civilization then it is the same reason, just considered on a smaller scale.

I don't see the importance of pointing this out. So what if kids constitute a future civilization? The point is, a (rational) goal of having kids is not primarily about extending civilization, since you will never be alive to value a civilization beyond the span of time you're alive. Now I understand that civilization will be affected to some degree, whether it be positive or negative, but I don't see what that matters here when it comes to values. At best, when it comes to having kids, I think "avoiding the end of civilization" is rationally a nonvalue in the sense it neither harms nor benefits *you*. You wouldn't be alive long enough.

[Grames]

I don't see the importance of pointing this out. So what if kids constitute a future civilization? The point is, a (rational) goal of having kids is not primarily about extending civilization, since you will never be alive to value a civilization beyond the span of time you're alive. Now I understand that civilization will be affected to some degree, whether it be positive or negative, but I don't see what that matters here when it comes to values.

It doesn't matter, I agree. No altruistic actions are required to further civilization. Furthering your own values furthers civilization because civilization is nothing apart from its members.

The importance in pointing that out is that a noble idea like civilization should not be shunned as no value and left abandoned to collectivists.

[dream_weaver]

Why do people have children? Don't say it is to further one's genes because that is just stating the question in another manner. Why do people further their genes? Should a person make children if that person can?

Because sex is pleasurable.

That aside, people choose to do things based on what their values.

Should/ought - is it a 'duty' to have children? Imposed by whom or what?

[DavidOdden]

These last few posts (minus D_W, sorry dude but I started before you finished) in particular have drawn attention to an important question, namely whether it is valid to consider the benefits to others -- total strangers -- if the choice of actions cannot possibly effect you. This takes the organ-donation question to a higher level of abstraction. There are a number of man-made facts which I consider to be extremely important not just for my own life but for the life of all men. If I were faced with alternatives that are indistinguishable from the perspective of my knowledge of my own life-span but which could reasonably result in different outcomes past my lifetime, then I claim that it would be valid for me to act in support of those values that I would act to gain and keep, even if I can't do so. Since the disposition of my personal property after my death cannot possibly have an effect on my at that point in time non-existent life, you might think that I should just will my property to a random stranger. Rand should have designated a random bozo as her property-heir, rather than the man whom she evaluated as being her closest and most faithful intellectual colleague. And yet, not.

If I though that mankind was basically evil and that the world deserved to be destroyed, then I suppose I would accept the premise that mankind and civilization deserves what I get, and that it does not matter a whit whether everything that I have accomplished in my life goes in the crapper. I don't accept that premise, though.

[Hotu Matua]

I agree with David.

The ultimate bedrock of all loving, all ethics, all values, is existence. Reality.

When you are fully aware of the primacy of existence over conciousness then you CARE about future generations, because you know that they will exist even when you are no more concious about it.

If you thought that existence is just the product of your mind, then you wouldn't give a chip for what happens with the world after your death.

In all of these discussions about showing respect or concern for nature, strangers, handicapped, future generations and the like, the essential point, in my view, is that we should not frame these attitudes as duties, but as logical results of a rational happy life.

Rational People take care of their pets not because they ought to.

Rational people do not donate organs or raise kids because they ought to.

They do it because, despite some misfortunes, they happen to be having a whale of a time living life.

They do it because the fun of doing it while engaged in the pursuit of their own projects.

They do it because they recognize that existence exists and will continue to exist after their death, and this is something to celebrate.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Edwin]

I find it kind of funny it looks like I'm going to be one of the first to answer this, since I really just generally hate kids and am going to make damn sure I never have any. XD

Anybody who goes into parenting for the right reasons at least doesn't do it with an explicit thought about "passing on their genes." If that was the reason, no infertile people would still want to adopt. People who go into parenting, when they do it for the right reasons, are motivated by a desire pass on not primarily their genes, but their knowledge and their sense of life. They, may take great pleasure and pride in watching a person start from basically nothing and see how that kid develops slowly but surely and what the child will accomplish and what kind of person they will become from the combination of what you put into raising them and what they experience in life and what the child themselves will choose of their own volition. I think parents who get into it with the right motives have to have a good attitude toward human potential and themselves and from this want to make some kind of living product of a human potential grown up by them in the atmosphere they can make for that child based on what they can give them of a sense of what the world and life and people and so on are and can be like. For people for whom any romantic partner is part of the equation, it may be partly about also that they evaluate their partner's sense of life and its likeness to their own as so good they want it to be part of that project. In the case where they do produce the child biologically together too, part of it may be a little symbolic value in having the child quite literally produced from the two of them and, if it doesn't require something special medical intervention to get the job done, in an act born of their love for each other, their own high estimates and values for each other and what kind of people they are.

Has this been helpful to you?

From the answers so far, I like bluecherry's answer.

The gist of what she says is that people make children out of self-love. They need to see a person like them, starting of with all the knowledge and experience they gathered over a life time.

e.g. Warren Buffet's dad somehow figured out "honesty is the best policy" through trial and error; He passes on this knowledge with explanations and reasons to Warren; Warren does not have to learn this fact through trial and error; he knows the reasons why honesty works; so he goes on to create an investment company that tells the truth; gets very rich and productive.

[ZSorenson]

Though not essential to child-rearing, I have to conclude that the partner in that endeavor would be a critical motivation for it.

Yes, not all children are biological and share genetic characteristics, and so, yes not every child requires explicitly two parents, or even parents of different genders. But the fundamental nature of child-making constrains the vast majority of parenting to be of two biological parents.

This translates to a child being a very real literal physical manifestation of the loving union between parents. Even in the non-biological case, if parents love each other, and raise children together, those children are the product of their shared values.

I think it would be wrong to endorse parenting outside of the context of parents who are in love. In emergency cases where no such situation is available, it is obviously better for a child to be raised by an individual with values, or anybody at all, but the ideal would be for a child to be the product of shared values between loving partners.

Keep in mind that two people can produce other things besides children. And that sharing of values doesn't have to be between lovers. But physical love and reproduction is so highly connected to how man expresses love and valuation, that parenthood has to be thought of primarily in this context.

I've realized that I don't want kids unless I share them with a partner whom I truly love. Before hand I wanted kids in an abstract sense, but I was leaving the question of who the partner would be open ended, and now I've identified that fact.

In that case (before identifying the role of a partner), my desire for children was based on a very explicit desire.

If identifying values, posessing virtues, and projecting them onto the world through productive action, to the point where your existence is the cause of the manifestation of your values in the world, if that is the ideal, then what higher way to do this than through diligent and tireless effort to shape a forming mind into the best mirror of your values. To see your values manifest in the world, in the form of another rational mind, one who is capable of valuing the same things as you, and who values you in return: for the sake of your best virtues: what is higher than that?

Some people, like Ayn Rand, or bluecherry, might legitimately conclude that they are not capable of achieving this through children. And actually, that's fine. What Ayn Rand achieved is above and beyond the great vast majority of parents. But still, I think there are quite many people capable of raising fine young people. And it is good for them (as in, for their sake) to do so.

One thing about children is that they can't be an end in themselves. You must be living life and producing while raising them, and they must grow to start enjoying life and producing value. There are inherent constraints associated with parenting: a lot of work, no late night club-hopping, no seasonal romps across Europe tasting wine; but our collectivist age has fooled us into thinking parenting is ONLY a sacrifice. Should children to a large extent understand that they live in an adults' world: that they have to learn patience, that they have to be part of many activities that they don't understand? YES! People have told me: "Well you just haven't had children yet." No, but I have seen the examples of different familes. Some parents are lazy, and think children are just a necessary sacrifice for the good of society. They spend little mental effort on their kids, but a whole lot of chasing and yelling and money for toys on them. Their kids are brats. Other parents have children who are quiet at adult functions, don't speak unless spoken to, etc. It turns out, actually, that these parents spend a lot of their personal time on their kids: they do chores WITH them, they talk to them, and the parents themselves possess actual values and integrity for the children to emulate. I know the breakdown isn't that perfect, but I do believe that children who learn that THEY live in an ADULTS' world do eventually figure out that they are growing up and relish in the opportunity to partake in adulthood: responsibility, integrity, liberty; all as they grow.

But because of the doctrine of self-sacrifice, we've all been fooled into thinking children mean ADULTS having to live in the KIDS' world. Having kids means hard as hell work, as well as giving up countless alternative opportunities, maybe not swearing and drinking and watching R rated movies as much, but it does NOT mean living in a 'kids' world.

The arguments about civilization enduring are also good. Imagine if people lived just 20 years longer on average. That's a whole generation from birth to productivity. Adults would very much benefit from the continued "production" of fine young people. I put forth the hypothetical just to stress the point.

[ZSorenson]

I have a slightly different, additional, comment to make. So I've opened a second response.

Women have a difficult relationship with child-bearing, I think. This is related to my last post.

I said that if your goal is to spend a lot of effort on raising children in order to see your virtues and values manifest in them, then you have to be very deliberate and active in your parenting.

If your goal is to just sort of 'let nature happen' and put up with it, then parenting will suck and basically drain your life out of you.

I am not a woman, but I sympathize with them because they don't have to love anybody or have any values or any desire to have any children for their bodies to just start making them.

Men can run away from pregnant women. Women cannot run away from their bodies, requiring at least measures of prevention/control.

So children could be this very serious, severe imposition on women in even a vacuum of values. I would think that that reality would breed a lot of resentment towards the child making process.

I bring this up because "Why people have children" as a debate is often framed within a feminist narrative - because women are the exclusive laborers in the primary effort. And going along with that narrative the issue is that frankly, for a woman to decide to have a child, that is a heroic act really.

Unfortunately, no heroism is required for it to 'happen'. It is only heroic *when* the action is deliberate, and the female body just doesn't care what the values of the woman are. This makes pregnancy itself seem sort of arbitrary, and I think that this causes people to be ambivalent about "Why" to have children. Especially women.

Once you differentiate the ACT of bearing a child from the FACT of having one, it becomes easier to understand "why" you might choose to.

[Imogen]

ZSorenson, I'm surprised that anyone takes issue with you not having children and addressing this topic. It seems to me that your observations, grasp of the issues, and reasoned arguments are light-years ahead of most people who do have children and assume that their children can be 'raised' automatically.

I do not know *anyone* personally who has children and also has even a cursory grasp of what parenting is. *I* do, but I mother deliberately, and sadly, this seems to be a rarity.

[Eiuol]

I think it would be wrong to endorse parenting outside of the context of parents who are in love. In emergency cases where no such situation is available, it is obviously better for a child to be raised by an individual with values, or anybody at all, but the ideal would be for a child to be the product of shared values between loving partners.

I do agree with much of what you say in your post, but why do you say it would be wrong to endorse parenting outside the context of two parents in love? Clearly, physical love (I assume by that you mean sex) and reproduction are well connected, but it doesn't necessarily then follow that the love of a partner is needed as part of the reason to have a kid. The child-making part is different from the child-having part.

If identifying values, posessing virtues, and projecting them onto the world through productive action, to the point where your existence is the cause of the manifestation of your values in the world, if that is the ideal, then what higher way to do this than through diligent and tireless effort to shape a forming mind into the best mirror of your values. To see your values manifest in the world, in the form of another rational mind, one who is capable of valuing the same things as you, and who values you in return: for the sake of your best virtues: what is higher than that?

I would be careful here in saying you could have any person mirror your values. It really depends how specific you mean value, since that could apply to the sort of stereotypical situation where a kid is deciding between following their own dreams or the desires of their parent, quite like how Keating became an architect rather than a painter (that's the first example I thought of). If you mean more abstract values like virtue or reason, then that would be a good way to look at what sort of goal you could accomplish by having a kid.

Some parents are lazy, and think children are just a necessary sacrifice for the good of society. They spend little mental effort on their kids, but a whole lot of chasing and yelling and money for toys on them. Their kids are brats.

From what I gather, most people in general seek to get married then have a kid because it's just what you do. Everyone does it, so why think or do otherwise? Of the kids I've observed, very often the brattier kids seem to be around the parents that care very little in reprimanding or correcting them. I'm not even sure if many people even reach a level of thinking that they are making a necessary sacrifice to the good of society.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Eiuol

[Mindy]

If you mean more abstract values like virtue or reason, then that would be a good way to look at what sort of goal you could accomplish by having a kid.

...

I'm not even sure if many people even reach a level of thinking that they are making a necessary sacrifice to the good of society.

I'm not sure if that last statement means you do think child-raising is "making a necessary sacrifice to the good of society," or not...

I've found a lot of good thinking in this thread, chiefly by the parent-posters.

My own experience, though I have always liked kids, baby-sat a lot in high-school, etc., was that it was only when I began to feel that I had "conquered" the challenges of life, that I knew "all about" building a life, getting along in the world, etc., that I felt not just a willingness to have children, but a very specific desire to do so. I felt I had a surplus that was going to waste, that having a child would be an enlargement of my life.

I think the most important prerequisite for parenting is having a surplus of time and attention. You can't just fit children in. If you feel you don't have enough time for yourself, get enough attention, or enough love, etc., having children is NOT the thing to do. Parenting is supplying, and doing so without strain. It needs the highest level of professionalism, of representing another's interests with an acute sense of responsibility.

That said, there is another, critically important consideration at this point in history, and that is the degenerate state of the public schools. Actually, that includes most private schools.

The schools are not just politically active where they shouldn't be, they actively undercut the individual student's intellectual confidence. They more or less decerebrate the students by giving lessons that defy understanding and integration. Many lessons contain errors and inaccuracies, which the teachers fail to notice. Kids automatically think that it is their fault that they don't "get it."

As far as school experience, they are prevented from discovering the efficacy and reliability of their own minds. Memorization is the only option, and that is a turn-off to any intelligent kid, of course, besides which, it fails to create hierarchical understanding, it fails to build a body of knowledge. Also, of course, the social milieu of the classroom ranges from awful to abusive.

How, subject daily to this environment, can a child learn that his mind is his most important tool? How can he take pride in his growing intellectual powers? Learn to think for himself? Build the ego-strength to stand up for his opinions?

The adolescent drive for self-esteem is especially consuming. Having their proper self-concept as a thinking being stunted, or even refuted, what pseudo-self-esteem icons will they adopt? What relief from the constant, inevitable sense of inadequacy will they seek?

(FYI: My daughter attended two Montessori schools and two public schools, and I investigated many other private schools.)

[Eiuol]

I'm not sure if that last statement means you do think child-raising is "making a necessary sacrifice to the good of society," or not...

What I mean is that I suspect many parents don't even reach a level of being wrong because they don't really think about why they want a kid.