Objectivism and Procreation

[Nicky]

Well, there are all sorts of choices and the first choice is whether or not to have children at all.

No, it's not. Choices are between alternatives. "not have children" is not an alternative, it just means that you favor some other, unnamed alternative. Choosing to "not have children" before you know what that alternative is is foolish.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Nicky

[whYNOT]

You have children if the value they bring to your life outweighs the costs.

Logical, but maybe not rational. For a start, how does one really experience and judge the value to you

of a child until he/she exists?

As I see this debate, the point is - is an Objectivist human?

Not casting any slurs on you, Hernan - it is an absorbing topic, and you have brought up some

good ideas, but it is something i've faced from non-Oists, the 'general community', which implies that Objectivism

is 1. so extremely egoist 2. so ivory-towered intellectualist and self-deliberate - that an Objectivist can't live "normally".

The reply to them is simple: it is not some super race of beings that O'ists aspire to be - rather

to be completely and fully human, within the bounds of human possibility and the limitations of man's nature.

Certainly NOT the obligation and limitations of custom, tradition, religion or society.

I don't think you could beat an Objectivist parent, if he/she chooses to have children - and if not, fine

also. Populating the world is not my concern.

[hernan]

No, it's not.

Many people go their entire lives childless by choice.

[hernan]

Populating the world is not my concern.

I've been very carful not to rest my argument on such a gross "duty". However, the population of the world does affect you and, in that sense, is your concern. The question is how to does it affect your choices (from in individualist perspective). That's much less clear.

Edited July 25, 2012 by hernan

[Nicky]

Many people go their entire lives childless by choice.

Yes, they do go childless by choice. But their choice is to do something else. Something specific. They don't just choose not to have children because they hate the notion of having children. It's because they found something better to do.

P.S. I edited my last post after you replied, sorry. Read it please, I only added a sentence.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Nicky

[hernan]

Yes, they do go childless by choice. But their choice is to do something else. Something specific. They don't just choose not to have children because they hate the notion of having children. It's because they found something better to do.

Who knows why, I'm sure there are a variety of reasons (or at least explanations) but that is their choice. Whether or not they found something better to do is debatable and many, women particularly, come to regret their choice not to have kids (or to have waited until too late to try).

[Nicky]

Logical

It was a statement, not a syllogism. It's true or false, not logical or illogical.

[whYNOT]

I've been very carful not to rest my argument on such a gross "duty". However, the population of the world does affect you and, in that sense, is your concern. The question is how to does it affect your choices (from in individualist perspective). That's much less clear.

The population of the world, at any instant, though physically 'man-made', might as well be a 'metaphysical

given'. (From the point of view of any individual.) It is, what it is.

"Not my concern" relates to the irrationality of trying to 'do one's bit' when an individual cannot have any effect,

and should not try. That's a short step away from dutifulness.

"Of concern"- thinking about e.g. population growth, global warning, or world poverty - is a quite different story.

"How does it affect your choices (from an individual perspective)" - is then, self-evidently, it doesn't.

[whYNOT]

It was a statement, not a syllogism. It's true or false, not logical or illogical.

Pragmatism. And gaining 'values' by rationalization. So, false.

Better?

[hernan]

"Of concern"- thinking about e.g. population growth, global warning, or world poverty - is a quite different story. "How does it affect your choices (from an individual perspective)" - is then, self-evidently, it doesn't.

This does not follow. The weather is beyond my control but I certainly take it into account in my choices (e.g. picnic vs. movie or live in south of France vs. St. Petersburg).

Edited July 25, 2012 by hernan

[bluecherry]

"I do think charity . . . may be applicable to this but . . . I'm much more interested in understanding how individuals might respond rationally in their own lives. In other words, what is the natural reason for having children?"

Those are two seperate issues. Those charities *ARE* my answer to "individuals responding rationally in their own lives" if the problem is an economic one primarily. As for why do Objectivists choose to have kids, I recomend asking some of them that have them. Let them tell you for themselves why they do it. What I've been trying to tell you though is that the answer is *not* about spreading our ideas by far and large. Getting to people first to tell them your ideas over and over while they grow up is much more effective for spreading irrationality (especially for ensuring it is one particular type of irrationality instead of another) than rationality due to the nature of each, especially under present conditions where all kinds of irrational ideas are unavoidable.

I have an analogy in mind to illustrate that last line. Maybe it will help? What I have in mind is the saying about how you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can't force somebody to use reason even if you spell things out to them clear is day. They have to choose to try to do this themselves. Reason, the metaphorical water here, is pretty readily available already by default (kind of like the horse was born right next to a pond.) The problem in the present culture is that religion and other irrational ideologies are ubiquitous and thus unavoidable. These irrational ideologies discourage rationality and put up obstacles in the path to reason even if somebody wanted to try to use it. It's like the pond is right there from the time the horse is born, but then quickly these bad ideas come along and put weights on the horse, break it's legs, and put a bunch of junk in the way between the horse and the pond (kids rely on others, especially adults, to tell them all kinds of things so they tend to easily believe whatever they are told, thus it is really easy to confuse kids and to get them to believe anything at all just about. This then means there is an extra step that has been put in the way - you first need to get somebody to see what is wrong with their existing ideas before you can work on helping them to understand and accept any new, correct ones if they are willing to try.) It's still possible to get to the pond to drink the water (figure stuff out through the use of reason) if the horse (a person) really wants to and tries, but it is a lot harder to do than it would have been otherwise.

There will be exposure to religions and such from early in everybody's lives with the present state of the culture whether somebody's parents are religious or not, but the advantage to any particular religion in raising kids from very early in their life is they can make sure they get there first. Getting there first is a huge advantage in getting one irrational ideology to stick rather than another. Since an emotional connection/investment is how they sustain their beliefs and prior to establishing that emotional connection there's no reason for one irrational ideology to be favored over another, it's just a matter of what ideas will get there to create that emotional bond first. Once that bond is established it is unlikely that a different irrational ideology will come to take its place since an emotional bond to one set of ideas will typically result in feelings of antagonism toward other ideologies which are seen as threats and attacks on the ideology one already knows and loves.

That same feeling of antagonism of course not only applies toward other irrational ideas but against rational ones too. That's of course part of why it proves to be an obstacle in the road to rationality - people very often don't want for those beliefs they have come to cherish to not be true. However, though that challenge can be a big one to overcome when and if such an emotional bond to bad ideas is successfully formed, reason has a better chance of getting past it than other irrational ideologies since it is appealing to an entirely different pathway than the ones those other ideology apply to.

It's kind of like . . . suppose you're having a yard sale and five strangers walk up to you over the course of several minutes all interested in buying the same item. The first stranger offers five dollars and starts chatting with you. The next three strangers also offer five dollars. You've been chatting with the first guy and he seems kind of nice, so you see no reason to sell the item to those other three guys. But then the fifth and last guy comes along and he offers $4.50 plus he also offers to help you clean up after the yard sale and points out that those other guy's money they were offering you is counterfit. Yeah, that first guy seemed nice, but he was actually trying to rip you off no matter how good he tried to sound.

Each of those strangers represents an ideology, the last one to come along representing reason. The first of the irrational ideologies had the opportunity to get you to like them and the other irrational ideologies that came along later seemed like they were posing a bit of a threat to the first guy/ideology you like and they had nothing more to make themselves sound preferable in their offers anyway, so they get shot down. However, reason comes along last, but it offers you most of what the others offered you, plus something else entirely (help cleaning up/evidence, coherency, et cetera), and it shows that some of what the others offered which you don't (fifty cents in the above case, things like eternal life and special magical systems of punishment, et cetera in reality ) doesn't really put them ahead in any sense anyway because they were just a sham anyway, you weren't getting what those others promised no matter what. (Of course, getting somebody to realize what the best offer is depends largely on if they will pay attention and not refuse to consider anybody else/any other ideas else any more and if they will be willing to actually check out that evidence and such of fakery in the others. You can't force them to do that anymore than you can force the horse to drink.)

Hmm. I hope that stuff was clear since it was kind of long for a couple metaphors. As always, metaphors are not arguments, they are just ways to help people understand an actual argument. I kind of tried to do both things at once with the actual explanations interspersed in the metaphors as I went.

". . . it's not at all clear to me that parents who start later in life are better prepared."

I don't neccessarily equate preparation for having kids to "later in life." One can go their whole life without ever having what is needed to be capable of parenting well, not even with "on the job training." One could also still be relatively young and have the prerequistes taken care of. Age is not what it means to be "ready" in my mind. It is, however, usually the case that one's preparation and age are correlated and there's a partial causation involved. One needs a chance to get rescources, knowledge, and maturity and getting these things takes time. The more time one has had, the more opportunity they've had to get these things and so the more likely they are to have gotten them. So, when I say it is a bad idea to do it before one is ready, I don't mean "before one is [insert age here]," though odds are in favor of somebody not actually being ready before they're at least a certain age.

"I mentioned ensuring no kid gets neglected or gets the short end of the stick too as a reason why most people didn't keep having lots of kids in spite of it being unnecessary. Some people can manage a lot of kids well, but they aren't most people." <-- me

"These are fine sentiments but I want to keep the focus on the general. If (and we have debated the actual figures) Objectivists don't have as many kids as religious (or even non-Objectivist seculars) then that tells us something about Objectivism above and beyond individual differences. (Unless of course a certain, perhaps impatient, personality tends toward Objectivism.)" <-- you

I think since we don't see having children, especially lots of them, as something one has to do, when and if we do have them we aren't prone to having kids when doing so would result in that child or any other children we already have getting a lower quality of life than we want for them. Kids are cared about highly so I think generally people among us have perhaps higher standards than a lot of others do may what is good enough conditions for them before they would willingly bring children into it. I happen to believe that a belief that "that's just what people do/should do" is responsible for a lot of the general population having kids/more kids when they really would be better off not doing so. Lots of people keep having kids when they can't afford them (often they keep having kids once they are already recieving financial support from the government to get by), when they just have too much stress to deal with in their lives already, when they find themselves easily frustrated by children, when they are mentally and/or physically unwell, when their living conditions are unstable and risky, and so on.

"Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The costs of breeding more prolifically or donating to those charities I talked about to the life one oneself and any of one's potential offspring is higher than the amount of benefit to one's life one stands to gain from getting more people into the work force. (Though really, right now we seem to have the opposite problem if anything - more people than there are jobs these people are qualified for.)" <-- me

"I'm not ready to accept that answer. But as I noted originally, if that is the case then nature will favor the irrational. (More people than jobs is not an indictment of population but of economic and political impediments.)" <-- you

My quote above is my explantion for why economics isn't motive for us to try to do anything about breeding rates in our general population *right now.* The conditions don't justify it *right now.* Should conditions become much more severe and urgent, that changes things and would see a lot more action being justified and taken. Also, I agree that the current political and economic policies are indicted in the present situation of more people than there are jobs the people are qualified for. I'm just noting that that IS the state of things it seems right now, even though it shouldn't be, so it seems like for the time being at least, just flooding more people into the work force is not going to help fix situation at all.

"And what is going to speed [the spread of rationality and Objectivism in the culture] up? What is going to cause culture to be more rational?"

The current conditions exist where irrationality's ubiquity makes exposure to it unavoidable and thus puts obstacles in the path to rationality, but does not make it impossible. As we slowly work within those present conditions, gradually getting more people to be more rational, the proportions of rationality to irrationality in our culture will begin shifting. The more we can get reason to spread, the greater influence it will have on the culture and the less influence irrationality will have. The lessening of the presence of irrationality means the lessoning of the obstacles in the path to reason. The less obstacles there are, the easier and therefore faster our job gets. It's like every time you get one person from their side onto your side, that's not only one less person in your way, it's one more person helping you clear the path. Eventually it may get to the point where you don't have to put a kid in a bubble to keep him or her from growing up hearing about deities and stuff, the path is pretty much unobstructed so the main obstacle remaining between a kid and reason is their own willingness to try. That extra step of having to get rid of bad ideas first is all gone, all taken care of.

"But other cultures, again using that term loosly, don't rely on philosophy in the way that Objectivism does. If, for example, Objectivism featured a weight lifting test while a competing movement had a shopping test guess where the babes would be?"

Bad comparison. Short term, there may be less women around things involving philosophy for whatever is the real reason there are less females studying philosophy. However, since the cultures which are more reasonable have better survival ability, eventually the competition is gone and we'll have 100% of the "babe" population. ;D

[hernan]

I'm going to start with this because I think it's the most interesting aspect of this whole subject. I'll reply to your other points later when I have more time.

Short term, there may be less women around things involving philosophy for whatever is the real reason there are less females studying philosophy. However, since the cultures which are more reasonable have better survival ability, eventually the competition is gone and we'll have 100% of the "babe" population.

I have provided a pretty solid argument why this is not the case. Nobody has offered any serious corrections to my argument, though they have quibled about my guestimates and dismissed the importance of it to their individual choices.

Cultures which procreate will tend to perpetuate themselves better than those that don't. Religious cultures tend to be more procreative than secular including Objectivists. Therefore religious cultures will be more likely to survive than secular cultures like Objectivism. In the long run, the religious will get the babes and Objectivism will remain a negligable minority of lonely philosophical men.

This is not in and of itself a reason to have children, I have never argued that. But it is pretty interesting and ought to motivate thinking.

If being religious is irrational then the irrational will inherit the earth.

[bluecherry]

I contend you simply aren't think long term enough. When I say "long term" I'm not thinking necessarily a couple decades, a generation, a century even. It's going to be longer than that before "we've got all the 'babes'" Like I said, right now it is slow going spreading our ideas and we have some really big hurdles to overcome, but time is on the side of reason, we're on the side of reason, so time is on the same side we are. (I mentioned speculation before about why I suspect less females are involved in philosophy. I think it's culture that is pushing them away. Gradually change the culture and thus females stop getting pushed away. That's the nutshell version anyway.)

[hernan]

I contend you simply aren't think long term enough. When I say "long term" I'm not thinking necessarily a couple decades, a generation, a century even. It's going to be longer than that before "we've got all the 'babes'" Like I said, right now it is slow going spreading our ideas and we have some really big hurdles to overcome, but time is on the side of reason, we're on the side of reason, so time is on the same side we are. (I mentioned speculation before about why I suspect less females are involved in philosophy. I think it's culture that is pushing them away. Gradually change the culture and thus females stop getting pushed away. That's the nutshell version anyway.)

Hmmm. I don't seem much in the way of evidence to support your claim or to refute mine but it doesn't sound like you are going to be waiting around for this to aid your search for that someone special. So let's turn our attention to your other points.

"I do think charity . . . may be applicable to this but . . . I'm much more interested in understanding how individuals might respond rationally in their own lives. In other words, what is the natural reason for having children?"

Those are two seperate issues. Those charities *ARE* my answer to "individuals responding rationally in their own lives" if the problem is an economic one primarily. As for why do Objectivists choose to have kids, I recomend asking some of them that have them. Let them tell you for themselves why they do it. What I've been trying to tell you though is that the answer is *not* about spreading our ideas by far and large. Getting to people first to tell them your ideas over and over while they grow up is much more effective for spreading irrationality (especially for ensuring it is one particular type of irrationality instead of another) than rationality due to the nature of each, especially under present conditions where all kinds of irrational ideas are unavoidable.

I understand what you mean here but I'm looking for something other than charity. I'm interested in something a little less charitable, a little more competitive.

I have an analogy in mind to illustrate that last line. Maybe it will help? What I have in mind is the saying about how you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can't force somebody to use reason even if you spell things out to them clear is day. They have to choose to try to do this themselves. Reason, the metaphorical water here, is pretty readily available already by default (kind of like the horse was born right next to a pond.) The problem in the present culture is that religion and other irrational ideologies are ubiquitous and thus unavoidable. These irrational ideologies discourage rationality and put up obstacles in the path to reason even if somebody wanted to try to use it. It's like the pond is right there from the time the horse is born, but then quickly these bad ideas come along and put weights on the horse, break it's legs, and put a bunch of junk in the way between the horse and the pond (kids rely on others, especially adults, to tell them all kinds of things so they tend to easily believe whatever they are told, thus it is really easy to confuse kids and to get them to believe anything at all just about. This then means there is an extra step that has been put in the way - you first need to get somebody to see what is wrong with their existing ideas before you can work on helping them to understand and accept any new, correct ones if they are willing to try.) It's still possible to get to the pond to drink the water (figure stuff out through the use of reason) if the horse (a person) really wants to and tries, but it is a lot harder to do than it would have been otherwise.

There will be exposure to religions and such from early in everybody's lives with the present state of the culture whether somebody's parents are religious or not, but the advantage to any particular religion in raising kids from very early in their life is they can make sure they get there first. Getting there first is a huge advantage in getting one irrational ideology to stick rather than another. Since an emotional connection/investment is how they sustain their beliefs and prior to establishing that emotional connection there's no reason for one irrational ideology to be favored over another, it's just a matter of what ideas will get there to create that emotional bond first. Once that bond is established it is unlikely that a different irrational ideology will come to take its place since an emotional bond to one set of ideas will typically result in feelings of antagonism toward other ideologies which are seen as threats and attacks on the ideology one already knows and loves.

Your second para is my answer to your first.

I don't neccessarily equate preparation for having kids to "later in life." One can go their whole life without ever having what is needed to be capable of parenting well, not even with "on the job training." One could also still be relatively young and have the prerequistes taken care of. Age is not what it means to be "ready" in my mind. It is, however, usually the case that one's preparation and age are correlated and there's a partial causation involved. One needs a chance to get rescources, knowledge, and maturity and getting these things takes time. The more time one has had, the more opportunity they've had to get these things and so the more likely they are to have gotten them. So, when I say it is a bad idea to do it before one is ready, I don't mean "before one is [insert age here]," though odds are in favor of somebody not actually being ready before they're at least a certain age.

I remain curious as to your actual criteria. Nobody seems willing to answer this.

I think since we don't see having children, especially lots of them, as something one has to do, when and if we do have them we aren't prone to having kids when doing so would result in that child or any other children we already have getting a lower quality of life than we want for them. Kids are cared about highly so I think generally people among us have perhaps higher standards than a lot of others do may what is good enough conditions for them before they would willingly bring children into it. I happen to believe that a belief that "that's just what people do/should do" is responsible for a lot of the general population having kids/more kids when they really would be better off not doing so. Lots of people keep having kids when they can't afford them (often they keep having kids once they are already recieving financial support from the government to get by), when they just have too much stress to deal with in their lives already, when they find themselves easily frustrated by children, when they are mentally and/or physically unwell, when their living conditions are unstable and risky, and so on.

This is a very complex issue but suffice it to say that I am not persuaded by your argument. For the most part we're talking about yuppieish professionals, not impoverished welfare dependants. Using the later to justify choices by the former is not logical. The biggest problem I've seen with parents in the former category (after discounting divorce) is spoiling, not depriving, their children.

My quote above is my explantion for why economics isn't motive for us to try to do anything about breeding rates in our general population *right now.* The conditions don't justify it *right now.* Should conditions become much more severe and urgent, that changes things and would see a lot more action being justified and taken. Also, I agree that the current political and economic policies are indicted in the present situation of more people than there are jobs the people are qualified for. I'm just noting that that IS the state of things it seems right now, even though it shouldn't be, so it seems like for the time being at least, just flooding more people into the work force is not going to help fix situation at all.

Again, lack of jobs is not a population problem. It's a statism problem. Europe has both a birth dearth and high unemployment. Same with Japan.

The current conditions exist where irrationality's ubiquity makes exposure to it unavoidable and thus puts obstacles in the path to rationality, but does not make it impossible. As we slowly work within those present conditions, gradually getting more people to be more rational, the proportions of rationality to irrationality in our culture will begin shifting. The more we can get reason to spread, the greater influence it will have on the culture and the less influence irrationality will have. The lessening of the presence of irrationality means the lessoning of the obstacles in the path to reason. The less obstacles there are, the easier and therefore faster our job gets. It's like every time you get one person from their side onto your side, that's not only one less person in your way, it's one more person helping you clear the path. Eventually it may get to the point where you don't have to put a kid in a bubble to keep him or her from growing up hearing about deities and stuff, the path is pretty much unobstructed so the main obstacle remaining between a kid and reason is their own willingness to try. That extra step of having to get rid of bad ideas first is all gone, all taken care of.

It just fascinates me that you (and here I mean plural, not singular) have such a communitarian view of spreading Objectivism by argumet but no interest in doing so by procreation.

[Eiuol]

I understand what you're saying, Hernan, about the condition of society being important to an individual's well-being, and I agree. Even though Objectivism is egoistic in nature, the whole idea of capitalism is to enable the best society to exist, on account of how beneficial that is to an individual. If society collapses, that isn't good for anyone, and certainly not me. You seem to see birthrates as a critical consideration to make regarding the health of a society because it enables families to grow healthily, and enables at least teaching kids good values like rationality. But Objectivism wouldn't consider making babies to have a fundamentally causal role on the health of societies - rational discussion and presentation of ideas is seen as critical. There's certainly a relationship between societal health and birthrate, but ideas are seen as the essential element. I'd argue that if birthrate is critical, that means altruism is a premise - "we must keep society growing", as though baby count is like red blood cell count. The real power is procreation of ideas.

One point Bluecherry made is helpful to a point I was (trying) to make earlier: "...economics isn't motive for us to try to do anything about breeding rates in our general population *right now.* The conditions don't justify it *right now.* Should conditions become much more severe and urgent, that changes things and would see a lot more action being justified and taken. "

I wanted to say earlier that *if* conditions are bad enough that having babies is the only solution, *then* it is a good idea for more people to have babies. But overpopulation is a bigger issue actually, on top of the fact that having more babies doesn't seem to offer a solution to anything. It seems you're concerned about Europe crashing and burning if the birthrate continues to decline. But I think it's questionable that the birthrate will do a damn thing unless you stop the rise of socialism, or make any positive difference anyway. Augustus was concerned about Rome, enacted policies based on that concern, and didn't leave Rome any better off. Yes, the fall of Rome is complex, but I sincerely doubt birthrate is anything more than a footnote. You need to present more historical examples to show us that having babies leads to societal collapse, otherwise it's pure speculation on everyone's part what happens when birthrate declines.

We're not living in a 1984 world where it's nearly impossible to find one rational person. The main character was as brainwashed as the rest of them even. In that scenario, having babies might be needed if you're one of the 5 people left in the world who have a clue about rationality. But we're not in that condition of a totalitarian state, we're still at a stage where spreading ideas by discourse is the best course of action. Having babies is as fine as any other value, so there is no particular urgency. Another situation where you might be totally right that people really should have babies is with colonization of another planet, but we're not talking about settling new areas.

Starting a familly is that and more. What is unique about a family is that it is your creation. It is an opportunity to create your own mini-society. Assuming you and your wife are of similar mind (always a good criteria) you can raise your children as you see fit. Most people underestimate how subversive family life can be.

The thing is, creating a family need not be about having babies. This is a bit of a tangent, but families can be developed perfectly fine with friendship and romantic relationships without anyone having any babies. Some people may want children to raise, but it's not an moral obligation or an aspect of the good life that is a requirement for happiness. Marriage need not be part of making a family either. I see a lot of underlying premises in this statement of yours, indicating that we're talking about the nature of family, not just procreation.

To use a health metaphor again, the irrational taking over the Earth is like a tumor. They may grow and expand, surviving plenty fine for a while, perhaps even indefinitely. That is, until it has overwhelmed the whole body and the body ceases to function normally. The rational people have a harder time working. Then, everyone dies. More or less, that's the philosophical point of any dystopia book, including 1984 or Atlas Shrugged. A culture "surviving" in your usage is misleading. The culture in 1984 survives, but it may as well be dead because ideas are dead, and people are deliberately trying to kill ideas/language.

[hernan]

I think my biggest disappointment with this discussion so far is that I have failed to communicate a critical distinction between observing a social deficiency and pursuing an individual opportunity and your post reflects that confusion. Since I am convinced that my point is not getting a cross, allow me to try again.

Let us suppose that I observed that there was a shortage of banannas in society. One approach would be to launch a bananna movement to increase the production of banannas. Or maybe to donate to bananna charity (maybe get a picture of a banana tree that is watered by your donations and see it grow).

But the more interesting option is to start a banana plantation.

My question here is: what is the procreative equivalent of starting a bananna plantation? (I already ruled out selling babies but everything else is on the table.)

I understand what you're saying, Hernan, about the condition of society being important to an individual's well-being, and I agree. Even though Objectivism is egoistic in nature, the whole idea of capitalism is to enable the best society to exist, on account of how beneficial that is to an individual. If society collapses, that isn't good for anyone, and certainly not me. You seem to see birthrates as a critical consideration to make regarding the health of a society because it enables families to grow healthily, and enables at least teaching kids good values like rationality. But Objectivism wouldn't consider making babies to have a fundamentally causal role on the health of societies - rational discussion and presentation of ideas is seen as critical. There's certainly a relationship between societal health and birthrate, but ideas are seen as the essential element. I'd argue that if birthrate is critical, that means altruism is a premise - "we must keep society growing", as though baby count is like red blood cell count. The real power is procreation of ideas.

Well, there is an interesting confluence around procreation that includes what you describe above and more. Generally speaking, what I have argued that (many) religions have that Objectivism is lackig is the culture of life that includes procreation. This is, in my opinion, a significant deficiency.

That is not to neglect the procreation of ideas. Christianity, by comparision, is vigorous in both departments. (Occassionaly you have sects that opt out of procreation and they don't hang around for long.)

Your description of Objectivism as focused on ideas is quite consistent with my impression.

One point Bluecherry made is helpful to a point I was (trying) to make earlier: "...economics isn't motive for us to try to do anything about breeding rates in our general population *right now.* The conditions don't justify it *right now.* Should conditions become much more severe and urgent, that changes things and would see a lot more action being justified and taken. "

I wanted to say earlier that *if* conditions are bad enough that having babies is the only solution, *then* it is a good idea for more people to have babies. But overpopulation is a bigger issue actually, on top of the fact that having more babies doesn't seem to offer a solution to anything. It seems you're concerned about Europe crashing and burning if the birthrate continues to decline. But I think it's questionable that the birthrate will do a damn thing unless you stop the rise of socialism, or make any positive difference anyway. Augustus was concerned about Rome, enacted policies based on that concern, and didn't leave Rome any better off. Yes, the fall of Rome is complex, but I sincerely doubt birthrate is anything more than a footnote. You need to present more historical examples to show us that having babies leads to societal collapse, otherwise it's pure speculation on everyone's part what happens when birthrate declines.

Needless to say, we are not going to agree on population. I think I mentioned Julian Simon before. I would urge you to do some research on the economics of population from free market thinkers like him. It might change your mind on the supposed overpopulation problem. If you are looking for evidence this is the place to start. What modern economists have largely concluded is that more people equals higher standard of living for reasons that are pretty straightforward to explain.

Socialism is quite another problem, not to say that there is no interaction between them. Europe's birth dearth is going to kill it's welfare state but don't expect them to learn anything from it.

We're not living in a 1984 world where it's nearly impossible to find one rational person. The main character was as brainwashed as the rest of them even. In that scenario, having babies might be needed if you're one of the 5 people left in the world who have a clue about rationality. But we're not in that condition of a totalitarian state, we're still at a stage where spreading ideas by discourse is the best course of action. Having babies is as fine as any other value, so there is no particular urgency. Another situation where you might be totally right that people really should have babies is with colonization of another planet, but we're not talking about settling new areas.

The thing is, creating a family need not be about having babies. This is a bit of a tangent, but families can be developed perfectly fine with friendship and romantic relationships without anyone having any babies. Some people may want children to raise, but it's not an moral obligation or an aspect of the good life that is a requirement for happiness. Marriage need not be part of making a family either. I see a lot of underlying premises in this statement of yours, indicating that we're talking about the nature of family, not just procreation.

To use a health metaphor again, the irrational taking over the Earth is like a tumor. They may grow and expand, surviving plenty fine for a while, perhaps even indefinitely. That is, until it has overwhelmed the whole body and the body ceases to function normally. The rational people have a harder time working. Then, everyone dies. More or less, that's the philosophical point of any dystopia book, including 1984 or Atlas Shrugged. A culture "surviving" in your usage is misleading. The culture in 1984 survives, but it may as well be dead because ideas are dead, and people are deliberately trying to kill ideas/language.

Reality tends to be somewhat more prosaic than fiction. But at least you are not predicting a mysterious triumph of reason in some distant future.

But, yes, family is the vehicle of procreation that civilization has developed by trial and error over eons. You can always find deviations but they tend not to do as well.

[thenelli01]

I think my biggest disappointment with this discussion so far is that I have failed to communicate a critical distinction between observing a social deficiency and pursuing an individual opportunity and your post reflects that confusion. Since I am convinced that my point is not getting a cross, allow me to try again.

Let us suppose that I observed that there was a shortage of banannas in society. One approach would be to launch a bananna movement to increase the production of banannas. Or maybe to donate to bananna charity (maybe get a picture of a banana tree that is watered by your donations and see it grow).

But the more interesting option is to start a bananna plantation.

Bad comparison. A bananna will always be a bananna, but, as stated before, you can't ensure that your children will follow the philosophy or belief system that you teach them.

Given this fact, why would I want to risk wasting 18+ years, thousands+ dollars, and a lot of time and freedom when my children only *may* accept the objectivist philosophy if that is my only goal (to spread objectivism).

If that is my goal, it would make more sense to just try to convince other adults (friends, family, strangers) through forums, discussions, and book recommendations. It is cheaper, I get more freedom, less responsibility, and I can reach more people.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Gramlich]

Bad comparison. A bananna will always be a bananna, but, as stated before, you can't ensure that your children will follow the philosophy or belief system that you teach them.

Given this fact, why would I want to risk wasting 18+ years, thousands+ dollars, and a lot of time and freedom when my children only *may* accept the objectivist philosophy if that is my only goal (to spread objectivism).

If that is my goal, it would make more sense to just try to convince other adults (friends, family, strangers) through forums, discussions, and book recommendations. It is cheaper, I get more freedom, less responsibility, and I can reach more people.

This.

20+ years of your life to try to convince one person or so to follow your ideas or 5+ years writing a book to convince thousands.

That would be like saying: Ayn Rand would've been more successful if she and Frank had a baby instead of her writing Atlas Shrugged.

This whole thread smacks of a complete ignorance of the very existence of the human mind, and instead chocks the progression of history up to whoever had the biggest mound of flesh behind them.

[whYNOT]

This does not follow. The weather is beyond my control but I certainly take it into account in my choices (e.g. picnic vs. movie or live in south of France vs. St. Petersburg).

Then you go where the weather suits you - or, if that is your analogy, where population density is right for you.

"Control" appears to be your key concept running through this. Nobody can control a culture and ideological

environment. I've thought of that "horse to water" adage Bluecherry utilized, often.

Look at it this way: my parents weren't Objectivists; I am; my daughter isn't; her daughter may or may not be,one day.

How much would "control" change that? Only if it became coercion, which would be self-defeating, and counter to

major O'ist principles.

A predominant culture in one's lifetime, is a 'given' too - from the perspective of each individual. To try to influence

it with and by having children would be self-less, collectivist and impractical, therefore immoral.

("Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...")

[bluecherry]

" . . . but it doesn't sound like you are going to be waiting around for this to aid your search for that someone special. "

If you mean that I'm not waiting around for more females, this is true. However, since I am female and not a lesbian this sex ratio isn't a problem for me personally anyway. But still, it's pretty typical for Objectivists to have non-Objectivist mates anyway who aren't all that big on studying philosophy. As long as somebody at least lives in a pretty reasonable fashion and doesn't disparage an Objectivist, that's usually good enough for a happy relationship for most of us.

"I'm interested in something a little less charitable, a little more competitive."

Why?

"Your second para is my answer to your first."

I have no idea what you mean. The second paragraph explains why breeding like rabbits helps the religious, but the first is a different topic -- it's about why breeding doesn't work for us for spreading ideology. We have nothing to gain, almost no advantage in spreading our ideology, in breeding. Breeding is about getting there first. Being there first benefits spreading irrational ideas, but it does not do a damn thing for spreading rational ones because rational ideas are not about creating emotional bonds to discourage consideration of other ideas. Quite the opposite really, reason encourages giving thought to other ideas out there. Us breeding more is no good. We have no advantage from being there first and we are unable to keep the religious people's ideas from getting to kids even if we are their parents due to the fact that these people exert their numbers and influence everywhere. If religious people cut down their breeding perhaps that would help us since it would make them and their ideas easier to avoid, but we can't force these people to do that and they don't seem to be interested in doing so on their own any time soon.

"I remain curious as to your actual criteria. Nobody seems willing to answer this."

Because it is moot.

"For the most part we're talking about yuppieish professionals . . ."

I've told you already, 1) most of us DO have kids eventually anyway 2) we have a big chunk of us, maybe even an equal amount, of people who are pursuing less lucrative careers, ones which may be enough for themselves to get by on sufficiently, but ones which could not comfortably support and people being dependent upon them financially. We won't get anywhere if you fail to adjust your ideas about what the lives of Objectivists are like in the face of new information. You maybe only met one type before, but they were far from a sufficiently represetative sample.

"Again, lack of jobs is not a population problem. It's a statism problem. Europe has both a birth dearth and high unemployment. Same with Japan."

Yes, I know. But you don't fix a problem of statism by just pumping out babies. As long as the problem created by statism remains, it may actually be better to put off flooding the place with more people. Order of operations. First get more jobs out there, THEN put out more people to fill them.

"It just fascinates me that you (and here I mean plural, not singular) have such a communitarian view of spreading Objectivism by argumet but no interest in doing so by procreation."

Because procreation is not an effective way to spread OUR ideas even though it works well for religious people. Why? I've given the explanation for that elsewhere already, so please go look elsewhere for that explanation and don't assume I'm just making an assertion without cause here.

[hernan]

Bad comparison. A bananna will always be a bananna, but, as stated before, you can't ensure that your children will follow the philosophy or belief system that you teach them.

Given this fact, why would I want to risk wasting 18+ years, thousands+ dollars, and a lot of time and freedom when my children only *may* accept the objectivist philosophy if that is my only goal (to spread objectivism).

If that is my goal, it would make more sense to just try to convince other adults (friends, family, strangers) through forums, discussions, and book recommendations. It is cheaper, I get more freedom, less responsibility, and I can reach more people.

This.

20+ years of your life to try to convince one person or so to follow your ideas or 5+ years writing a book to convince thousands.

That would be like saying: Ayn Rand would've been more successful if she and Frank had a baby instead of her writing Atlas Shrugged.

This whole thread smacks of a complete ignorance of the very existence of the human mind, and instead chocks the progression of history up to whoever had the biggest mound of flesh behind them.

The problem with this is that you are imagining that you are Ayn Rand. Objectivism has yet to produce another of her kind. On the other hand, any couple (more or less) can make babies. And while there is no guarantee, you will certainly be best positioned to influence their view of life.

Now I will certainly grant that if your sole aim were spreading Objectivism it's not the most efficient method but given that this is but one aspect this argument is less relevant.

[hernan]

Then you go where the weather suits you - or, if that is your analogy, where population density is right for you.

"Control" appears to be your key concept running through this. Nobody can control a culture and ideological

environment. I've thought of that "horse to water" adage Bluecherry utilized, often.

Look at it this way: my parents weren't Objectivists; I am; my daughter isn't; her daughter may or may not be,one day.

How much would "control" change that? Only if it became coercion, which would be self-defeating, and counter to

major O'ist principles.

A predominant culture in one's lifetime, is a 'given' too - from the perspective of each individual. To try to influence

it with and by having children would be self-less, collectivist and impractical, therefore immoral.

("Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...")

Well, we're exploring many facets of procreation here but in this respect I'd say "influence" the larger culture but, more importantly, the local culture of the family.

If you mean that I'm not waiting around for more females, this is true. However, since I am female and not a lesbian this sex ratio isn't a problem for me personally anyway. But still, it's pretty typical for Objectivists to have non-Objectivist mates anyway who aren't all that big on studying philosophy. As long as somebody at least lives in a pretty reasonable fashion and doesn't disparage an Objectivist, that's usually good enough for a happy relationship for most of us.

I stand corrected, but you saw my point.

Why?

Because I'm selfish.

I have no idea what you mean. The second paragraph explains why breeding like rabbits helps the religious, but the first is a different topic -- it's about why breeding doesn't work for us for spreading ideology.

Simply put, the second contradicts the first and is the stronger case.

We have nothing to gain, almost no advantage in spreading our ideology, in breeding. Breeding is about getting there first. Being there first benefits spreading irrational ideas, but it does not do a damn thing for spreading rational ones because rational ideas are not about creating emotional bonds to discourage consideration of other ideas. Quite the opposite really, reason encourages giving thought to other ideas out there. Us breeding more is no good. We have no advantage from being there first and we are unable to keep the religious people's ideas from getting to kids even if we are their parents due to the fact that these people exert their numbers and influence everywhere. If religious people cut down their breeding perhaps that would help us since it would make them and their ideas easier to avoid, but we can't force these people to do that and they don't seem to be interested in doing so on their own any time soon.

As I've noted elsewhere, this overestimates the power of persuasion and underestimates the influence of parents. Perhaps it is because you are each exceptions that you overestimate this aspect.

Because it is moot.

Not really. It would illuminate the logic behind the choice, assuming of course that there is any.

I've told you already, 1) most of us DO have kids eventually anyway 2) we have a big chunk of us, maybe even an equal amount, of people who are pursuing less lucrative careers, ones which may be enough for themselves to get by on sufficiently, but ones which could not comfortably support and people being dependent upon them financially. We won't get anywhere if you fail to adjust your ideas about what the lives of Objectivists are like in the face of new information. You maybe only met one type before, but they were far from a sufficiently represetative sample.

I guess we'll just have to await some more reliable data on this.

Yes, I know. But you don't fix a problem of statism by just pumping out babies. As long as the problem created by statism remains, it may actually be better to put off flooding the place with more people. Order of operations. First get more jobs out there, THEN put out more people to fill them.

Apples and oranges. Certainly I would not recommend anyone to move to Europe right now and those there would do well to escape.

Because procreation is not an effective way to spread OUR ideas even though it works well for religious people. Why? I've given the explanation for that elsewhere already, so please go look elsewhere for that explanation and don't assume I'm just making an assertion without cause here.

Ok, it's certainly not my purpose in life to change anyone's minds here. I just wanted to understand the logic behind what I had originally perceived. I think I have a good enough picture now to satisfy my curiosity on this point.

[thenelli01]

The problem with this is that you are imagining that you are Ayn Rand. Objectivism has yet to produce another of her kind. On the other hand, any couple (more or less) can make babies. And while there is no guarantee, you will certainly be best positioned to influence their view of life.

Now I will certainly grant that if your sole aim were spreading Objectivism it's not the most efficient method but given that this is but one aspect this argument is less relevant.

Why am I imagining that I am Ayn Rand because I agree with her philosophy and want to share her ideas?

If we agree that procreating isn't the most efficient method to spread philosophy (in fact, I'd argue it is one of the least efficient ways), then why are we still having this discussion?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[bluecherry]

"I understand what you mean here but I'm looking for something other than charity. I'm interested in something a little less charitable, a little more competitive." <-- you

"Why?" <-- Me

"Because I'm selfish." <-- you

That doesn't add up. The charity option I gave does benefit oneself in the situation where there is an insufficient amount of people causing one to suffer from a bad economy. In fact, if one, for whatever reason, would prefer not to be raising extra children, than the charity option instead of raising more kids yourself would benefit one more overall in that situation. Just because something is called "charity" and helps out other people doesn't mean it can't serve one's selfish interests.

"As I've noted elsewhere, this overestimates the power of persuasion and underestimates the influence of parents."

Our ideas take root in an entirely different way than religious ones do. What works for them doesn't work for us the same way what works for us doesn't work for them. Sticking your ingredient mixture in the freezer is good for making popsicles. Sticking your ingredient mixture in the freezer is not good for making cake. Even if we DID start breeding in litters, it wouldn't make much difference. Those kids would still hear about religions somewhere eventually with people trying to tell them about how awesome Jesus is or something and then you still have to eventually try to explain to those kids why there was no zombie Jesus anyway just like you would with anybody else.

"Now I will certainly grant that if your sole aim were spreading Objectivism it's not the most efficient method . . ."

Well, I think things should be about covered now. There are better ways than personally breeding a ton if we don't want to to solve any economic population issue and it is an inferior method for spreading our ideology too. I think those were your two reasons I've seen you give for why we should have a bunch of babies.

[Eiuol]

I don't have a lot to add since I think we're at a point where discussion/debate won't really help anything.

But, yes, family is the vehicle of procreation that civilization has developed by trial and error over eons. You can always find deviations but they tend not to do as well.

"The family" is a complex structure as it is, and is more a reflection of social/economic conditions. The family style of stone age people would be totally different than family style in 1950s US. Family probably has a lot to do with how society evolves, but I don't mean biological family. Making a family can imply just developing close relationships with people, and still be reflective of what people say family means. This too can influence how ideas spread - having babies isn't the only "best" option as you seem to imply throughout the thread.