Objectivism and Procreation

Ethics
1

Mixing Christianity and Objectivism leads to attacks from both ends. Feel free.

But one thing I have long noticed: Objectivism, starting with Rand, has not placed a high value on family and procreation. The term “pro-life” has come to be equated with anti-abortion but it has a much richer meaning and includes all the elements of culture that favor the transmission of existence across generations. It seems more than a little odd to me that Objectivisim should be so deficient on this issue for reasons I will discuss below.

First, a couple observations:

  1. The most consistently prolific groups are Mormans, Catholics (not Protestants), Orthodox (not Reform or secular) Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Generally, within these, the more religious the more prolific.

  2. Although I know of no systematic study of Objectivists, most that I know are either a) single, B) childless couples, or in a few cases, c) have one or two children at most.

There are several ways to explore this issue. I’ll begin with a couple but feel free to open your own line of discussion.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Objectivists are rational and the above religious groups are irrational, as Objectivists like to believe. What this suggests is that nature favors irrationality.

But how rational is it, really, to be childless? This question is complicated by modern social and economic structures but it seems pretty clear to me that in some gross sense, it is not so rational. Witness the slow motion suicide of Europe. There are a number of reasons for this including many that Objectists understand and appreciate but the demographic crash is certainly a fundamental driver; even if Europe gave up socialism overnight it would still be doomed. It is very likely that while Europe may pass through atheism momentarily it will become Muslim in short order.

All of this is over and above any contribution that children provide to flourishing as Objectivists generally understand the term (and that is always a mixed bag). Rather, it is flourishing in a more literal and generational sense.

What is the Objectivist ideal of family?
What is the Objectivist ideal of family?
2

What’s the question? Is Objectivism against procreation? The answer is no.

3

What’s the question? Is Objectivism against procreation? The answer is no.

“Is Objectivism against procreation?” is a bit simplistic and not likely to lead to a satisfactory answer.

If you want a simple question, perhaps this will help: why don’t Objectivists have as many children as Catholics and Mormans and Orthodox Jews?

4

Objectivism is about the individual, not any collective such as the human species. While having a favorable view of the nature of humanity will often lead people to liking human civilization thriving, mastering their environment, nothing neccesitates an egoist to care about how long humanity will outlast them. If you don’t exist anymore then nothing can have any impact on you.

If you are talking about just during one’s life time and that you see a shrinking population causing economic challenges, just because “somebody should do it” (“it” in this case meaning make and raise more babies) doesn’t mean that somebody has to be or you or anybody in particular. Plenty of reasons exist for why a person may want few or no children. Let the people who really like raising kids and have the money for it be the ones to go ahead and multiply like rabbits. Worst case scenario, set up a charity devoted to giving people who want kids, but can’t afford them (or more of them) money to enable them to take care of kids if the shrinking population becomes a real problem for yourself when you are somebody not interested in raising more or any kids.

As for why really religious people seem to be having more kids, they believe they are obligated to do so, or they’re against pretty much everything that would allow one to get sexual gratification without making babies, or they explicitly have set out to make more babies to try to grow the number of people following their religion, since when it comes to religion, people almost always stick with whatever they were exposed to growing up. Some combination thereof is possible of course too. It’s not a numbers game though in the long run. Ultimately, reality wins. Either people in general get in line with reality or they’ll see their numbers thinning a whole lot more.

5

Thanks for joining the discussion. I’m going to take your points in reverse order.

As for why really religious people seem to be having more kids, they believe they are obligated to do so, or they’re against pretty much everything that would allow one to get sexual gratification without making babies, or they explicitly have set out to make more babies to try to grow the number of people following their religion, since when it comes to religion, people almost always stick with whatever they were exposed to growing up. Some combination thereof is possible of course too. It’s not a numbers game though in the long run. Ultimately, reality wins. Either people in general get in line with reality or they’ll see their numbers thinning a whole lot more.

I don’t think it’s a sufficient explanation to say that religious people have children because they are obligated to do so, as if that were a burdensome duty. Rather, at least within the major religions I listed, having children is an essential element of leading a good life. Of course, there are rewards and costs of being a parent, and of course these religions in particular encourage large families, so I don’t mean to totally dismiss your explanation. It is simply not a full portrait.

But, yes, ultimately reality wins. Ultimately the cultures that encourage raisign children thrive and those that don’t disappear.

So it seems more than a littie odd that Objectivism, which prides itself on being reality-based, should have so little to say on the subject.

Either there is something rational in religion that Objectivism is missing or nature favors irrationality.

If you are talking about just during one’s life time and that you see a shrinking population causing economic challenges, just because “somebody should do it” (“it” in this case meaning make and raise more babies) doesn’t mean that somebody has to be or you or anybody in particular. Plenty of reasons exist for why a person may want few or no children. Let the people who really like raising kids and have the money for it be the ones to go ahead and multiply like rabbits. Worst case scenario, set up a charity devoted to giving people who want kids, but can’t afford them (or more of them) money to enable them to take care of kids if the shrinking population becomes a real problem for yourself when you are somebody not interested in raising more or any kids.

You are touching on some of the deeper issues here but I think this is even more interesting than you are acknowledging. In Europe, much of what children formerly provided has been taken over by the state. This appears to be both a cause and an effect, a vicious cycle, of demographic collapse.

I do not wish to approach the subject of children as a social duty. (That is certainly how Europeans sometimes think about it.) Instead let us think about it here as a survival strategy. Are the fates of of Europeans who have children different from those who do not? More interestingly, are the fates of those who do likely to be different as the social net collapses of it’s own dead weight?

For comparison, there are plenty of reasons why someone living in a socialist country would be better off not trying to start and run a business. It doesn’t follow that running a business is a bad thing. Socialism deliberately perverts incentives so we should not be surprised to see strange, but entirely rational choices.

Objectivism is about the individual, not any collective such as the human species. While having a favorable view of the nature of humanity will often lead people to liking human civilization thriving, mastering their environment, nothing neccesitates an egoist to care about how long humanity will outlast them. If you don’t exist anymore then nothing can have any impact on you.

This really is the nub of it. It may be that such an individualistic view is incomplete. Or it may be that there are individualistic reasons for having children.

6

I’m missing your point. You know some objectivists and most of them are single, childless, or have a few kids, therefore there is something missing in the objectivist philosophy.

I think the answer to this, if I accept your premise that most objectivists have few or no kids, is that the objectivist philosophy sees being a parent as a job that has value and needs to be studied and taken seriously. It is immoral to have a kid if you can’t raise him properly. This is probably why there aren’t big objectivist households because usually both man and woman have careers so they don’t have the time to properly raise all of them.

The christian culture, on the other hand, sees man as working and female staying home raising the children. This allows them to have more kids because it is a full time job. However, this is changing, partly through “women’s rights” and partly for economic reasons, which is why the average family size has seen a sharp decrease in the past 50 years.

7

I’m missing your point. You know some objectivists and most of them are single, childless, or have a few kids, therefore there is something missing in the objectivist philosophy. I think the answer to this, if I accept your premise that most objectivists have few or no kids…

I acknowledge that my evidence is anecdotal but I don’t see anyone rushing to contradict me. Absent better data, let’s assume for the discussion that my observation is correct.

I think the answer to this, if I accept your premise that most objectivists have few or no kids, is that the objectivist philosophy sees being a parent as a job that has value and needs to be studied and taken seriously. It is immoral to have a kid if you can’t raise him properly.

That is a quality vs. quantity argument. It’s not an unreasonable argument but I don’t think it is an adequate explanation.

This is probably why there aren’t big objectivist households because usually both man and woman have careers so they don’t have the time to properly raise all of them.

This is a very different explanation and I think it does explain better. Essentially, at least with respect to families, Objectivists behave like secularists (those not holding to any particular religion). Essentially knowing that someone is not religious allows you to predict that they do not have a big family. Knowng that they are Objectivist adds nothing except perhaps that they are even less likely to be married with children.

There are a number of other correlates here: more likely to never have children, more likely to delay parenting, more likely to have children out of marriage, etc.

The question is whether this is important, philosophically (or otherwise), and whether this is evience that Objectivism is missing something.

The christian culture, on the other hand, sees man as working and female staying home raising the children. This allows them to have more kids because it is a full time job. However, this is changing, partly through “women’s rights” and partly for economic reasons, which is why the average family size has seen a sharp decrease in the past 50 years.

Regardless, though, we seem to be agreed that there exists a subculture that is more resistent to these trends. That subculture will have bigger families. Over time, that subculture will tend to grow relative to alternatives. In simple Darwinian terms, it will surive and flourish.

8

Either there is something rational in religion that Objectivism is missing or nature favors irrationality.

I don’t quite follow why there is an “either” here. Why must there be something Objectivism is missing. I understand that you say that the religions you listed view having children is an essential element of leading the good life. The problem is, the good life is identified as altruistic in nature or at least a good life that is separate from one’s own life by their standards. So, I too would say that duty/altruism is still a reason religious people have kids more often and in higher numbers.

You may also want to consider if having kids is a critical piece of the rational good life. Considering historical precedent, raising children or not has little to do with a culture dying out - it’s not like Rome collapsed because people didn’t have enough kids to thrive and pass on ideas. Even on an individual level, as far as I’ve ever seen, having kids is a nonessential. Perfectly fine as a value, but if you never pursue having children, you probably wouldn’t be inherently lacking anything in your life, unlike a whole slew of other values like reason or purpose, or even less-than-primary values like human companionship. In other words, why should Objectivism specifically have a lot to say on the subject? There is a lot to be said about the value of chosen family, and I can find many quotes, but as for having kids, that’s an individualized value, like preferring buying a bicycle over a car to get around.

9

I don’t quite follow why there is an “either” here. Why must there be something Objectivism is missing. I understand that you say that the religions you listed view having children is an essential element of leading the good life. The problem is, the good life is identified as altruistic in nature or at least a good life that is separate from one’s own life by their standards. So, I too would say that duty/altruism is still a reason religious people have kids more often and in higher numbers.

It’s certainly not my purpose here to defend every aspect of religious practice and culture. But the difference is hard not to notice. It may be that having children is inherently altruistic, and so only altruistic cultures will have children, but I’m not convinced of that. People were having children long before Christianity.

You may also want to consider if having kids is a critical piece of the rational good life.

Well, I certainly do. It may be that you can reasona about it that way. Or maybe, as above, it is inherently altruistic. Or something else?

Considering historical precedent, raising children or not has little to do with a culture dying out - it’s not like Rome collapsed because people didn’t have enough kids to thrive and pass on ideas.

Actually, several emperors, most famously Augustus, were very concerned about Roman social trends in this area. But, yes, there are many other causes and nothing here is easy to isolate in effect. (The causes of the Fall of Rome are anything but settled.)

Even on an individual level, as far as I’ve ever seen, having kids is a nonessential. Perfectly fine as a value, but if you never pursue having children, you probably wouldn’t be inherently lacking anything in your life, unlike a whole slew of other values like reason or purpose, or even less-than-primary values like human companionship. In other words, why should Objectivism specifically have a lot to say on the subject? There is a lot to be said about the value of chosen family, and I can find many quotes, but as for having kids, that’s an individualized value, like preferring buying a bicycle over a car to get around.

Because of the natural tendency of cultures that procreate to come to dominance this seems like an imporant issue. If I had a pat answer I’d present it. All I have, really, are questions and a sense of disatisfaction with a philosophy that is indifferent to survival in a way that preferring a bycycle over a car is not. It’s more akin to preferring orange juice to cyanide.

10

It’s certainly not my purpose here to defend every aspect of religious practice and culture. But the difference is hard not to notice. It may be that having children is inherently altruistic, and so only altruistic cultures will have children, but I’m not convinced of that.

Just as clarification - perhaps you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you - I didn’t mean to suggest that having kids is altruistic, only that many people have kids for altruistic reasons.

11

If you want a simple question, perhaps this will help: why don’t Objectivists have as many children as Catholics and Mormans and Orthodox Jews?

Because Objectivists don’t believe that it’s God’s wish to have as many children as possible. That, by the way, is the same reason why all other secular or only superficially religious people also stick to only one to three children.

I hate to break it to you, but this phenomenon of not breeding like rabbits isn’t exactly unique to Objectivists. No one is having children by the dozen, except the religious fundamentalists.

12

I acknowledge that my evidence is anecdotal but I don’t see anyone rushing to contradict me. Absent better data, let’s assume for the discussion that my observation is correct.

That is a quality vs. quantity argument. It’s not an unreasonable argument but I don’t think it is an adequate explanation.

This is a very different explanation and I think it does explain better. Essentially, at least with respect to families, Objectivists behave like secularists (those not holding to any particular religion). Essentially knowing that someone is not religious allows you to predict that they do not have a big family. Knowng that they are Objectivist adds nothing except perhaps that they are even less likely to be married with children.

There are a number of other correlates here: more likely to never have children, more likely to delay parenting, more likely to have children out of marriage, etc.

The question is whether this is important, philosophically (or otherwise), and whether this is evience that Objectivism is missing something.

Regardless, though, we seem to be agreed that there exists a subculture that is more resistent to these trends. That subculture will have bigger families. Over time, that subculture will tend to grow relative to alternatives. In simple Darwinian terms, it will surive and flourish.

I am confused why you keep insisting that objectivism is missing something.

I am not sure how this topic falls in the ethics category either. Essentially you are asking why people that follow a book (bible) that says that sex and marriage are for procreation have more kids than objectivists.

13

Just as clarification - perhaps you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you - I didn’t mean to suggest that having kids is altruistic, only that many people have kids for altruistic reasons.

I’m sure that’s probably true. But it may also be that it’s a mixed bag in many ways, that the reasons are not clear or simple.

14

Because Objectivists don’t believe that it’s God’s wish to have as many children as possible. That, by the way, is the same reason why all other secular or only superficially religious people also stick to only one to three children.

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

I hate to break it to you, but this phenomenon of not breeding like rabbits isn’t exactly unique to Objectivists. No one is having children by the dozen, except the religious fundamentalists.

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.

15

I am confused why you keep insisting that objectivism is missing something.

Because it doesn’t account for something that is very important.

I am not sure how this topic falls in the ethics category either. Essentially you are asking why people that follow a book (bible) that says that sex and marriage are for procreation have more kids than objectivists.

Well, no. I’ve given quite a number of reasons that have nothing to do with that book.

What I am noting, however, is that those who follow that book seem to be having more children at which point our friend St. Darwin does his thing. If Druids were having more children because the trees told them to they would still be having more children.

16

Because it doesn’t account for something that is very important.

Well, no. I’ve given quite a number of reasons that have nothing to do with that book.

What I am noting, however, is that those who follow that book seem to be having more children at which point our friend St. Darwin does his thing. If Druids were having more children because the trees told them to they would still be having more children.

Why do you assume the children of the Druid grow up to be a Druid?

17

“But, yes, ultimately reality wins. Ultimately the cultures that encourage raising children thrive and those that don’t disappear.”

“Instead let us think about it here as a survival strategy.”

People are capable of thinking for themselves and if shrinking populations were causing problems then no matter what the culture says about kids, any rational person can disregard the societal message to do what is actually in their best interest. This doesn’t mean each and every rational person who sees the problem has to start breeding like crazy though. Like I said in one of the parts you quoted, let the people who want to raise lots of kids do so and other people can provide financial assistance and the like to enable these people to raise all those kids well when they otherwise may not have been able to. Objectivism isn’t against kids or even lots of kids if somebody can get the rescources for them, it just doesn’t have some commandment that one be a parent.

Absent believing each and every person is morally obligated to have tons of kids, why might it be that smaller family sizes are more common? Assuming somebody wants kids at all, I think people who support Objectivism tend to have smaller numbers of kids for the same reason that smaller class sizes are typically preferable. Having fewer kids allows one to provide more of their rescources to each of the children that they do have. The parents may not have enough time, money, patience, and attention to divvy up more than a couple of times before some neglect starts to set in out of inability to do otherwise.

As for the part where I think you were implying people are screwed if they don’t have kids to support them when they get old sans the ultimately doomed socialism, that’s not true. Kids are EXPENSIVE as hell to raise. If one doesn’t have kids then they can use the money that otherwise would have gone to the kids for funding a secure retirement for themselves.

Just for the record though, I know off the top of my head one lady who supports Objectivism who also writes a blog on parenting and she has three kids. So, that’s one case there over two kids, the most you had cited before. ( http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/ )

“Or it may be that there are individualistic reasons for having children.”

For certain people, yes. Lots of them, really. Just not everybody and typically not in big numbers.

18

But one thing I have long noticed: Objectivism, starting with Rand, has not placed a high value on family and procreation.

I disagree. I think Rand leaves it entirely up to the individual to determine where family lies on the pyramid.. but ‘family’ doesn’t necessarily involve children.

  1. Although I know of no systematic study of Objectivists, most that I know are either a) single, B) childless couples, or in a few cases, c) have one or two children at most.

The only Objectivists I know are single men, and on this forum, most members also seem to be men. (I wonder if that has anything to do with the low numbers you mentioned.) Anyways, I’m not sure how many women are involved with Objectivism or what their feelings are towards family.

But how rational is it, really, to be childless? This question is complicated by modern social and economic structures but it seems pretty clear to me that in some gross sense, it is not so rational.

Why is it irrational to choose not to have children?

What I am noting, however, is that those who follow that book seem to be having more children at which point our friend St. Darwin does his thing.

My christian parents had… 5 children who grew up to be athiests.

19

Why do you assume the children of the Druid grow up to be a Druid?

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.

20

People are capable of thinking for themselves and if shrinking populations were causing problems then no matter what the culture says about kids, any rational person can disregard the societal message to do what is actually in their best interest. This doesn’t mean each and every rational person who sees the problem has to start breeding like crazy though. Like I said in one of the parts you quoted, let the people who want to raise lots of kids do so and other people can provide financial assistance and the like to enable these people to raise all those kids well when they otherwise may not have been able to. Objectivism isn’t against kids or even lots of kids if somebody can get the rescources for them, it just doesn’t have some commandment that one be a parent.

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?

Seriously, demographic collapse is a slow process but that doesn’t mean that it’s not real or that it isn’t noticed. As I noted above, Europe is already experiencing the effects, although they are intertwined with the effects of socialism and other social maladies.

Absent believing each and every person is morally obligated to have tons of kids, why might it be that smaller family sizes are more common? Assuming somebody wants kids at all, I think people who support Objectivism tend to have smaller numbers of kids for the same reason that smaller class sizes are typically preferable. Having fewer kids allows one to provide more of their rescources to each of the children that they do have. The parents may not have enough time, money, patience, and attention to divvy up more than a couple of times before some neglect starts to set in out of inability to do otherwise.

All of these are of a kind: time, resources, etc. But whatever the reason we are still left with the effects. 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.

As for the part where I think you were implying people are screwed if they don’t have kids to support them when they get old sans the ultimately doomed socialism, that’s not true. Kids are EXPENSIVE as hell to raise. If one doesn’t have kids then they can use the money that otherwise would have gone to the kids for funding a secure retirement for themselves.

This is certainly one aspect that merits further consideration. It’s not the expense per se that is the issue but, here at least, the choice between relying on kids vs. other retirement options. (Obviously ignoring other positive aspects of having children and simply reducing it to this one choice.)

Some thought experiments might be useful here. One is this: 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? (Of Objectivism can only exist in a symbiotic relationship with anti-Objectivism then that’s not a very complete philosophy.)

Is it the case that the modern welfare state has crowded out the natural reasons to have children? There are certainly some aspects that are deliberately so and others that are simply unforseen consequences. But if that is the case, and if the welfare state is unstable then relying on what is rational in such a world may not be a useful guide to what is generally a prudent choice any more than judging the rationality of starting a business in a communist country.

Just for the record though, I know off the top of my head one lady who supports Objectivism who also writes a blog on parenting and she has three kids. So, that’s one case there over two kids, the most you had cited before. ( http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/ )

“Or it may be that there are individualistic reasons for having children.”

For certain people, yes. Lots of them, really. Just not everybody and typically not in big numbers.

Well, there is one but I stand by my original guestimate and notice that the issue is not simply having a dozen vs. having 2 or three, as significant as that can be, but having some vs. none.