Why do people make children?

[blü 2]

I mean....if we exclude the millionaires or the billionaires, well, they can assure a future to their children.
What about the rest?
Proletariat, Middle class. Why do they make them?
They procreate, making children who will have to undergo the parents' impositions, who will basically have no freedom, and once adults they will have to succumb in shark-infested waters. Because there are voracious sharks, that is wicked people who victimize the weakest. Only the fittest survive in capitalistic economies.

Well...I have discovered Anti-Natalism, lately...but I identify as a overpopulation believer and I am 100% convinced that all the problems we have on Earth are caused by too many people on Earth.
So I would like to understand why people do anything to have children.

It's something absolutely avoidable. There is contraception.


Please...only serious replies, merci beaucoup.

We make children because that's what all our evolved anatomy is about, what our appearance is about, what our hormones are about, what our social structures are basically about, Any living thing that doesn't reproduce will simply die out, so (with us mammals) the urge to copulate is, on average, very strong.

We've only really had a serious option about breeding since the invention of the contraceptive pill in the 1950s, reliably separating copulation from conception. The human world has changed accordingly, and according to my morality for the better, but there will be questions for future generations to answer going in the other direction. (Huxley's Brave New World (1932) springs to mind.)

And at least in my generation, virtually all the women had a sense of the need, want, desire, urge, whatever the correct word is, to have at least one child before it was too late. (We were old-fashioned and had three ─ we never regretted it. but everyone's different and every age is different.)

So the question now is, if a woman chooses to have no children, will she either by acculturation or from some aspect of human nature have regrets when it's too late? Will the human world overall be the loser if the smartest women have the fewest children? Meanwhile, as I said, it's never been easier not to.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Pardon me, I didn't express myself clearly.
As I was saying... the State has the obligation to make an economic system work.
And if there are too many people, and limited resources, they will have to take decisions.

China dissuades people from making children. The State asks people not to procreate.
Because of the common welfare that prevails over individualistic aspirations.

You stated it's not a fundamental freedom. You have yet to make any argument to support that claim.

Yes, but the State here pays for abortions too because we have universal healthcare.

Well, the State didn't pay for mine, so your sterilization must have been a fundamental freedom for you, but not for me, according to your claim.

 

[Estro Felino]

We make children because that's what all our evolved anatomy is about, what our appearance is about, what our hormones are about, what our social structures are basically about, Any living thing that doesn't reproduce will simply die out, so (with us mammals) the urge to copulate is, on average, very strong.

I think heterosexuals immensely envy homosexuals, since the latter have sex all the time, without any concern for unwanted pregnancies.

We've only really had a serious option about breeding since the invention of the contraceptive pill in the 1950s, reliably separating copulation from conception. The human world has changed accordingly, and according to my morality for the better, but there will be questions for future generations to answer going in the other direction. (Huxley's Brave New World (1932) springs to mind.)

Interesting.

And at least in my generation, virtually all the women had a sense of the need, want, desire, urge, whatever the correct word is, to have at least one child before it was too late. (We were old-fashioned and had three ─ we never regretted it. but everyone's different and every age is different.)

There are also women who don't want to lose their silhouette and would dump a man just because he wants to make a baby with her.

So the question now is, if a woman chooses to have no children, will she either by acculturation or from some aspect of human nature have regrets when it's too late? Will the human world overall be the loser if the smartest women have the fewest children? Meanwhile, as I said, it's never been easier not to.

Honestly I have heard of women who regretted having children.
Not regretting not having them.

 

[Estro Felino]

You stated it's not a fundamental freedom. You have yet to make any argument to support that claim.

It depends on the country.
As I said, in China it was forbidden, to have more than one child.
So having children is not considered a freedom.

Well, the State didn't pay for mine, so your sterilization must have been a fundamental freedom for you, but not for me, according to your claim.

In the US there is not the universal healthcare system.
The State pays nothing.

 

[Stevicus]

It was an all-time low in the seventies, maybe.
Now it's higher than ever

Social justice at an all-time low in the 70s? I don't think so, as it was a decade where a lot of glass ceilings were being shattered. People make much ado about pronouns these days, although back then, there was consternation over switching from terms like "chairman" to "chairperson" or "spokesman" to "spokesperson."

A lot of barriers were being broken, such as allowing women to enter the military service academies. Women were entering occupations which had previously been male-dominated. Likewise, people of color were also advancing and elevating their position, albeit somewhat slowly and inconsistently.

Nonetheless, the Civil Rights Movement had made its presence known and grew to be an influential force in politics, and I believe that there were genuine and honest attempts made in the cause of social justice. But by the end of the 70s, diminishing returns were starting to set in, and there was growing discontentment due to economic troubles, such as the energy crisis and runaway inflation. The failure in Vietnam, the political upheavals in Iran and other countries, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan also caused a shift in priorities by 1980, when the idealism of social justice had to be put on the back burner (at least in many people's minds at the time).

 

[SalixIncendium]

It depends on the country.
As I said, in China it was forbidden, to have more than one child.

Was.

So having children is not considered a freedom.

Is.

In the US there is not the universal healthcare system.
The State pays nothing.

Your point being?

 

[Estro Felino]

Social justice at an all-time low in the 70s?

No, social injustice. Europe was a socialistic paradise in the seventies.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your point being?

That biological parenthood is not considered vital for a woman's psychological welfare.
The State won't pay for infertility treatments, given that there is the right to adopt.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That biological parenthood is not considered vital for a woman's psychological welfare.
The State won't pay for infertility treatments, given that there is the right to adopt.

So we're no longer saying it's not a fundamental freedom?

Because that's what we were discussing.

 

[Stevicus]

And so you can understand the disproportion.

Yes, although Europe has always had a higher population density than the US.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, although Europe has always had a higher population density than the US.

Of course.
Also Britain, same thing.
A country as large as Italy, with 67 million people.

 

[Estro Felino]

So we're no longer saying it's not a fundamental freedom?

Because that's what we were discussing.

Sorry, maybe I shouldn't have brought up the freedom thing.

I just meant that, unfortunately, making children wisely is the most difficult thing in the world.

1) You need to find a life-long partner, and that takes lots of time. Choosing as a father a partner that will abandon you or divorce you after 5 years or so is the most serious mistake a woman could make.
Because children will suffer because of the divorce.

2) Make sure you will never get divorced. Divorce traumatizes children. It can kill their soul.

3) Make children at the right age. Children need young mothers-

4) Provide children with individualistic freedom. To become responsible and free at the same time.


Only the 1% of the parents follow these steps. Most people make children as if it was an egoistical desire.
They don't see the desires of the children that will come.

Radical Anti-Natalists want to prevent any suffering.
I am a very moderate one, and say that if there are those 4 steps, it's a good start.

 

[Stevicus]

No, social injustice. Europe was a socialistic paradise in the seventies.

Oh, okay, I see what you mean. There was a good deal of progress and hope to some degree, at least as I can recall. A lot of changes were happening, and people were open and candid about how bad things were in previous eras, while emphasizing that things were getting better. There was also hope for better relations with the USSR and PRC.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Regarding the OP, good answers have already been given for why people choose to have children. I agree with those who say that this is something to be thought about rather than entered into passively because it's what people do. If raising children isn't satisfying to you, unless you're raising someone to care for you in old age, why do it? There are extra reasons these days for not having children, compassionate reasons.

Catholics advise to become either a nun or a priest.

Catholicism has done everything in its power to make more Catholics. Every young maiden is encouraged to get married at the age of fertility. She must not withhold sex, they must not use the rhythm method, masturbate, or have gay sex, nobody gets a divorce, and when technology made it feasible, they were never to have elective sterilization, use birth control, or get abortions.

And they're at it again in the States now, where the Supreme Court is now packed with Catholics following which, Roe v Wade fell.

Yet, as you note, the priests and nuns are told to not procreate. Is it really so hard to see why? The church doesn't want to have to support their families or put them in homes, and there will be no inheritance for any kids. Everything belongs to the church. So, in this one tiny niche, reproduction is discouraged (forbidden). I guess the church isn't into underwriting the raising children, either, and it wouldn't even need to do the heavy lifting child rearing requires.

You know...in my language we have two terms.
One means "people from 0 to 12 years"
The other term means "daughters and sons".

We can do that in English as well. Pre-teen means under 13 years old (minor children are 0-17 years old). Daughters and sons are offspring. But you are correct that children means both young human beings (not necessarily one's own) and offspring of any age (also not necessarily one's own). It also has other meanings, as with flower children.

It's also used colloquially (child, honey child or chile) to address anybody younger. From the Grateful Dead:

Whoa, it makes me wild
With thirty years upon my head
To have you call me child.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course.
Also Britain, same thing.
A country as large as Italy, with 67 million people.

List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Italy is ranked number 54 on this list. USA is at 148. UK is at 34. Russia is at 187, Australia is at 197, and Mongolia is at 199 - the least densely populated independent state on the planet.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, maybe I shouldn't have brought up the freedom thing.

I just meant that, unfortunately, making children wisely is the most difficult thing in the world.

1) You need to find a life-long partner, and that takes lots of time. Choosing as a father a partner that will abandon you or divorce you after 5 years or so is the most serious mistake a woman could make.
Because children will suffer because of the divorce.

2) Make sure you will never get divorced. Divorce traumatizes children. It can kill their soul.

3) Make children at the right age. Children need young mothers-

4) Provide children with individualistic freedom. To become responsible and free at the same time.


Only the 1% of the parents follow these steps. Most people make children as if it was an egoistical desire.
They don't see the desires of the children that will come.

Radical Anti-Natalists want to prevent any suffering.
I am a very moderate one, and say that if there are those 4 steps, it's a good start.

There is a bit more nuance in reality than that.

For one, there is some exageration and IMO all-out misperception about the nature and extent of the effects of divorce on the couple's children.

Nuclear families are not nearly as healthy for the children's emotional well-being as some people want to believe to begin with; I have come to believe that extended family is in fact decisive instead. Children need far wider acceptance and emotional support than even an utopical nuclear family can possibly provide.

Also, avoiding divorce is not necessarily a good thing either. I have seen up close that it sends all the wrong messages for children and even for the parents themselves. In a nutshell, it teaches that misery is something to be accepted passively. Even aggression (both passive and physical) in many cases.

It is much, much healthier to instead let go of the myth that people will or should want to live together "forever" and that is the most happiness they can conceivably ever achieve. Let the children learn that love requires care and commitment. Let them understand from an early age that it is not to be taken for granted, and that letting go can be a display of love as meaningful as coming close.

Similarly, not all women will have comparable levels of willingness and ability to be mothers at the same age ranges relative to their biological fertility. Then again, they will not have comparable levels of social support and economic structure either. Motherhood can be a marvelous thing, but it should not be imposed as a duty with no regard for personal interests or vocations.

Fatherhood isn't entirely dissimilar either. We ought to respect individual persons according to their actual needs and desires - all the more so when it comes to their rights and duties towards new generations, I would think. Many a person would make an awful father or mother, but a perhaps decisive uncle or even just a reliable, close friend.

And if my personal experience is any indication, biological ties are no assurance of either emotional or financial security anyway. I have met plenty of situations of people with large biological or even extended families that end up having a very hard time dealing with themselves. It can be very embarrassing at times. Much of the actual loneliness that exists in this world is poorly yet consistently hidden.

It is interesting to consider why that is so. My current understanding is that people have too varied perceptions of what their priorities, needs and means are and should be for confortable understandings to be attained very often, and therefore families often (usually?) have significantly mismatched interests and expectations. To some extent subtle (or even very unsubtle) forms of pressure, manipulation and emotional blackmail are usual mechanisms to deal with those mismatches, going all the way to alcoholism and chemical dependencies when dialogue is particularly broken. Families can be a hindrance or even constant sources of fully blown harm as easily as they can be lasting blessings.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is a bit more nuance in reality than that.

For one, there is some exageration and IMO all-out misperception about the nature and extent of the effects of divorce on the couple's children.

The squalid aspect is: if you think you are going to divorce a person, why do you make children with him?

Also, avoiding divorce is not necessarily a good thing either. I have seen up close that it sends all the wrong messages for children and even for the parents themselves. In a nutshell, it teaches that misery is something to be accepted passively. Even aggression (both passive and physical) in many cases.

Divorces happen because people get married with strangers. Engagements should last 10 years or so.
To know the person better.

It is much, much healthier to instead let go of the myth that people will or should want to live together "forever" and that is the most happiness they can conceivably ever achieve. Let the children learn that love requires care and commitment. Let them understand from an early age that it is not to be taken for granted, and that letting go can be a display of love as meaningful as coming close.

It sounds like a cruel game towards children.
We have suffered, so we make children because we want them to suffer what we have suffered.
Schadenfreude?

Similarly, not all women will have comparable levels of willingness and ability to be mothers at the same age ranges relative to their biological fertility. Then again, they will not have comparable levels of social support and economic structure either. Motherhood can be a marvelous thing, but it should not be imposed as a duty with no regard for personal interests or vocations.

Motherhood should be forbidden to unstable women.

Fatherhood isn't entirely dissimilar either. We ought to respect individual persons according to their actual needs and desires - all the more so when it comes to their rights and duties towards new generations, I would think. Many a person would make an awful father or mother, but a perhaps decisive uncle or even just a reliable, close friend.

My best friends has had tens of men in her life. Men who don't want to be fathers.
She enjoys a libertine lifestyle.
Never got pregnant. Never had abortions.
Promiscuity doesn't mean making children-
Sex doesn't produce children. Not necessarily.

And sex has nothing to do with procreation.

To some extent subtle (or even very unsubtle) forms of pressure, manipulation and emotional blackmail are usual mechanisms to deal with those mismatches, going all the way to alcoholism and chemical dependencies when dialogue is particularly broken. Families can be a hindrance or even constant sources of fully blown harm as easily as they can be lasting blessings.

The problem is that people imitate others.
Women make children because their best friend got pregnant.

But not all women have the parental vocation.

 

[LuisDantas]

The squalid aspect is: if you think you are going to divorce a person, why do you make children with him?

It does not have to be squalid (as you put it).

Divorced parents can be (and I believe that they often are) marvelously present and supportive (both financially and emotionally) towards their children. Stepparents can be very good presences as well.

And divorced couples often end up reaching better and healthier understandings towards each other than they had while married. It is entirely reasonable and realistic to find out and accept that the person you once were enthusiastic about raising a family no longer has very many common interests and goals with oneself and no one should feel bad about that. People change and people stray apart, often towards new interests and personal projects that are no less legitimate than their previous ones. True love is at least as much as acceptance of change as it is about commitment and acceptance of duty.

Really, everyone should aim to do better than simply emulating and maintaining what they have already learned and are already confortable with. All the more so when it comes to setting examples and structures to their children. It would be very miserable indeed to expect each generation to have no hope of being any happier than its predecessors.

On a more pragmatic level, I should point out that it is just not possible to reliably know upfront whether you will eventually divorce if you marry. And it is probably not very useful to try.

 

[Estro Felino]

It does not have to be squalid (as you put it).

It's a golden mine for divorce attorney.
Just for them.

Really, everyone should aim to do better than simply emulating and maintaining what they have already learned and are already confortable with. All the more so when it comes to setting examples and structures to their children. It would be very miserable indeed to expect each generation to have no hope of being any happier than its predecessors.

On a more pragmatic level, I should point out that it is just not possible to reliably know upfront whether you will eventually divorce if you marry. And it is probably not very useful to try.

Just a question: do you believe the world is overpopulated?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a golden mine for divorce attorney.
Just for them.

Do you think that children are usually less happy when their parents divorce?

I don't think that is a very realistic or justified perception, myself.

Just a question: do you believe the world is overpopulated?

Do I ever! Both the economic and political challenges are exponentially harder for us all as a result.

Most of us will live to see the communities blow into twice or even three times the population levels that we were raised with and were once confortable with. That makes all sorts of challenges considerably harder to deal with - and all at once.

We are simply not nearly wise enough nor frugal enough to really be up for those challenges.