[sesIgnose]

If we really, deeply wonder why people have children, the rational answer is simple : genetic setting and hormones that control our behaviour. If we think about the purpose of having children, the answer is simple again : to perpetuate the species, and transmit some of one's genes to the next generation.

Survival : fighting for oneself rather than the species

People and animals fight for survival. The more intelligent they are, the more sophisticated ways they will find to survive. But let us not forget that each life being fights for its own survival before that of the whole species. Competition with one's own kind is part of nature. Both animals and humans fight each others for a mate, for food, for territory... Sometimes competition within the same species can be tougher than against other species. Cats fight each others, but cats will never try to attack a cow or a horse, and vice-versa. The same is true for humans. Humans make war and kill each others, but usually don't care about the birds making a nest in their gardens or the worms inside the trees. We are far more focused on competing with our own species than with others. That's just the way it is, for all species...

The basic purpose of life

The primary purpose of life is to survive, by eating and not being killed. Since no life being is eternal, we must procreate to assure that part of our genes continue to exist. Unfortunately, the paradox of life is that we, sexual beings, cannot pass more than half our DNA to our progeny. We can have many children though, to compensate and hope that the totality of our genes will survive. Men, who are not limited in the number of potential children, have higher potential than women to pass a greater percentage of genes. But competition between them is stronger as for each women who bears one man's offspring, she deprives the opportunity to other men.

The purpose of life for modern humans

Modern humans in rich and developed countries do not have to care much about fighting for food and security - particularly in more socially minded and egalitarian societies. The new purpose of life has recently become enjoyment for its own sake. Sex has become a form of entertainment rather than just a means of procreation. Food has become an enjoyment rather than a means of survival. Comfort has supplanted security (already achieved) as a basic necessity. People always carry the same blend of sociability and selfishness as before, a balance that ultimately depends on one's gender, character and culture (that is, genes and environment).

What does progeny have to do with the purposes of modern life ?

Reflecting about what humans really crave, 'power' and 'money' first spring to mind. It is understandable, since they both theoretically assure, or at least help, one's survival. Money buys food, property, and even security. Power brings money and control. Extremely rich and powerful people can hope to have more children than the average and pass as many of their genes as possible to posterity. This attitude has been fairly typical of developing countries throughout history, be it Western countries until one or two centuries ago, most of the developing world today.

The extreme cases of power

What is the purpose of having many children if many of them probably won't be able survive ? More rational people have thought about this issue and decided it would be better to have fewer children, and make sure that they remain on top of society, with a good education, lots of resources and enough political influence. It is how the upper classes usually behave, including dynasties of business barons and top politicians of which the United States has the most illustrious examples. These all-powerful people control most of the country's economy, possess most of the land, and are the real decision-makers of the so-called democracy, since they can control the media, finance political campaigns and bribe politicians. They usually know each others, and marry each others, forming a new aristocracy. Every organised society has always had its elite and aristocracy. Power and money breed aristocratic dynasties.

But why would these rich and powerful people want to marry each others ? Keeping money inside the family is an obvious reason. But for whom, for what ultimate purpose ? The parents will eventually die, so why care about their offspring ? Obvious answer: because part of their genes are passed on. And why would they keep marrying each others within a circle of a few thousands people of similar status ? Because they want to prevent their genes dissipating too much, while at the same time avoiding problems of consanguinity. The smaller the gene pool, the higher the chance that future generations will resemble the present one (which are deemed superior present-day individuals as they have been so successful in reaching or maintaining this upper class status). This is the ultimate rationale to assure that one's genes survive for as long as possible (the more money/property, the more generations inheriting it will be able to survive, whatever happens in the world or the economy).

One could say that humans, like all life beings, only care about their own survival, and as they are bound to die, will do whatever it takes to assure that their genes survive.
This is the principle guiding all human behaviours and emotions. Jealousy (in love) is the fear to lose one's mate and thus of losing one's chance pass on one's genes (even if we don't think about it consciously). Envy is a craving for money, that is resources that help someone survive (or reproduce). In what way does a sports car help a man survive/reproduce ? Because that increase his chances of seducing potential mates. Knowledge directly or indirectly helps people survive. It can help them get a better job, more money, power or mates.


What is the point of one's offspring survival in an open, cosmopolitan and rich society ?

We can only pass 50% of our genes in each child, and are limited in the number of children through financial constraints. Each child loses in average a further quarter of our genes. After a few generations, the percentage of DNA left from a single ancestor becomes rather tiny, but the total genes passed on can increase if we have a lot of descendants (more than two each generation).

Until the 20th century, most people stayed all their lives in the place where the were born. People might migrate once to a distant place, but their descendants would in all likelihood stay in that new area. This way people in a small village would constantly marry some distant relatives (3rd, 4th, 5th cousins...), or sometimes even first or second cousins (although this is genetically risky). But that was a way to preserve as much of their ancestors genes as they could. Some people weren't able to procreate or lost all their children to diseases. But their brothers and sisters and cousins would have children, which would ensure that some of everyone's genes were passed on to posterity, no matter what. This was a truly reassuring feeling.

Now that people have less children and find mates all over the world, in any ethnic group, the risk of completely losing one's genes after a few generations has increased. People having 3 or 4 children have higher chances to see their genes survive in the long-run than those with just 1 or 2 children. And if we do not care about the survival of our genes, then what is our life's purpose ? Enjoying oneself ? Then why succumb to one's instinct and hormones to make children, as they are going to be costly, hard to educate properly, and take most of our free time away from our selfish enjoyment ? Ironically it is often the people with the least personal ambitions in life that have the most children, as if to fill a void and give themselves a new purpose in life. Unfortunately that is danger for the future of society. If all the brightest, most creative, most successful and most beautiful people just enjoy their life by realising all their dreams and ambitions, partying and enjoying their money, that only leaves the others to procreate. As intelligence, creativity and even physical beauty are to some extend determined by the genes, a society that lets its best elements childless is ultimately doomed.


I hope this will make some of you reflect about the importance of having children, and wonder about what is the ultimate purpose of life.

After all, life is a biochemical process creating tiny beings in an infinite universe. We humans are nothing in this infinity. Why do we have to feel such existential torment about our progeny and what to do with our life, when we know it is meaningless at the scale of the universe ? On the other end, if we feel too meaningless, then what's the point of living at all ? View more random threads same category:

• Tiredness: how does one get rid of it?
• Reverse Culture Shock
• Do you forgive people easily ?
• How individualistic are you ?
• Soul Music
• Have good manners dissappered?

[Searmoreibe]

I have heard that the best form of birth control is the desire for social and economic gains. The more successful individuals are, the less need for large families.

I do think that having children is an enormous decision that too many unfortunately do not take seriously. I don't know about passing on one's genes, but I do feel potential parents need to feel a calling, if you will, to teach and guide another human being through the world. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, and it's respectable to forego that choice if they truly don't feel the calling to be a parent. But those who do feel a need to have children, should take that decision very seriously, as it will impact the rest of their lives in very dramatic ways.

I know so many couples that are just now feeling like they have their lives back after so many years of having to give it up in favor of raising another human being(s) in the world. Couples become estranged and no longer know each other once the children leave the nest. On the other hand, some couples feel having children brings them closer, as that's all they have together, so it depends on each individual case.

Having children is definitely a huge sacrifice of one's time and very life, and as I have already pointed out, it's a decision that should not be taken lightly. Many couples jump into the situation, without having really thought it through, only to regret the decision later. They realize they are no longer a couple and can no longer travel and do things together as they used to, they no longer have privacy, solitude, etc. So that is why I think potential parents really need to feel a calling to be a parent and that the decision should never be taken lightly.

I've gone back and forth on this issue, and I think I used to be in love with the idea of having children. But when I examined the reality of it, I wasn't so sure it was what I wanted for my life and future. I guess it's still up in the air, but I am more drawn to a future with a man I can share my life with, and I'm not so sure I would want children to interfere with that. However, like I said, it's still pretty much up in the air, at this point.

[Seisyvose]

If we wonder at why people have children, the rational answer is simple : genetical setting and hormones that control our behaviour.

They provide rough outlines and backdrop, no more. Moreover the whole "People do ___ for ___ evolutionary reason" is very often used with arguments of extremely shaky logic and sometimes for morally repugnant ends.

The evolutionary process isn't looking over your shoulder for your every action - cultural and technological environment is equally if not more significant.

Take the really basic question of whether and when to have children. For animals the general* equation is 'sex = (after some delay) offspring'. Ever since humans realised this link (and goodness knows how long ago that was) there has been the option of trying to avoid sex (or at least certain kinds in order to avoid having children.

It doesn't stop there though thanks to condoms and other contraceptive devices humans can how have their cake and eat it ... so to speak Exactly when condoms were first invented seems a bit unclear - at least back as far as the 16th Century
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/newrepl...reply&p=134887
or if you want to believe everything you read on the Internet the Romans had them over a millenia and a half before then.

So what this means in practice is that a big lever 'used' by Evolution has been yanked out from under the human race. Humans are now (at least theoretically) having children because they _want_ to have children and whether they (on average) want to have children depends very strongly on their cultural background and personal circumstances.

Note that contraception has a very short history on the evolutionary scale - almost certainly too small for the human race to have changed significantly in genetic make up over that period.

* There are exceptions.

[Faigokilix]

Thanks Paul for the info on contraception, but my article had a deeper meaning that just the economical or social reasons to have children or not. What I meant was "is it really as important as your life itself, as important as living, enjoying yourself, realizing your dreams, etc." to have children, because we are only life beings and life beings are meant to procreate or lose all value ? Is it a matter or life or death (or rather "beyond" that) to care about one's offspring and its survival over the next generation ? If the richer and more powerful people's goal is to create "dynasties" to ensure that their descendent can assure their own offspring to survive, and so on, then what shall we think of people who don't want to have children ? Wasted lives ? Genes sacrificed to the benefits of others ?

But thinking that life is, after all, just a mechanical and natural process, and that our very existence is so meaningless by the dimensions of the universe, why not just enjoy ourselves, even if that mean destroying the earth or humanmind, as anyway life is nothing special and we won't be there to see what happen after we die.

These are the extremes, and I would like you (all) to consider the question and think which direction is better - namely with children thinking about posterity, or without children thinking of one's selfish enjoyment.

You could of course answer that the best in caring about posterity while enjoying oneself (which I try to do), but my question is more philosophical than practical in value.

[WaydayTew]

What I meant was "is it really as important as your life itself, as important as living, enjoying yourself, realizing your dreams, etc." to have children, because we are only life beings and life beings are meant to procreate or lose all value ?"

Well that's an easy one.

No.

If you want more specifics I shall provide two hints to my philosophy;
1. The means is also the end.
which is particularly important given that
2. The literal end will _always_ be futile.

Addressing point two first. Excepting matters of faith the universe will only be able to support life of any conceivable or unconceivable type for a finite amount of time. If the only value of life is that it begets further life then there is no value to life.

Which brings us round to point one. People often put forwards answers that, to a greater or lesser extent, depend on "The end justifies the means." What they usually miss is that every point towards 'the end' and every means used is part of the end result obtained. Otherwise you could justify 'hell' for a billion years if you get 'heaven' for one second at the end of it. Given that the ultimate end is with absolute certainty complete death for every lifeform in the universe any evaluation which doesn't include the value of quality of life in the present is pretty futile.

[JacksHH]

How do you know that-- that your existance is insignificant. Everybody lives for a reason, everybody peforms an action in the world that has a reaction. Perhaps you live in order to meet your future wife and then give birth to the next world leader, einstein or whatever. Perhaps you live so that even one small insignificant action of yours will have a grea impact on someone elses' life and he/she may end up doing a good thing because of that. I really beleive that every persoan has his/her value in our world, even a prostitute or junkie, thought they seem perfectly useless, it just takes one action from that to spark a positive reaction on someone to justify their existance.

[sueplydup]

I also don't believe we are limited by the dimensions of the universe. I tend to agree with the views held by quantum physicists, who maintain that the mechanistic approach of Descartes is no longer relevant and should be replaced by a holistic system similar to that of Eastern mystics. According to Systems Theory, there is an interconnectedness of all living things, and we are not separate from each other and our world.

In fact, here are two links to a fascinating article on this subject called "The Holographic Universe":

I doubt that there are all too many quantum physicists who believe in this Holographic Universe stuff. Neither do I think, that they propose to see the World from an Eastern mystic point of view.

What the article theorises/is based upon is quantum "teleportation", I think. There is absolutely no proven link between this & human intelligence. For what I know, the latter can very well be explained by a "mechanistic approach." Consciousness works on atomic or even molecular levels.

[MyLeva]

The site seems to have a nice comment about the current situation of repopulation, though it did get some details wrong. The answer is pretty straight, someone or something want us dead. So 'they' intent drive us to extinction in the name of 'progress'/'evolution'.


The novel "1984" seems to have a good commentary about the current situation back then and now.

1~2% of the population is the Inner Party = These days we would refer them as celebrities, kings, Presidents, and so on.

13% the population is the Outer Party = These days we would refer them Policemen, Firemen, the Army, and so on.

85% the population is the Proles = These days we would refer them as the average Joe or Jane.

And thank God the world is the pretty much alright, despite how mess up it look like to the people in Outer Party.



As for overpopulation destroyed the human species.

Not very likely, since before things get overpopulated, the rate of population increase will stall and then there will be a population decline, and then everything will be back to normal. And so far, I haven't seen the rate of population to be stalling in the near future.


Though of course the destruction of humans is what 'they' want, too bad for 'them' that 'they' wouldn't get it anytime soon. We will die peacefully, arigato gozaimasu, but not until we screw 'them' totally.

We would breed heavily that would leave our numbers like the stars of the heaven and the sand upon the sea shore, we will conquer the world, and no one can do nothing about it.



As for "Every new baby born is also a potential new Hitler or Eva Braun."

Great! We will have another wonderful painter or athlet! Or maybe just puppets who happened to be wonderful painters or athletes.

So what's the potential for disaster? You already mentioned the potential for progress (Adolf and Eva), what is the potential for disaster? That these two might be used as puppets to provocate their own people to fight against their own people? To solve that dillemma is easy, just eliminate or 'neutered' the puppet master.

[SweetCaroline]

Actually, some bird species decided to stop flying (not really suddenly, but yet).

Hehehe, I completely forgot about chikens

Since so many other humans before you have killed other humans senselessly, is it a duty for us to go on with it?

Not quite the same thing. I meant to say is that if that the advancment of our species has come as result of procreation, the tool that our and any other species needs in order to keep surving. Every new baby born is a contribution to ensure the progress of mankind. Just imagine, 2 people who have the potential to give birth to someone that would be naturally immune to some incurable disease, or who knows, have some other special attributes, and those 2 people don't procreate because they suddenly decide not to.

I don't think, you can derive any duty from the deeds of your ancestors. It's your choice, & this choice is largely based on your instincts.

Of course i can derive a certain sense of duty. If I am who I am today, it is thanks to them, it wasn't just my parents who contributed to me being born and to my attributes of today, but also the genes that were inhereted by my ancestors. Perhaps the best quality that I posses may be something I inhereted from my great grand-father. Yeah it is my choice, I'm not saying procreate at all cost because so have done your ancestors, however, my point is that if they mated and created a child, then why shouldn't you do it ?

I noticed that I didn't answer the original question "Is your offspring's future one of your life's purpose?"
In my case: a definite no.
Whether I procreate or not would be essentially a decision of my girlfriend/wife. I'm not really interested in having descendants. If I should have some, I'd care for them until they can look after themselves. That would be it. Their future is in their own hands.

Perfect, thats your opinion, and I respect that, however, I respectuflly disagre.

Again, let my make myself clear ; I am not saying that you must procreate, that doing it is the absolute and unconditional right thing for everyone to do, that those who don't are not of any use. By all means no. I'm just saying that if you are able to conceive a child, then in a way it is a natural calling that you must fullfill.

[itepearce]

I doubt that there are all too many quantum physicists who believe in this Holographic Universe stuff. Neither do I think, that they propose to see the World from an Eastern mystic point of view.

Actually, whether quantum physicists support the Eastern mystic point of view or not (and certainly a number of them do), many recent experiments are beginning to point to a "reality" in which very little is absolutely defined and one which is to a great extent determined by external observation. And that freaks me out in a good way.

[Jalieteplalry]

One could argue time might not be finite.

Time might not be finite. But the amount of time during which this universe could support any possible form of life is finite.

As far as I know there is still a disagreement over whether the universe is finite or not.

I don't know whether it's finite in size but it's almost certainly finite in life-supporting duration.

[botagozzz]

Hmmm

Maybe we should go back to the original topic

Is your offspring's future one of your life's purpose ?

I'd have to say yes. Just like I was and am form my parents, then I would have to say that I assume the same thing for myself.

In biology a fit being is one that procreates, if it is something that I can do, that I am able to, something that nature has granted me the power to achieve, then why not? Nature has given birds the ability to fly, fish to swimm, and all beings to procreate. Imagine a world where birds suddenly say hmmm u know what I think I'm just gonna go walk from now on. Or if the fish stopped swiming and would just say hm u know what im just gonna....
hmmmmm, i cant complete this analogy

If we came from a single cell organism to where we are now, how do you think we got here ? If so many other humans before me procrated and I was born as a result, isn't it a duty of mine, a part of life, a task, a reason to live, that I woud do what comes natural to me ?

Well this is my view anyways, I don't mean to say that others who don't agree with me are wrong, but this is just what I beleive

[Zugaxxsn]

I've always heard that the unexamined life is not worth living. Allow me to expand upon that by remarking that the overly-examined life is too damned depressing to live.

*applauds*

[melissa]

@Paul

I was playing the Devil's advocate.

I wanted to point out that in the end, it's always going to be a matter of faith, whether it's in god, Elvis, or thermodynamics.

As for the navel gazing, I think that was the point of this thread. Still, I agree with mike. Only I'd rather smell coffee than roses right now.



Immortality through my kids? My genes?
Can't I have sex just because I like to?

[drycleden]

many recent experiments are beginning to point to a "reality" in which very little is absolutely defined and one which is to a great extent determined by external observation.

The point is: "very little". This "reality" works only on quantum levels. We live in the "macro world", we are "macro beings", which means we are subjected to our "laws of physics" in contrast to the "laws of quantum physics" which rule the "quarks world".

So many "", hmm. That probably means that I'm not too sure what I'm talking about. Have to think again (or read up on the subject), I suppose.

[feqlmwtuqx]

Hehehe, I completely forgot about chikens

Er..., don't want to sound like a teacher, but, er..., chickens actually can fly. They don't do it very often & are not very good at it, but they can. I thought more of emus & such.

Every new baby born is a contribution to ensure the progress of mankind. Just imagine, 2 people who have the potential to give birth to someone that would be naturally immune to some incurable disease, or who knows, have some other special attributes, and those 2 people don't procreate because they suddenly decide not to. Hmm, this may be the difference between an optimist & a realist (or a pessimist, just as you wish). I see the potential of progress, but it's only a potential. At the same time there is a potential for disaster. Every new baby born is also a potential new Hitler or Eva Braun.


Of course i can derive a certain sense of duty. If I am who I am today, it is thanks to them, it wasn't just my parents who contributed to me being born and to my attributes of today, but also the genes that were inhereted by my ancestors. Perhaps the best quality that I posses may be something I inhereted from my great grand-father. Yeah it is my choice, I'm not saying procreate at all cost because so have done your ancestors, however, my point is that if they mated and created a child, then why shouldn't you do it ? You can feel a certain duty, but it does not logically derive. That's what I wanted to say. If you feel you owe your ancestors anything, then it is your own decision. People are (or at least should be) free to make that choice.

Again, let my make myself clear ; I am not saying that you must procreate, that doing it is the absolute and unconditional right thing for everyone to do, that those who don't are not of any use. By all means no. I'm just saying that if you are able to conceive a child, then in a way it is a natural calling that you must fullfill. Disagreement is nice, this is a discussion forum. Would be quite boring if we all agreed.
But this last remark in my last post was not directed at you, it was just a general answer to the original question. Sorry if I caused confusion.

[WoCTrt0X]

Personally I feel a calling to leave some work behind that will benefit lots of people somehow (if intangibly) even after I'm dead, but I've absolutely no incentive to personally pass my genes down to the next generation. Not to say I "hate" children, since I don't per se, but of numerous reasons why I sincerely doubt that I'll hear even a peep out of my biological clock, I'd say the biggest one is that there are many children being born anyway for whom I could adopt and provide a stable and nurturing environment, when the time is right. If I'm going to shape part of the future generations of humanity I'd rather pass down values, ideals, and knowledge than my cholesterol problems, migraines, and nose shape (to be flippant about it).

Personal experience with my (biological; I wasn't adopted) parents has shown me that I'd rather choose to adopt a child (ages 4-6) whose personality traits are clearly forming and compatible to mine, than play the genetic roulette and end up with a child whom I'd love perhaps unconditionally, yet suffer much heartbreak from owing to their utterly conflicting proclivities mentally, emotionally, and possibly physically.

But that's just my two cents. I'm not looking at the bigger picture...

[GentlieGant]

The genetic combinations can be as recombined by chance that our children and future descendants not resemble the father in anything, I'd rather raise a child clone of myself and put up without their mother.

[qzgCVHex]

Excepting matters of faith the universe will only be able to support life of any conceivable or unconceivable type for a finite amount of time. One could argue time might not be finite.



As far as I know there is still a disagreement over whether the universe is finite or not. So, technically it is a matter of faith regardless.

[erelvenewmeva]

The point is: "very little". This "reality" works only on quantum levels. We live in the "macro world", we are "macro beings", which means we are subjected to our "laws of physics" in contrast to the "laws of quantum physics" which rule the "quarks world".

Just today in New Scientist is an article that there might actually be a bigger influence of the quantum world on the macro world. There is no valid proof for this yet, but obviously well enough researched for NS to publish the news.

Quote:
"Now, he has shown in a paper submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters that entanglement can explain one of the defining traits of superconductivity – the Meissner effect, in which a magnet will levitate above a piece of superconducting material. The magnetic field induces a current in the surface of the superconductor, and this current effectively excludes the magnetic field from the interior of the material, causing the magnet to hover.

Only a current composed of entangled electrons in the superconductor can achieve this effect, Vedral says. The current halts the photons of the magnetic field after they have travelled only a short distance through the superconductor. For the normally massless photons it is as if they have suddenly entered treacle, effectively giving them a mass.

Vedral admits that the idea is still sketchy. “Intuitively speaking, I think there must be a connection [between entanglement and mass],” he says. “But whether we can quantify it remains unclear.”"