Objectivism and Procreation

[hernan]

Example of irrational: 15 year old, still in high school, no source of income, no comfortable living situation, no dependable help.

Rational: 30 year old couple, married, good source of income, little debt, comfortable living situation.

That is not a proper either or because having children is not inherently rational or irrational, it depends on context.

Implicit in the above is some criteria of when it is rational to have children and when not. This is what we need to tease out of the examples. Tell us why you think the above are/are not rational respectively? Walk us through your logic.

By the way, how could religious people be more rational on anything when the source comes from irrationality?

I don't think religious are necessarily as irrational on the issue of children as you assume. It may simply be that they were brought up in big familes and see how they can be a positive experience for all.

But to your point, which is interesting: I might avoid taking cynide because I think it is an evil potion. I believe it is an evil potion because my parents said so. I know someone who didn't belive that cyanid was evil and he's dead because he tried it.

More generally, traditions can arise by a process of natural selection. Even if the tradition is irrational, it can enhance survival. Human history is filled with examples of wrong beliefs leading to right choices by such a process. If you've read anything of the history of science you know what I mean when I say ignorance is the natural state of man.

[thenelli01]

Implicit in the above is some criteria of when it is rational to have children and when not. This is what we need to tease out of the examples. Tell us why you think the above are/are not rational respectively? Walk us through your logic.

I don't think religious are necessarily as irrational on the issue of children as you assume. It may simply be that they were brought up in big familes and see how they can be a positive experience for all.

But to your point, which is interesting: I might avoid taking cynide because I think it is an evil potion. I believe it is an evil potion because my parents said so. I know someone who didn't belive that cyanid was evil and he's dead because he tried it.

More generally, traditions can arise by a process of natural selection. Even if the tradition is irrational, it can enhance survival. Human history is filled with examples of wrong beliefs leading to right choices by such a process. If you've read anything of the history of science you know what I mean when I say ignorance is the natural state of man.

Just because a tradition enhances survival, does not make it rational.

Someone says that because the sun sets every morning and night, he should therefore brush his teeth. This results in him having healthy teeth. Now compared with someone who chooses not to brush teeth and gets gum disease and cavities. You wouldn't say that the first is more rational because it had a better outcome, would you?

Edited July 24, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[hernan]

Just because a tradition enhances survival, does not make it rational.

Someone says that because the sun sets every morning and night, he should therefore brush his teeth. This results in him having healthy teeth. Now compared with someone who chooses not to brush teeth and gets gum disease and cavities. You wouldn't say that the first is more rational because it had a better outcome, would you?

Given the circumstances you describe I would say that brushing teeth is a rational choice. Whether or not the person you describe is being rational is a seperate matter. Having a (consistently) better outcome is a evidence of a better choice regardless of how unnecessarily convoluted it may be. Much of medicine proceeded by just such crudity.

What we should do in the above situation is notice that healthy teeth are the result of brushing and search for the best explanation. In this case, of course, we know a better reason to brush teeth.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that there is something wrong with a culture that cannot propogate itself, that cannot surivive and flourish. It is obvious that those that can will replace those that cannot. At this stage we have a fairly obvious healthy outcome and a, perhaps, poor reason. The rational way to proceed is to find a better reason, not to ignore the results.

[thenelli01]

Given the circumstances you describe I would say that brushing teeth is a rational choice. Whether or not the person you describe is being rational is a seperate matter.

It is not a separate matter, in fact, it was the purpose of the example.

[bluecherry]

"Well, sure. What might that look like? Perhaps someone would notice a problem and then discuss it with others and each would draw conclusions from that discussion? Perhaps?"

I just said actions that could be taken - charities set up to enable people who want to have more kids to do so. The thing is though, I don't think this would be likely to start happening on any large scale until the benefits outweigh the costs. Right now there isn't a pressing need for such things. When and if there does become one, then people will get doing more about it.

"These explanations might be valid if Objectivists were generally poor but they are not. Again, relying on anecdotal evidence for lack of better data, my impression is that Objectivists have incomes well above average."

1) Look around some more. We have a lot of financially secure people working in tech and science fields, but we also have a lot of struggling artists who may need substantially more time to achieve a dependable stream of income. 2) Money is definitely not the only obstacle anyway. That's why I listed more than one thing. You can be rolling in cash, but not have enough time, patience, and attention for a bunch of kids. Some careers which may be enabling that financial success may also make raising many or even any children down and outright unfeasible.

"Can it be that having children is good for soceity but not good for individuals? If not, how would that look? Or what would happen in a Objectivistopia?"

Looking at the big picture, what's bad for the individual is bad for society because society is composed of individuals. What's good for particular individuals though when it comes to parenting varies from person to person. Personally raising lots of kids may be in the best interest of some individuals while it may be bad for plenty of others. As I've said before, if personally raising a bunch of kids would be no good for somebody, but declining population is also causing them problems, then contributions to help out other people for whom raising lots of kids is good is the way to go.

"Is it the case that the modern welfare state has crowded out the natural reasons to have children?"

Nope. People can and do still have kids for plenty of reasons. Why have large families been the norm before when they aren't now? The industrial revolution and advances in technology and stuff since then have increased efficiency and life spans so that people don't need to have a bunch of kids to use as a personal labor force for their family and they won't need to have extra kids to make sure at least some of their kids survive to adulthood.

"[T]he issue is not simply having a dozen vs. having 2 or three, as significant as that can be, but having some vs. none."

I don't know where you've been then. The vast majority of Objectivists do choose to become parents at some point in their lives. If you've met lots that don't have kids, how many have you asked about their ages? We have lots of people in their teens and early twenties and that's a demographic where not having children is normal and generally a good thing. Do we have higher rates though of people who choose not to have kids ever than the general population? Probably. After all, we know we aren't obligated and we put a lot more serious consideration into all kinds of possible paths for our lives to take than a lot of people in the general populace probably do. I see no problem in this though. If things get bad, it's not like there isn't a large supply of people still glad to go ahead and keep having more kids if they can and that you'd find some Objectivists among them.

About the economist quote, see what I said above about action being taken only when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. The costs right now are still a lot higher than the benefits. I wasn't saying there's no population shrinking anywhere, just that Objectivists aren't all up in arms and jumping to getting more babies made because it isn't worth it right now.

Stuff you didn't address to me but which I'm going to address anyway ;D

"Nothing is automatic but that is the tendency of such things. It is interesting, though, that Objectivists seem to have given much more emphasis and attention to the process of arguing and converting."

It's only common that this is so because lots of people kind of default on thinking, they are told something often and as a kid, then get attatched to the idea, then rely on feeling like those things are true and not questioning them much. This kind of thinking goes against Objectivism which requires one to do lots of questioning, concerning oneself with the facts first and foremost, et cetera. Reason doesn't work automatically and you can't force people to use it, so I'd figure the odds of somebody being raised by an Objectivist being one too versus somebody raised on any other ideology becoming one aren't all that much higher. The main advantage I see of having kids with Objectivist parents when it comes to making more Objectivists is that the parents will pretty much make it a sure thing that this kid will at least hear of Ayn Rand and Objectivism some time in their life unlike plenty of others who have never heard of such things and maybe never will.

I think if the culture as a whole wasn't constantly exposing kids to complicated things like religions and politics before they were old enough to understand them then this cycle could be broken and it would get much more common for people to use reason, but right now that isn't really possible without keeping a kid trapped in a bubble, which of course would not be a good idea. So, for now it is slow going growing our numbers, but I think the growth will be sort of exponential as the more we can change the culture, the less obstacles there will be when we introduce people to the philosophy we follow.

"[W]hy aren't there more Objectivist women?"

Well, it's not so much an issue of Objectivism in particular. It's more that philosophy in general seems to not get studied as often or as seriously by females. If you want to ask why there are fewer women involved in philosophy in general, I have some speculations, but I don't know of any studies done on this question or anything like that.

"Generally speaking, religious have more children than Objectivists. Either having children is irrational or religious are more rational on this subject at least."

False dichotomy. It is neither. Having children or not and how many varies from person to person, place to place, and time to time on what is rational or not. It isn't always one or the other for everybody everywhere. Presently I think there is not enough economic threat to justify having any child purely on the basis of that.

"It seems perfectly obvious to me that there is something wrong with a culture that cannot propogate itself, that cannot surivive and flourish."

Stop thinking cultures, start thinking individuals. Then stop juding those individual's lives by what happens when their lives cease to be. A culture is not alive outside perhaps some metaphoric similarities and morality, shoulds and should nots, what is rational and what is irrational, can only be judged for living things. If it's not alive, nothing is good or bad for it. The survival of a culture or the end of a culture only matters in so far as it effects the lives of individuals. If some culture nobody really cares about anymore goes out of practice in favor of one that is equally or more rational, so what? If a better culture is dying out in favor of a worse one, people living there would be wise to resist this by working to change people's minds. Even if they fail at this though, while it certainly sucks for them, that doesn't change the fact that eventually that new, worse culture will bite the dust one way or another, be it getting changed to something else or everybody dying from the rampant problems in their culture. Reason is still right, reality always wins in the end and betting on irrationality long term is a sure way to lose.

(I'm looking at threats to the economy one is currently subject to as not necessarily the same issue as the culture one is in because similar economies can exist in different cultures. If you are looking at the economy and culture as inseperable then you may not regard a culture as distinct from another unless a lot more fundamental differences exist between them than what I had in mind as the minimum for separating out one culture from another. If that is the case that you have something else in mind about what you mean when you say "culture" than my reply may need some tweaking to better address what you meant.)

[hernan]

It is not a separate matter, in fact, it was the purpose of the example.

The problem, I think, is that you are too stingy with your credit. It is a very common phenomenon for people to stumble upon something that works and to continue doing what works but to assign what later would prove to be an inferior explanation and reason for it. This is particularly important and relevant when we are talking about the preservation of traditions that enhance survival. Good explanations almost always lag sound practice. Only occassionally do people develop good theories that lead to sound practices. That's just the way it is.

[hernan]

I just said actions that could be taken - charities set up to enable people who want to have more kids to do so. The thing is though, I don't think this would be likely to start happening on any large scale until the benefits outweigh the costs. Right now there isn't a pressing need for such things. When and if there does become one, then people will get doing more about it.

You seem to be presuming that it is a social problem in need of a social solution. While this is possible I'm more interested in exploring an individualistic orientation. What are the advantages, for example, for a wealthy tycoon like Rearden to found a dynasty? Assuming that the welfare state has become a surrogate family, what will happen to the childless when it collapses?

1) Look around some more. We have a lot of financially secure people working in tech and science fields, but we also have a lot of struggling artists who may need substantially more time to achieve a dependable stream of income. 2) Money is definitely not the only obstacle anyway. That's why I listed more than one thing. You can be rolling in cash, but not have enough time, patience, and attention for a bunch of kids. Some careers which may be enabling that financial success may also make raising many or even any children down and outright unfeasible.

The reason that I suggested that these are fungible is that, for the most part, one can be traded for another. People often choose, for example, between a job that travles a lot and pays more or one that allows them to be home more, not to mention the choice of the wife to forgoe work or the choice of when to get married. What appear to be many reasons are probably not so numerous when you take these choices into account.

Looking at the big picture, what's bad for the individual is bad for society because society is composed of individuals. What's good for particular individuals though when it comes to parenting varies from person to person. Personally raising lots of kids may be in the best interest of some individuals while it may be bad for plenty of others. As I've said before, if personally raising a bunch of kids would be no good for somebody, but declining population is also causing them problems, then contributions to help out other people for whom raising lots of kids is good is the way to go.

While that is literally true it is not so true or significant as you may assume. Firstly, I'm looking at general behavior, not individual cases; if Objectivists are generally childless that deserves a general explanation apart from any individual circumstances. Second, given my observations, it's important to focus first on the decision to have kids at all as many Objectivists seem to have chosen not to. Lastly, it is not generally the case that parents in religious cultures wait until they are "ready" and this has a huge impact.

With regard to the last point, as above, I'm more interested in the individualistic perspective. If declining population is causing problems (and we can see this at a gross level) what does that imply to individuals? I find it hard to believe that it can be a general problem without also being an individual problem precisely because a society is composed of individuals.

Nope. People can and do still have kids for plenty of reasons. Why have large families been the norm before when they aren't now? The industrial revolution and advances in technology and stuff since then have increased efficiency and life spans so that people don't need to have a bunch of kids to use as a personal labor force for their family and they won't need to have extra kids to make sure at least some of their kids survive to adulthood.

This is only a partial explanation. The original change occured when child morbidity dropped but also when people transitioned from the farm to the factory, as you note. That said, the trend has continued almost as if it had a momentum. (The popular belief in over-population probably had some effect.)

I don't know where you've been then. The vast majority of Objectivists do choose to become parents at some point in their lives. If you've met lots that don't have kids, how many have you asked about their ages? We have lots of people in their teens and early twenties and that's a demographic where not having children is normal and generally a good thing. Do we have higher rates though of people who choose not to have kids ever than the general population? Probably. After all, we know we aren't obligated and we put a lot more serious consideration into all kinds of possible paths for our lives to take than a lot of people in the general populace probably do. I see no problem in this though. If things get bad, it's not like there isn't a large supply of people still glad to go ahead and keep having more kids if they can and that you'd find some Objectivists among them.

Well, I did note the unscientific nature of my sample but you do seem to concede that the rate of children is less than the general population which is sufficient for our discussion.

About the economist quote, see what I said above about action being taken only when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. The costs right now are still a lot higher than the benefits. I wasn't saying there's no population shrinking anywhere, just that Objectivists aren't all up in arms and jumping to getting more babies made because it isn't worth it right now.

My guess is that Objectivists are going to be looking for an individual reason, which is what I'm exploring.

It's only common that this is so because lots of people kind of default on thinking, they are told something often and as a kid, then get attatched to the idea, then rely on feeling like those things are true and not questioning them much. This kind of thinking goes against Objectivism which requires one to do lots of questioning, concerning oneself with the facts first and foremost, et cetera. Reason doesn't work automatically and you can't force people to use it, so I'd figure the odds of somebody being raised by an Objectivist being one too versus somebody raised on any other ideology becoming one aren't all that much higher. The main advantage I see of having kids with Objectivist parents when it comes to making more Objectivists is that the parents will pretty much make it a sure thing that this kid will at least hear of Ayn Rand and Objectivism some time in their life unlike plenty of others who have never heard of such things and maybe never will.

Certainly true. But I'm guessing that Objectivists are not going to have children for the good of Objectivism. If that is the main advantage it will not influence many people.

I think if the culture as a whole wasn't constantly exposing kids to complicated things like religions and politics before they were old enough to understand them then this cycle could be broken and it would get much more common for people to use reason, but right now that isn't really possible without keeping a kid trapped in a bubble, which of course would not be a good idea. So, for now it is slow going growing our numbers, but I think the growth will be sort of exponential as the more we can change the culture, the less obstacles there will be when we introduce people to the philosophy we follow.

I'm sure you see how this becomes cyclical. A society dominated by religion, whatever you may think of it, will continue to be so if the religious have more children.

Well, it's not so much an issue of Objectivism in particular. It's more that philosophy in general seems to not get studied as often or as seriously by females. If you want to ask why there are fewer women involved in philosophy in general, I have some speculations, but I don't know of any studies done on this question or anything like that.

This is really off-topic but I don't agree with the assumption that Objectivism must be regarded as a masculine philosophy. I know that is the history of it and Ms. Rand was probably exceptional as a woman. But, by comparison, relgioun doesn't rely on adherents to be theologians (which is similarly male dominated).

False dichotomy. It is neither. Having children or not and how many varies from person to person, place to place, and time to time on what is rational or not. It isn't always one or the other for everybody everywhere. Presently I think there is not enough economic threat to justify having any child purely on the basis of that.

See above.

Stop thinking cultures, start thinking individuals. Then stop juding those individual's lives by what happens when their lives cease to be. A culture is not alive outside perhaps some metaphoric similarities and morality, shoulds and should nots, what is rational and what is irrational, can only be judged for living things. If it's not alive, nothing is good or bad for it. The survival of a culture or the end of a culture only matters in so far as it effects the lives of individuals. If some culture nobody really cares about anymore goes out of practice in favor of one that is equally or more rational, so what? If a better culture is dying out in favor of a worse one, people living there would be wise to resist this by working to change people's minds. Even if they fail at this though, while it certainly sucks for them, that doesn't change the fact that eventually that new, worse culture will bite the dust one way or another, be it getting changed to something else or everybody dying from the rampant problems in their culture. Reason is still right, reality always wins in the end and betting on irrationality long term is a sure way to lose.

(I'm looking at threats to the economy one is currently subject to as not necessarily the same issue as the culture one is in because similar economies can exist in different cultures. If you are looking at the economy and culture as inseperable then you may not regard a culture as distinct from another unless a lot more fundamental differences exist between them than what I had in mind as the minimum for separating out one culture from another. If that is the case that you have something else in mind about what you mean when you say "culture" than my reply may need some tweaking to better address what you meant.)

As noted above, I am thinking of both and using the term "culture" very loosly to mean beliefs and practices in general use by a group (so as to compare religious and Objectivists and secularists). The fact that a culture is not alive does not render it useless as a vehicle for understanding human behavior. We're not talking about cultures gonig out of practice for lack of interest, though, but rather the inherent advantages that some cultures have as a result of their fertility alone. We can make long term predictions about who will be following what cultural practices in large part on the basis of whether those practices include procreation.

What I am investigating is how that general observations relates to individual circumstances and choices. If there are no good Objectivist reasons to have children then the religious will always outnumber Objectivists.

[Nicky]

Well, that might be useful if it were the only reason this were of interest.

Well, that is a bit of exageration but it is exactly my point.

If only "religious fundamentalists" are "having children by the dozen" then the future belongs to them and not to the superficially religious much less the rationalist.

How do you figure? My parents were religious. Not crazy religious, but my mother's parents were crazy religious. And yet, here I am, an atheist.

Look at countries all over Europe: two generations ago, almost everyone was religious, now atheists and agnostics outnumber the religious. It has nothing to do with who's procreating more and who's not, it's about culture. Children learn from the culture around them more than they learn from their parents.

[hernan]

How do you figure? My parents were religious. Not crazy religious, but my mother's parents were crazy religious. And yet, here I am, an atheist.

Well, of course, to do this right we'd need more precise data and then do the math. I'm not discounting such entirely but 1) noting that they are the exception and not the rule, and...

Look at countries all over Europe: two generations ago, almost everyone was religious, now atheists and agnostics outnumber the religious. It has nothing to do with who's procreating more and who's not, it's about culture. Children learn from the culture around them more than they learn from their parents.

2) noting, as evidenced by Europe, that this seems to be a pattern of self destruction. As I noted above, Europe may well pass momentarily through atheism on it's way to becoming Muslim. And it has everything to do with procreation.

Edited July 24, 2012 by hernan

[Nicky]

2) noting, as evidenced by Europe, that this seems to be a pattern of self destruction. As I noted above, Europe may well pass momentarily through atheism on it's way to becoming Muslim. And it has everything to do with procreation.

Arguments from the future, especially an unlikely, racist, envisioned by far right lunatics who are likely religious themselves future, aren't going to go over too well around here.

[hernan]

Arguments from the future, especially an unlikely, racist, envisioned by far right lunatics who are likely religious themselves future, aren't going to go over too well around here.

I'll keep that in mind.

[bluecherry]

"You seem to be presuming that it is a social problem in need of a social solution. While this is possible I'm more interested in exploring an individualistic orientation."

I am talking an individualistic orientation. Just because people are collaborating doesn't mean they aren't freely pursuing their own individual interests. Those charities being set up by non-governmental groups or individuals for other people to donate to by their own free choice are an answer to a situation where everybody and anybody (meaning, the people who are choosing to donate are included) is suffering significantly because of a decreasing population.

"What are the advantages, for example, for a wealthy tycoon like Rearden to found a dynasty?"

I don't see any and note that he didn't seem interested in creating one anyway. As for what he could do if shrinking populations started causing him problems and would rather not have kids still, see above.

"Assuming that the welfare state has become a surrogate family, what will happen to the childless when it collapses?"

What do you mean, "surrogate family?" If you mean "people you go to to get cheap or free loans and donations when you're broke" then there's a problem with your view of what family is for I think. As for what happens to childless people if the gravy train of socialism gets halted finally, as I mentioned before, I expect these people likely would have more money to support themselves still because they didn't spend so much on kids and so they don't need to rely on other people or at least, don't need to as much. If one is still coming up a bit short, other family, friends, and neighbors still exist that one may be able to borrow from when in a jam or perhaps see if they can get a loan from a bank.

". . . not to mention the choice of the wife to forgoe work or the choice of when to get married."

You left out stay at home dads and that raising kids and marriage are not dependent on each other. It may often be the case that one cannot simultaneously get enough money and enough time to raise one or more children well. You could argue somebody with enough money could hire somebody else to spend the time taking care of the kids, but in that case, just how much are you still parenting anyway? It's a lot like you just paid somebody to adopt your offspring, an open adoption. (Not that any use of nannies and baby sitters is like this, I'm talking about the cases where the kids are spending more time with the people their parents hired than they are with their actual parents.) Also, no amount of money can buy patience even if one has both time and money.

". . . if Objectivists are generally childless . . ."

They aren't, not past the same age bracket where most people in general don't have kids.

"Lastly, it is not generally the case that parents in religious cultures wait until they are 'ready' and this has a huge impact."

This is always a bad idea, whether the people are religious or not. It's bad for the conditions of both the parent(s) and the child(ren). Raising kids when one is not well equipped to do this (both in finances and in how they will handle interacting with kids they'll be around constantly) leads to making everybody involved less well off than they otherwise could have been. Bad parenting leading to long term difficulties for the lives of kids is far, far too common as it is and not something one should encourage risking so highly. Also, for the parents themselves, isn't it counterproductive to have kids to improve your life (help out the economy you have to deal with) only to do so in a way that hinders your own well being (subjecting yourself to huge expenses and long term obligations when you are unprepared and in so doing losing out, possibly permanently, on the chance to do many things in your life, including things which may have lead to greater ease in raising children)? Unless one was trying breed nonstop for one's entire period they are capable of such, like they were shooting for some kind of record or something, then I don't see how one has anything to lose generally by holding off for a few years or so anyway.

"That said, the trend has continued almost as if it had a momentum."

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.

"My guess is that Objectivists are going to be looking for an individual reason, which is what I'm exploring."

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.)

"A society dominated by religion, whatever you may think of it, will continue to be so if the religious have more children."

This I think is your main premise and it is incorrect. As I was saying in my last post, the dominance of religion (and other ideologies we oppose generally) in the culture, to the point where it is unavoidable pretty much, means our progress will be *slow* at first, not non-existent, and that it will speed up as we go. In the long run, either the culture grows more rational or it gets wiped out through consequences it could only fend off off for so long. The religious people's breeding rates don't change the fact that religion will go the way of the dodo eventually. People working for the cause of rationality may win (people in general and on average get more rational) or lose (people don't get more rational and this gets everybody killed off), but religion loses either way.

"I don't agree with the assumption that Objectivism must be regarded as a masculine philosophy."

Uh . . . me either? Nobody has been trying to say there is anything masculine about this philosophy or philosophy in general, just that there is a trend of females being less commonly concerned about philosophy. Why is this? Don't know for sure, only have some guesses. The point was only that there isn't something about Objectivism in particular as opposed to most other philosophies which is driving off women.

[hernan]

I am talking an individualistic orientation. Just because people are collaborating doesn't mean they aren't freely pursuing their own individual interests. Those charities being set up by non-governmental groups or individuals for other people to donate to by their own free choice are an answer to a situation where everybody and anybody (meaning, the people who are choosing to donate are included) is suffering significantly because of a decreasing population.

Sure, I understand your point. I do think charity is important and valuable and may be applicable to this but it's not my primary interest and focus here. 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?

I don't see any and note that he didn't seem interested in creating one anyway. As for what he could do if shrinking populations started causing him problems and would rather not have kids still, see above.

Of course, he was a fictional creation but my point is that he was not constrained by money.

What do you mean, "surrogate family?" If you mean "people you go to to get cheap or free loans and donations when you're broke" then there's a problem with your view of what family is for I think. As for what happens to childless people if the gravy train of socialism gets halted finally, as I mentioned before, I expect these people likely would have more money to support themselves still because they didn't spend so much on kids and so they don't need to rely on other people or at least, don't need to as much. If one is still coming up a bit short, other family, friends, and neighbors still exist that one may be able to borrow from when in a jam or perhaps see if they can get a loan from a bank.

Well, I think implicit in the question of what is the reason to have children is the question of what families are for.

So, for the sake of simplicity, we have two options: 1) have children, invest in them, and 2) go childless and build up a retirement fund. (There is also the third option: don't have children and rely on the state for retirement, which is actually what a lot of people are doing in Europe.)

You left out stay at home dads and that raising kids and marriage are not dependent on each other. It may often be the case that one cannot simultaneously get enough money and enough time to raise one or more children well. You could argue somebody with enough money could hire somebody else to spend the time taking care of the kids, but in that case, just how much are you still parenting anyway? It's a lot like you just paid somebody to adopt your offspring, an open adoption. (Not that any use of nannies and baby sitters is like this, I'm talking about the cases where the kids are spending more time with the people their parents hired than they are with their actual parents.) Also, no amount of money can buy patience even if one has both time and money.

My point is only that these things are very fungible. I do, indeed, include nannies in the mix. Patience is another matter but if you can afford a nanny then you can take breaks when patience falls short.

They aren't, not past the same age bracket where most people in general don't have kids.

It would help if we had some reliable numbers to work from, I'll admit.

This is always a bad idea, whether the people are religious or not. It's bad for the conditions of both the parent(s) and the child(ren). Raising kids when one is not well equipped to do this (both in finances and in how they will handle interacting with kids they'll be around constantly) leads to making everybody involved less well off than they otherwise could have been. Bad parenting leading to long term difficulties for the lives of kids is far, far too common as it is and not something one should encourage risking so highly. Also, for the parents themselves, isn't it counterproductive to have kids to improve your life (help out the economy you have to deal with) only to do so in a way that hinders your own well being (subjecting yourself to huge expenses and long term obligations when you are unprepared and in so doing losing out, possibly permanently, on the chance to do many things in your life, including things which may have lead to greater ease in raising children)? Unless one was trying breed nonstop for one's entire period they are capable of such, like they were shooting for some kind of record or something, then I don't see how one has anything to lose generally by holding off for a few years or so anyway.

I'm not at all convinced of this but it's a bit of a tangent. The short answer is that overwhelmingly parenting is on-the-job training and it's not at all clear to me that parents who start later in life are better prepared.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

This I think is your main premise and it is incorrect. As I was saying in my last post, the dominance of religion (and other ideologies we oppose generally) in the culture, to the point where it is unavoidable pretty much, means our progress will be *slow* at first, not non-existent, and that it will speed up as we go. In the long run, either the culture grows more rational or it gets wiped out through consequences it could only fend off off for so long. The religious people's breeding rates don't change the fact that religion will go the way of the dodo eventually. People working for the cause of rationality may win (people in general and on average get more rational) or lose (people don't get more rational and this gets everybody killed off), but religion loses either way.

And what is going to speed it up? What is going cause culture to be more rational? You seem to be operating on faith here.

Uh . . . me either? Nobody has been trying to say there is anything masculine about this philosophy or philosophy in general, just that there is a trend of females being less commonly concerned about philosophy. Why is this? Don't know for sure, only have some guesses. The point was only that there isn't something about Objectivism in particular as opposed to most other philosophies which is driving off women.

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?

[Eiuol]

I wanted to see some of your further responses with people before I made my next post, Hernan. I typically like the threads you make. As far as I've seen, you're talking about a few different premises to explain your ideas. I disagree that your premises are completely reasoned out.

1) If something is good for an individual, it is also good for the society. If something is bad for an individual, it's bad for the society. Falling birthrates indicate future social stability problems. So, having kids prevents this.

I found it interesting that you brought up Augustus. I am familiar with a variety of policies he supported, particularly for increasing birth rates. He accomplished this by influencing marriage law, given that the purpose of marriage was seen as producing kids. Having 3 kids allowed women to be exempted of control from their husbands. If a slave woman gave birth to 4 kids, she was freed. The thing is, the law didn't seem to have any positive impact on stability of society. Kids were abandoned even. Even with his marriage policies, social stability issues were never averted for the future. Encouraging people to have kids may cause problems on its own if the reason is for the sake of society's well-being as a primary. Can you cite any examples where not having enough children was a primary reason that a society turned unstable? Also, it still has to be shown that falling birthrates are a problem. Mostly it just suggests people are independent. And even if in Roman times having kids was crucial for your economic existence, the industrial revolution has allowed people to expand on their potential.

Assuming that the welfare state has become a surrogate family, what will happen to the childless when it collapses?

I know this wasn't addressed at me, but it's a loaded question important to the point I'm making here. Why would anything have to happen to the childless in particular? Relying on a welfare state is a bad idea precisely because it cannot sustain a population indefinitely. Capitalist ideas of free trade and application of science and technology is what allows you exist perfectly fine without having kids. A similar idea is that marriage used to be necessary to exist at all, but with the industrial revolution, it ceased to be an absolute necessity. Yeah, maybe if society collapses along with its infrastructure, we'll have to revert again to basically everyone needing to have kids in order to survive, but hopefully we can end a welfare state before that happens. Until then, having kids isn't going to prevent societal collapse. More kids doesn't always mean economic growth. Spreading ideas by means of intellectual activism is typically more effective in the long-run.

2) Having children is a key aspect of expanding specific values and spreading ideas, ideas which may include rationality if we're speaking of Objectivism, but it's applicable to any belief system.

As has been stated several times with several different anecdotes, it does *not* follow that a religious parent will have religious kids. Nor is it true that Objectivist parents will have Objectivist kids. Having religious parents at best indicates what ideas they tend to teach you, but it's far too deterministic to say religious people having more kids means religion will spread. Spreading genes works in this manner, but ideas do not. I don't think there is a concern about being outnumbered, even if the birthrate is in the negatives. Talking about ideas carefully in rational discussion is how to spread ideas effectively, given that ideas have to be chosen by an individual to be followed.

3) Not having children of one's own prevents one from having a truly good life. It may not be a core value, but it is critically important.

You haven't even said much on this, but I sense this as present in all that you've been saying. What about having children is going to by its very nature be an essential element of the good life for all people? You're not just saying "human relationships are essential", but that having kids is essential. What would I like by choosing not to have a baby?

4) If Objectivism doesn't consider the above points as important, there is no rational reason to have kids.

First, can you mention some reasons why you want kids besides the above? I'm asking about you personally. Second, there may be aspects I'd point out as a "rational reason". I'd also suggest browsing the blog linked earlier, as that has plenty of reasons from a mother. Better to seek the perspective of someone who has first hand experience. Objectivism would suggest that there's just no critical need for an individual to have kids any more than there is a need to eat Japanese cuisine. I'd say no one has lived life fully until they've had tempura!

Shopping test? Like Supermarket Sweep? =P

Edited July 24, 2012 by Eiuol

[hernan]

I wanted to see some of your further responses with people before I made my next post, Hernan. I typically like the threads you make. As far as I've seen, you're talking about a few different premises to explain your ideas. I disagree that your premises are completely reasoned out.

I'm going to assume you mean, by this, that I my "premises are [not] completely reasoned out" and, without taking offense, I agree. This is very much an open ended thread in which I am trying to work out my thinking on this issue. In part, I am looking not only to discover what is (reality) but what can be (opportunities) and that shapes at least one of your points below as I will explain.

1) If something is good for an individual, it is also good for the society. If something is bad for an individual, it's bad for the society. Falling birthrates indicate future social stability problems. So, having kids prevents this.

I'm using this as a very crude rule of thumb. It might be interesting to explore futher how reliable this is but I only use it here as a way to sniff out something else. If there is a social crisis due to falling birthrates it ought to have some individual impact and, conversely, if it is good for society to increase birth rates there ought to be some individual benefit to the same. It is possible that social birth rates are entirely communalized in their effects but I am skeptical of that.

I found it interesting that you brought up Augustus. I am familiar with a variety of policies he supported, particularly for increasing birth rates. He accomplished this by influencing marriage law, given that the purpose of marriage was seen as producing kids. Having 3 kids allowed women to be exempted of control from their husbands. If a slave woman gave birth to 4 kids, she was freed. The thing is, the law didn't seem to have any positive impact on stability of society. Kids were abandoned even. Even with his marriage policies, social stability issues were never averted for the future. Encouraging people to have kids may cause problems on its own if the reason is for the sake of society's well-being as a primary. Can you cite any examples where not having enough children was a primary reason that a society turned unstable? Also, it still has to be shown that falling birthrates are a problem. Mostly it just suggests people are independent. And even if in Roman times having kids was crucial for your economic existence, the industrial revolution has allowed people to expand on their potential.

I didn't mean to profer Augustus' solution, in fact I disparaged that "European" (legalistic, socialistic) approach. I only mentioned him to refute the idea that the Fall of Rome (or civilizations in general) had nothing to do with a lack of procreation. Augustus was convinved that it was a serious problem and it is reasonable to assume that it was even if we have no faith in his solutions.

I know this wasn't addressed at me, but it's a loaded question important to the point I'm making here. Why would anything have to happen to the childless in particular? Relying on a welfare state is a bad idea precisely because it cannot sustain a population indefinitely. Capitalist ideas of free trade and application of science and technology is what allows you exist perfectly fine without having kids. A similar idea is that marriage used to be necessary to exist at all, but with the industrial revolution, it ceased to be an absolute necessity. Yeah, maybe if society collapses along with its infrastructure, we'll have to revert again to basically everyone needing to have kids in order to survive, but hopefully we can end a welfare state before that happens. Until then, having kids isn't going to prevent societal collapse. More kids doesn't always mean economic growth. Spreading ideas by means of intellectual activism is typically more effective in the long-run.

This is really an interesting point and it goes more to my search for opportunity than any claim about the present reality. Let us take the above as given and ask: what will be the economic consequences of childlessness? Long before cataclysmic collapse of civilization, we would expect, for example, that asset values would fall relative to labor costs. If you have one kid in a neighborhood of old folks they will be bidding against one another for his caregiving and will have noone to sell their houses to. As an aside, I am in the economic camp that holds that people are the ultimate economic resource, as against the view that people are a resource burden and that all other things being equal. higher population density lead to higher standards of living. If you disagree I can point you to some econoic work on that subject, most famously Julian Simon, but many others since.

2) Having children is a key aspect of expanding specific values and spreading ideas, ideas which may include rationality if we're speaking of Objectivism, but it's applicable to any belief system.

As has been stated several times with several different anecdotes, it does *not* follow that a religious parent will have religious kids. Nor is it true that Objectivist parents will have Objectivist kids. Having religious parents at best indicates what ideas they tend to teach you, but it's far too deterministic to say religious people having more kids means religion will spread. Spreading genes works in this manner, but ideas do not. I don't think there is a concern about being outnumbered, even if the birthrate is in the negatives. Talking about ideas carefully in rational discussion is how to spread ideas effectively, given that ideas have to be chosen by an individual to be followed.

True, but as has generally been acknowledge, parents have an edge in the education of their children. So much so that totalitarian systems often seek to displace parenting in order to "properly" educate the next generation. There is a rich marketplace of ideas but people change their minds with great reluctance.

3) Not having children of one's own prevents one from having a truly good life. It may not be a core value, but it is critically important.

You haven't even said much on this, but I sense this as present in all that you've been saying. What about having children is going to by its very nature be an essential element of the good life for all people? You're not just saying "human relationships are essential", but that having kids is essential. What would I like by choosing not to have a baby?

I am certainly disposed in this direction but I am not relying on it in this argument. I would be happy to discuss my reasons further if you are still interested.

4) If Objectivism doesn't consider the above points as important, there is no rational reason to have kids.

First, can you mention some reasons why you want kids besides the above? I'm asking about you personally. Second, there may be aspects I'd point out as a "rational reason". I'd also suggest browsing the blog linked earlier, as that has plenty of reasons from a mother. Better to seek the perspective of someone who has first hand experience. Objectivism would suggest that there's just no critical need for an individual to have kids any more than there is a need to eat Japanese cuisine. I'd say no one has lived life fully until they've had tempura!

You've hit an several already above but let me throw out one more that is a topic that I cover in greater detail elsewhere: The creation of a family dynasty in the same sense that one might create an enduring corporation. Rand was a big fan of economic empire building, as evidenced by her fiction.

But, yes, at least from what I've read, and I have not seen anything here to suggest otherwise, Objectivism regards the choice of whether or not to have kids as like choosing a bike vs. a car or chocolate vs. vanilla and not cyanide vs. orange juice.

Shopping test? Like Supermarket Sweep?

There you go.

Edited July 24, 2012 by hernan

[Eiuol]

If you have one kid in a neighborhood of old folks they will be bidding against one another for his caregiving and will have noone to sell their houses to.

Worst case, you use robots. That's what Japan aims to do. Your main concern seems to be that no one would be around to support a welfare state, when birthrate is the least of my concerns with a welfare state. But as you said, you're asking about individual reasons to have a child. Don't abstract all the way to society at large just yet if that's what you want to talk about. One reason may be feeling pride about raising a kid well, helping them learn to do the right thing and all that. It can vary considerably. If you claim that having kids is absolutely crucial to leading a good life, explain in more detail.

[hernan]

Worst case, you use robots. That's what Japan aims to do.

I am skeptical of the utility of robots in this regard but that is only a compebsating substitution of capital for labor that operates independently of the discussed effect. All you are really doing is substitutiong a competition for robot making for care giving.

Your main concern seems to be that no one would be around to support a welfare state, when birthrate is the least of my concerns with a welfare state.

Believe me, I am no fan of the welfare state and will celebrate its demise. That said, it is still the case that the European birth dearth is destroying its welfare state and that it will wrec havoc elsewhere. I note this effect without it being my main concern.

But as you said, you're asking about individual reasons to have a child. Don't abstract all the way to society at large just yet if that's what you want to talk about.

It's more the reverse. I am starting with a relatively well studied and understood social phenomenon and trying to trace it down to the individual impact and opportunity.

In short: what opportunities will arise for those who have children in a birth dearth. Let's assume they are not for sale but I don't rule out much else. I don't rule out that young adults may eventually, perhaps sooner than we expect, decide they don't want to support all those old folks with their taxes.

One reason may be feeling pride about raising a kid well, helping them learn to do the right thing and all that. It can vary considerably. If you claim that having kids is absolutely crucial to leading a good life, explain in more detail.

That is certainly a big part of it. And I suspect that there is a real cultural issue here, referring back to my opening post, between the religoius and the secular, between those who had good experiences in big families and those from broken homes. But I hesitate to go down this path right now because I know it will sidetrack the discussion. Will you accept a rain check on this?

Edited July 25, 2012 by hernan

[oso]

Example of irrational: 15 year old, still in high school, no source of income, no comfortable living situation, no dependable help.

Rational: 30 year old couple, married, good source of income, little debt, comfortable living situation.

That is not a proper either or because having children is not inherently rational or irrational, it depends on context.

By the way, how could religious people be more rational when the source of their decision comes from irrationality?

It wouldn't necessarily be rational in that situation, it only might be.

[thenelli01]

It wouldn't necessarily be rational in that situation, it only might be.

It would be rational from an economic standpoint given the facts. Sure I left a lot of unanswered questions but I don't have any interest in spending time to go into detail on this hypothetical.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[hernan]

It wouldn't necessarily be rational in that situation, it only might be.

What would be your logic or thought process in determining the rationality of having children?

[hernan]

If you claim that having kids is absolutely crucial to leading a good life, explain in more detail.

After giving this more thought last night I think you are right that this is key if not core.

So let me give it a first stab and we can see where it goes from there.

"Absolutely crucial" is a bit of hyperbole but I'll claim that having kids is huge difference in lifestyle and the difference between a culture or philosophy that encourages kids and one that doesn't is likewise huge. It's also important to note that a good family rests on a good marriage. If you screw up the marrige you it will be an order of magnitude harder to have a good family life. So much of what religion offers is a structure around good marriages and good families.

It's been said before that humans are social animals. Though this fact is much abused it is largely correct and I doubut any serious Objectivists would denh that having human contact is absolutely crucial to leading a good life and that, as a general rule, the more human contact the better the life (with, of course, much varying in the quality of that contact). Thus, for example, you will find most Objectivists living in big cities and engaging in commerce and socializing rather than living in a cabing alone with their copies of Fountanhead and Atlas Shrugged. Loner is usually a synonym for Loser.

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. But there it is: your own Objectivistopia.

Now I would argue further that having children, as well as marrige itself, presents challenges that are good for the soul. In general it fires the metal in ways that other forms of sociazation cannot. Married people are better people, in general.

There is much debate in the scientific community as to whether kids are a net plus in terms of happiness. But there is little debate that they are, in general, a net plus in life satisfaction.

[Nicky]

What would be your logic or thought process in determining the rationality of having children?

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

[hernan]

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

Costs can be pretty straightforward to assess, though it entails more than cash, also time, energy, effort, etc. But the more interesting question is how you assess the value that they bring to your life.

I am curious how this calculation is done (assuming that we are not simply relying on cultural norms or intuition):

Example of irrational: 15 year old, still in high school, no source of income, no comfortable living situation, no dependable help.

Rational: 30 year old couple, married, good source of income, little debt, comfortable living situation.

[Nicky]

Costs can be pretty straightforward to assess, though it entails more than cash, also time, energy, effort, etc. But the more interesting question is how you assess the value that they bring to your life.

I am curious how this calculation is done (assuming that we are not simply relying on cultural norms or intuition)

I should've been clearer. The choice isn't between "having children and not having children". It's between raising a child or several for the next two or three decades, or staying fully focused on some other productive undertaking instead. The choice is between two positives, not between a positive and a negative. If the choice was between raising children and doing nothing (or nothing productive, at least), then it would be an obvious choice.

So it's not a calculation, it's an evaluation. An evaluation of one's own values and purpose. It is done the same way one chooses a career over another, or one chooses to focus on work or on a friend, to get married or stay single, etc.

You have to realize that you can't raise a child and stay fully focused on your work at the same time. You might have to, for instance, choose to sacrifice some work you could otherwise do for a couple of decades. If that work is of greater value to you than having children, then you shouldn't have children.

[hernan]

I should've been clearer. The choice isn't between "having children and not having children". It's between raising a child or several for the next two or three decades, or staying fully focused on some other productive undertaking instead. The choice is between two positives, not between a positive and a negative. If the choice was between raising children and doing nothing (or nothing productive, at least), then it would be an obvious choice.

Well, there are all sorts of choices and the first choice is whether or not to have children at all. Assuming the chioce is to have children, then when and how many. And so on.

But are you asserting that the choice between having children and not is obvious? (I think several her would disagree to judge from their comments.) Before we get to how many and when, I'm curious to hear your argument for the "obvious" choice to have children. (Not, of course, that I disagree.)

So it's not a calculation, it's an evaluation. An evaluation of one's own values and purpose. It is done the same way one chooses a career over another, or one chooses to focus on work or on a friend, to get married or stay single, etc.

Well, sure, if by evaluation vs. calculation you mean something less than precision. I don't disagree but I do wonder how much reasoning there is to that as opposed to subjective judgement or even guessing. The reality is that embarking on a family is a leap into the unknown.

You have to realize that you can't raise a child and stay fully focused on your work at the same time. You might have to, for instance, choose to sacrifice some work you could otherwise do for a couple of decades. If that work is of greater value to you than having children, then you shouldn't have children.

Agreed, though it's not nearly as difficult as some suggest. Also, it's not clear to me that Objectivists would be overly concerned with in the choice of having children as opposed to the choice later whether to spend time at work or home. Those are two different choices.