hernan Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 "Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a belief that promotes human reproduction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism What is the Objectivist take on this? One the one hand, you could do a cost-benefit analysis to determine the optimal number of children that would provide happiness and fulfillment. On the other hand, it seems like a pretty basic application of the virtue of productivity. On the other hand, the modern welfare state has pretty much rendered children a tragedy of the commons. (Taxes support the aged.) What are your thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 Kids can be a huge value and being a parent can be very satisfying. However, there are all sorts of values people can pursue, and its legitimate to decide to choose to do other things with one's time. There are an endless number of ways to be purposeful and productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Recall the beneficiary of morality is a self-sovereign individual and the standard is life. Having a kid depends greatly on the context of the individual. "Natalism" is very much like the important issues of "own-a-vehicle-ism", "get married-ism", and "live-in-an-apartment-ism" Plasmatic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Very funny! Agreed, on the context of the individual and his hierarchy of values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hernan Posted December 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Let's go with that analogy for a moment. Suppose having kids is like owning a car. Now compare two contexts: A) Living in the city with subways and busses, short commutes, and expensive parking, and Living in the suburbs with no public transportation, long commutes, and free parking. Seems pretty obvious that people in situation A would value car ownership less than those in situation B entirely apart from any hierarchy of values. There is an objective difference in owning a car in each situation. This comparison, though, is not exactly analogous to having children, though. Consider another comparison: C) Cars are a shared resource (i.e. communism). D) Cars are private property (i.e. capitalism). In context C you'd be an idiot to buy and maintain a car since anyone can take it at anytime and you can claim any other car. But you know where that will lead. That's the short term, rational choice. But you can see that, longer term, C is not a stable situation. Edited December 12, 2014 by hernan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Buddha Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) I would say that "Natalism" is a manufactured concept that doesn't pass Rand's Razor. I believe this is what whYNOT means. It's a phrase that has an "-ism" added to it in an attempt to give it some scholarly validity. Having children is "Natalism" ? Really? We need a separate, unique concept to define reproduction? Sounds rather academic to me.... Edited December 13, 2014 by New Buddha Repairman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 Very good point, New Buddha; "maternity", "paternity", or "parenthood" are perfectly good terms that cover the same concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.