Objectivism and Procreation

[hernan]

"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.

I think for our purposes here it is sufficient for me to note that religious culture is steeped in what we might call a traditional family with the consequences we discussed and many others. Objectivism seems to follow the modern secular trend in regarding this as less important. Interestingly, I have not heard any uniquely Objectivist arguments against the family or in favor of alternatives. We could just as easily have been discussing Progressivism.

[hernan]

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.

I'm not attacking charity, I'm not discounting it's relevance. It's just not interesting to me in this context. I'm interested, here, in exploring the reasons to procreate. If you have an aversion to children then charity might well be a useful alternative to serving some of the same ends. (We have discussed several facets of procreation in this thread.)

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.

I assume I don't have to remind you that Christianity didn't/doesn't spread primarily by childbirth. Christianity has both a strong family orientation and a missionary/proselytizing dimension. Islam spread primarily by the sword. Judaism is a good example of a religion that spread primarily by making babies; historians estimate that as much as 10% of the Roman population was Jewish before the Jewish rebellions and spread of Christianity. Ditto Mormanism.

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.

Actually, they are two of several but they are the ones that seem to have attracted the most attention here.

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[Eiuol]

I think for our purposes here it is sufficient for me to note that religious culture is steeped in what we might call a traditional family with the consequences we discussed and many others. Objectivism seems to follow the modern secular trend in regarding this as less important.

I'm not sure what traditional here means - traditional for what time period? Still, I'd bet disagreement comes from what you consider family to mean. If family means marriage with kids, well, of course you'd say that having kids is crucial to the good life and a good society.

[hernan]

I'm not sure what traditional here means - traditional for what time period? Still, I'd bet disagreement comes from what you consider family to mean. If family means marriage with kids, well, of course you'd say that having kids is crucial to the good life and a good society.

Given that Objectivism dates to the mid 20th century we could call traditional anything that exceeds that by an order of magnitude. I understand well your point that standard Christian nuclear family is evolved over time but 1) the evolution was very gradual and, hence, like genetic evolution, responsive to survival of the fittest, and 2) more stable in ideal, if not practice, than you are giving credit.

But, yes, I do mean family=marrige+kids as an ideal.

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[bluecherry]

"arguments against the family"

Nobody here has tried to do any such thing that I've noticed. Certainly not me. Not even against married people with kids. Not even against lots of kids. It's just not the life for everybody and it should be pretty obvious that we would tend to be a group that wouldn't hessitate to go against tradition when we see more to gain from other things than that tradition.

"Christianity didn't/doesn't spread primarily by childbirth"

If you aren't going to credit high birth rates as the most effective way even Christianity spread, then it shouldn't be surprising we've focused our efforts elsewhere when it comes to spreading our ideas. The two you credited to birth rates are the least popular ones.

"Actually, they are two of several but they are the ones that seem to have attracted the most attention here."

Then, assuming we're considering those other two as insufficient reasons on their own, what are these other ones?

[hernan]

If you aren't going to credit high birth rates as the most effective way even Christianity spread, then it shouldn't be surprising we've focused our efforts elsewhere when it comes to spreading our ideas. The two you credited to birth rates are the least popular ones.

Well, no, I never made that claim either. I did say that birthrate were effective and cited Christianity among those. (I also mentioned that a birth dearth would mean that Europe would pass briefly through atheism on it's journey to becoming Islamic, a transition driven primarily by birthrates and immigration.) Judaism never really recovered from its wars witih Rome and the schism with Christianity but it has endured, even prospered, in a hostile world. Mormanism (approx 14 mil) is more popular than Objectivism (a few thousand maybe?) with about a century head start. Mormanism vs. Objectivism is certainly an interesting comparison if you want to compare apples to oranges.

Then, assuming we're considering those other two as insufficient reasons on their own, what are these other ones?

A few others previously discussed: family is the ideal fulfillment of the desire for social contact; family is empire building; family is a retirement investment; raising a family is a satisfying challenge. I could probably name more if I thought about it but there is a start.

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[bluecherry]

"family is the ideal fulfillment of the desire for social contact;"

How does not having children as part of one's family change this?

"family is empire building"

Not something everybody finds appealing.

"family is a retirement investment"

Kids can and do ditch their parents. I sure wouldn't be keen on helping out people who created me to be a walking 401k. Having an actual retirement plan is a safer bet.

"raising a family is a satisfying challenge."

Not everybody finds it satisfying. There are plenty of other challenges out there that such people can find satisfaction in.

[hernan]

How does not having children as part of one's family change this?

Numbers, to start with, but also children grow up, get married, have families of their own and thus extend the social network. So long-term growth vs. slow decay.

Not something everybody finds appealing.

True, but anyone who builds a business empire should (e.g. Rearden) and it's empire building that doesn't require any great skill so even a garbage man can indulge.

Kids can and do ditch their parents. I sure wouldn't be keen on helping out people who created me to be a walking 401k. Having an actual retirement plan is a safer bet.

Can, but usually don't. It's not at all clear how safe a 401k will be (not in Argentina, for example) but let's just say that it's a diversification.

Not everybody finds it satisfying. There are plenty of other challenges out there that such people can find satisfaction in.

You seem to be resting, like many others in this thread, on an appeal to variance. I'm much less interested in variance than in means. I acknowledge the variance, it's there even in religious cultures, but it's really a distraction and a sorry argument.

[bluecherry]

"So long-term growth vs. slow decay."

"Decay" depends on your standards. Quality > quantity. There's a lot of ways more doesn't necessarily equal better when it comes to family. A small family can be a great family. Injeting people into the family could cause the quality to break down.

"anyone who builds a business empire should"

Why?

"but let's just say that it's a diversification."

An obscenely costly one in many ways and like I said, it's downright offensive to actually have a kid because you intend to use them as some kind of retirement plan. (401k isn't necessarily what I suggest at all, I don't know much about them, I just mentioned it since I've heard it often mentioned along with retirement planning.)

"I'm much less interested in variance than in means."

What is "means" in the above sentence? And really, what *you* are interested in I think is really the issue here. There are lots of things which you find very appealing and which you seem to find hard to fathom how any healthy person could not find them similarly appealing and how they could possibly be happier without kids (or X number of them) than with them. Variation isn't meant to say here anyway that these people prefer a bunch of different stuff rather than focusing on a smaller number of things more intently, I just brought up that there are other challenges people can find satisfaction in to point out that kids are not the only way to achieve satisfaction from accomplishing a big, difficult project. Just because somebody doesn't have kids doesn't mean they are deprived of all opportunity for satisfaction from doing something challenging.

[hernan]

"Decay" depends on your standards. Quality > quantity. There's a lot of ways more doesn't necessarily equal better when it comes to family. A small family can be a great family. Injeting people into the family could cause the quality to break down.

When it comes to family, qantity is a quality of its own. The bigger the better, particularly when resources are not limited (yeah, I haven't forgotten that you think Objectivists are poor).

Why?

Because it is another opportunity for empire building. (Passing businesses to family works in some cases, not in others, but there are other ways to combine the two.)

An obscenely costly one in many ways and like I said, it's downright offensive to actually have a kid because you intend to use them as some kind of retirement plan. (401k isn't necessarily what I suggest at all, I don't know much about them, I just mentioned it since I've heard it often mentioned along with retirement planning.)

401k is representative of both the advantages and disadantages. Another category is social welfare but I don't expect to find any fans of that here.

What is "means" in the above sentence?

Mean as in avarage. If I observe that Objectivists are on the low end of procreation and you counter that individuals vary in their preference for child rearing you have not really answered my point, you have offered a variant explanation for an observed difference in means.

("I'm not interested..." is my attempt at being diplomatic about this confusion.)

And really, what *you* are interested in I think is really the issue here. There are lots of things which you find very appealing and which you seem to find hard to fathom how any healthy person could not find them similarly appealing and how they could possibly be happier without kids (or X number of them) than with them. Variation isn't meant to say here anyway that these people prefer a bunch of different stuff rather than focusing on a smaller number of things more intently, I just brought up that there are other challenges people can find satisfaction in to point out that kids are not the only way to achieve satisfaction from accomplishing a big, difficult project. Just because somebody doesn't have kids doesn't mean they are deprived of all opportunity for satisfaction from doing something challenging.

Some people just want to be pope.

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[bluecherry]

"When it comes to family, qantity is a quality of its own. The bigger the better, particularly when resources are not limited (yeah, I haven't forgotten that you think Objectivists are poor)."

1) Not all Objectivists are poor of course, there are plenty whose careers are not sufficient to comfortable sustain splitting that income between multiple people. 2) A family being big can wreck it too when it gets too difficult to keep an eye and a handle on all the kids constantly. 3) I'm one of two children, but I've long wished I had been an only child. One more was one too many to me. My sister and I have almost nothing in common and have never really gotten along. These days we just hardly see each other. I like it better this way.

Big families are something you enjoy. Not everybody does.

"Because it is another opportunity for empire building."

Liking building one kind of empire doesn't mean you'll like building another. One can actually hinder one's ability to work on the other to the extent necessary to maintain an empire.

"Mean as in avarage. If I observe that Objectivists are on the low end of procreation and you counter that individuals vary in their preference for child rearing you have not really answered my point, you have offered a variant explanation for an observed difference in means."

I already explained why the average is different elsewhere. I think our average preferences are the same, but that a lot people in the general population cave to pressures from family and society in general to have children even when they would be better off not doing so. We just aren't the type to cave in to those things.

"Some people just want to be pope."

. . . what?

[hernan]

1) Not all Objectivists are poor of course, there are plenty whose careers are not sufficient to comfortable sustain splitting that income between multiple people. 2) A family being big can wreck it too when it gets too difficult to keep an eye and a handle on all the kids constantly. 3) I'm one of two children, but I've long wished I had been an only child. One more was one too many to me. My sister and I have almost nothing in common and have never really gotten along. These days we just hardly see each other. I like it better this way.

I'm sorry to hear that. But unless you are suggesting that this is the norm, you are simply falling back on variance again.

Big families are something you enjoy. Not everybody does.

You seem to be confusing the wishes of the parents and the children. But maybe we should ask your sister if she wishes she had not been born in order to fulfill your preferences.

Liking building one kind of empire doesn't mean you'll like building another. One can actually hinder one's ability to work on the other to the extent necessary to maintain an empire.

Usually not and often to the contrary, they are very complementary.

I already explained why the average is different elsewhere. I think our average preferences are the same, but that a lot people in the general population cave to pressures from family and society in general to have children even when they would be better off not doing so. We just aren't the type to cave in to those things.

I can certainly appreciate why that explanation would appeal to you. It seems likelier to me that Objectivists are secularists, only disproportionatly more loner. But don't worry, I won't call Objectivists anti-family.

"Some people just want to be pope." . . . what?

Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[whYNOT]

I believe it is always going to appear puzzling or self-defeating for non-O'ists who observe that

Objectivism will not choose to spread by any of the methods they understand: parental influence

and traditional families, the main one. To answer them simply, it must remain the choice of each individual - those who

already possess a somewhat independent mind are drawn to it, I notice, while others fall away, or just aren't

interested. But reason, parental education, or even persuasion won't accomplish an acceptance in

those who lack the courage and honesty to fully face the truth.

Everybody, of any affiliation, has some grasp of reality - and so are partially rational, part-time. One can

split oneself into compartments between Faith, family and business; and even believe there is a connection.

(Until the cracks start appearing.)

Which explains to a degree why Christians, Jews etc. with large families, are often successful.

Objectivism, uniquely, views reality as the end-all, and be-all. It won't grow hugely in terms of

numbers, I personally think, because of this - and because of resistance by people to commitment to an independent

mind, within religious, or 'progressive' societies. One way or other, they'll always be around.

it will be those disparate individuals all round the world who will continue to respond eagerly to Ayn Rand's

ideas. Not as groups and cultures, but as individuals.

Am I saying that certain people are pre-disposed to Objectivism? While others wouldn't recognize

its unique value if it bit them on the arse? Yes, I'm definitely leaning that way.

All in all, though, the significance of O'ism will appear in its influence upon the world. You can't deny truth,

indefinitely and (as in the US now), leaders will have to take it into account - even begrudgingly. I have to face the fact

that it will continue to be a minority - but disproportionately massive in influence.

[Eiuol]

Given that Objectivism dates to the mid 20th century we could call traditional anything that exceeds that by an order of magnitude. I understand well your point that standard Christian nuclear family is evolved over time but 1) the evolution was very gradual and, hence, like genetic evolution, responsive to survival of the fittest, and 2) more stable in ideal, if not practice, than you are giving credit.

But, yes, I do mean family=marrige+kids as an ideal.

The idea I'm getting from this is that you're saying that having kids is the best way to establish a family, which in turn allows you to build up connections with people in terms of society. Having kids is one perfectly fine way to establish close social contact if one is a loving parent, but is not the only way to go about achieving this condition. Aside from what I see are bad reasons like retirement security, the good reasons to have a family are all possible without marriage and without kids. I don't like your usage of the nuclear family, since there are many assumptions built in there including that people have an obligation to their biological family. Either that, or you're suggesting people naturally value their biological family highly, which is false. I don't see what about having kids is *only* possible by having kids.

[hernan]

I believe it is always going to appear puzzling or self-defeating for non-O'ists who observe that

Objectivism will not choose to spread by any of the methods they understand: parental influence

and traditional families, the main one. To answer them simply, it must remain the choice of each individual - those who

already possess a somewhat independent mind are drawn to it, I notice, while others fall away, or just aren't

interested. But reason, parental education, or even persuasion won't accomplish an acceptance in

those who lack the courage and honesty to fully face the truth.

You are coming close to, but not quite, saying what I noted just previously: that there is a correlation between the personality that is attracted to Objectivism and the personality that eschews starting a family.

This is interesting because my social network, and I include myself in this category, of course, are quite sympathetic to Rand's ideas but also far more family oriented.

There is something which divides these groups, ideologically. And I suspect that it may be just that: an orientation on ideology.

Everybody, of any affiliation, has some grasp of reality - and so are partially rational, part-time. One can

split oneself into compartments between Faith, family and business; and even believe there is a connection.

(Until the cracks start appearing.) Which explains to a degree why Christians, Jews etc. with large families, are often successful.

Indeed, which is precisely why the lack of attention to family is a serious deficiency in Objectivism. While I doubt that anyone would reject Objectivism on this alone, it does seem to be part of a large whole that limits its appeal.

Objectivism, uniquely, views reality as the end-all, and be-all. It won't grow hugely in terms of

numbers, I personally think, because of this - and because of resistance by people to commitment to an independent

mind, within religious, or 'progressive' societies. One way or other, they'll always be around.

it will be those disparate individuals all round the world who will continue to respond eagerly to Ayn Rand's

ideas. Not as groups and cultures, but as individuals.

I think we are agred on this, in both ways.

Am I saying that certain people are pre-disposed to Objectivism? While others wouldn't recognize

its unique value if it bit them on the arse? Yes, I'm definitely leaning that way.

Glad to see someone acknowledge this.

All in all, though, the significance of O'ism will appear in its influence upon the world. You can't deny truth,

indefinitely and (as in the US now), leaders will have to take it into account - even begrudgingly. I have to face the fact

that it will continue to be a minority - but disproportionately massive in influence.

This remains a possibility though not necessarily in a way that O's will appreciate.

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[hernan]

The idea I'm getting from this is that you're saying that having kids is the best way to establish a family, which in turn allows you to build up connections with people in terms of society. Having kids is one perfectly fine way to establish close social contact if one is a loving parent, but is not the only way to go about achieving this condition.

Not the only, of course, but I do stand by my claim of "best" with all due respect to individual variation.

Aside from what I see are bad reasons like retirement security, the good reasons to have a family are all possible without marriage and without kids. I don't like your usage of the nuclear family, since there are many assumptions built in there including that people have an obligation to their biological family. Either that, or you're suggesting people naturally value their biological family highly, which is false. I don't see what about having kids is *only* possible by having kids.

Well, there is a good deal of human experience behind the nuclear family. Let's leave it at that. People will always experiment with alternatives but it is very unlikely, in my opinion, that the nuclear family will be displaced as the ideal by any such innovation. Human nature has not changed significantly over the millenia.

[Eiuol]

Well, there is a good deal of human experience behind the nuclear family. Let's leave it at that. People will always experiment with alternatives but it is very unlikely, in my opinion, that the nuclear family will be displaced as the ideal by any such innovation. Human nature has not changed significantly over the millenia.

Very well. I'm open to discussing this in another thread if you'd like, since it's a different topic than the OP.

[bluecherry]

"I'm sorry to hear that. But unless you are suggesting that this is the norm, you are simply falling back on variance again."

I wasn't trying to explain breeding rates on average among Objectivists at that time. What I was doing was registering my objection to your statement about bigger family being better. I'm sure you and plenty of others feel that way, but even among the general population I'd bet money that the majority of people do not think that big families are inherently superior and preferable.

"Big families are something you enjoy. Not everybody does." <-- me

"You seem to be confusing the wishes of the parents and the children." <--

Not everybody wishes to be the parent with many kids either. That is just so well known I didn't think I had to point it out. I mentioned from the kid's perspective since many people seem to believe that no kid wants to be an only child, that they find themselves lonely if they don't have siblings. Soooo, yeah, big families, you like 'em, but not everybody does.

"Usually not and often to the contrary, they are very complementary."

Doesn't change what I said. Usually and often are not always even if I don't get into questioning where you're getting your numbers from.

"It seems likelier to me that Objectivists are secularists . . ."

You keep throwing around that term "secularist" and in a way that evidently means more than just non-religious. Please elaborate on what you think a "secularist" is.

About the wiki Pope link, that doesn't answer anything. Your statement seemed completely irrelevant and unrelated to the conversation at all. I want to know what your point was.

[hernan]

Very well. I'm open to discussing this in another thread if you'd like, since it's a different topic than the OP.

True. Before we do that, let me ask: in your opinion is there a unique Objectivist perspective on this subject or would we simply be covering the usual modernist criticisms of traditional family structure? (Objectivists are not vested in rationalizing single parenthood, right?)

[hernan]

I wasn't trying to explain breeding rates on average among Objectivists at that time. What I was doing was registering my objection to your statement about bigger family being better. I'm sure you and plenty of others feel that way, but even among the general population I'd bet money that the majority of people do not think that big families are inherently superior and preferable.

Not everybody wishes to be the parent with many kids either. That is just so well known I didn't think I had to point it out. I mentioned from the kid's perspective since many people seem to believe that no kid wants to be an only child, that they find themselves lonely if they don't have siblings. Soooo, yeah, big families, you like 'em, but not everybody does.

Ok. I'm not going to bother pointing out variance vs. mean anymore, just assume every one of my posts includes that.

I am interested in understanding why the mean "breeding rate" of Objectivism is low relative to religious (and I have not forgotten your claim that Objectivists eventually become parents).

Doesn't change what I said. Usually and often are not always even if I don't get into questioning where you're getting your numbers from.

One could simply obtain the statistics on family sizes of business executives.

You keep throwing around that term "secularist" and in a way that evidently means more than just non-religious. Please elaborate on what you think a "secularist" is.

I am using it loosly here as a third category among religious, Objectivist and secularist. Secularitsts are all non-Objectivists who are not religious.

About the wiki Pope link, that doesn't answer anything. Your statement seemed completely irrelevant and unrelated to the conversation at all. I want to know what your point was.

You pointed out what different people pursue as challenge as an alternative to procreation. I gave an example that doesn't entail procreation. More generally, you have an entire class of Catholics who are childless: the clergy. Yet somehow the "breeding rates" of Catholics far exceed that of Objectivists. That's the difference between mean and variance.

Edited July 26, 2012 by hernan

[Eiuol]

Before we do that, let me ask: in your opinion is there a unique Objectivist perspective on this subject or would we simply be covering the usual modernist criticisms of traditional family structure?

I think there is a unique Objectivist perspective in the sense of approaching the value of family in a non-duty, non-biological way. I do not know many modernist criticisms.

[hernan]

I think there is a unique Objectivist perspective in the sense of approaching the value of family in a non-duty, non-biological way. I do not know many modernist criticisms.

Deal.

[bluecherry]

"I am interested in understanding why the mean "breeding rate" of Objectivism is low relative to religious"

I've answered that at least twice already! D:

Here was my most recent reiteration a few posts earlier: "I think our [Objectivists'] average preferences are the same [as the general population, which is mostly religious people, when it comes to children] but that a lot people in the general population cave to pressures from family and society in general to have children even when they would be better off not doing so. We [Objectivists'] just aren't the type to cave in to those things."

[hernan]

Here was my most recent reiteration a few posts earlier: "I think our [Objectivists'] average preferences are the same [as the general population, which is mostly religious people, when it comes to children] but that a lot people in the general population cave to pressures from family and society in general to have children even when they would be better off not doing so. We [Objectivists'] just aren't the type to cave in to those things."

Yes, you said that. You also repeatedly replied to my various reasons for having children with "some people this, some people that." You also said that (all, most?) Objectivists eventually have babies. According to the above, though, there is no good reason to have children, it's just that Objectivists are better at resisting social pressure to do unreasonable things like have babies.

I'll leave it to you to sort that out.

[softwareNerd]

According to the above, though, there is no good reason to have children,... ...

I haven't followed the thread, but the primary rational reason to have children (I assume this is true of rational folk in general, not just Objectivists) is to experience and participate in the growth of a human being. One can explode this notion into all sorts of concrete ways in which one is adding a value to one's life. However, being a parent is an very time-consuming and focus-consuming job that lasts for many years. So, being a parent necessarily means giving up a fair amount of time that one would spend on other values. This is not like choosing to go to a movie, which wastes half a day at most! In addition, it is an irreversible commitment. Therefore, considered in the abstract, it can be completely rational both to have children and not to have children.

Having kids in order to have someone to tutor in your philosophy is a pretty dubious idea, and one that is almost certain to lead to gross disappointment. Of course, one will tell one's child what one thinks is true, including about philosophy. My point is only that having kids because one wants to teach someone a philosophy is a pretty irrational idea. Even more irrational is to have a kid primarily so that they take that philosophy and preach it to others. I doubt too many people have kids for these reasons, even not the more religious folk.

Edited July 27, 2012 by softwareNerd