The logic of reproduction

PhysiologyRocks

Is there any good, solid, logical, non-emotional reason to have children?

I know that evolutionary psychology argues that keeping one's genes alive is important, but in reality, nobody with children is affected by the gene being kept alive after their death.

People find children cute. Cats and dogs are also cute. They do funny things.

Other aspects of life can be satisfying also, but logically speaking, why is having kids perceived to be more fulfilling?

If you look at parenting completely objectively, it involves many stresses that could be avoided. Yet people still have children.

Let me finish by clarifying that I actually like children, and am in no way anti-child. I'm just wondering about the logic.

ChocolateSauce

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

Is there any good, solid, logical, non-emotional reason to have children?.

You want to have people to look after you when you're old is the best one that comes to mind.

Joey the lips

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

Is there any good, solid, logical, non-emotional reason to have children?

I know that evolutionary psychology argues that keeping one's genes alive is important, but in reality, nobody with children is affected by the gene being kept alive after their death.

People find children cute. Cats and dogs are also cute. They do funny things.

Other aspects of life can be satisfying also, but logically speaking, why is having kids perceived to be more fulfilling?

If you look at parenting completely objectively, it involves many stresses that could be avoided. Yet people still have children.

Let me finish by clarifying that I actually like children, and am in no way anti-child. I'm just wondering about the logic.

What is illogical about it? Surly its perfectly natural! I am of the opinion that the illogical part is not haveing them!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/271761/why_do_people_have_children.html?cat=52

but it seems you have supporters!

The world would be an interesting place if we did not have kids! So the answer to your question seems to be no there is only emotional reasons for haveing kids!

But then again, why do we spend time with partners and why do we have friends? we could just be sex budddies and meet on alternative nights for a quickie and as for friends? who gives a fcuk if your wife is doing your head in?


It seems that we are all joined on an emotional level... jesus i hate eastenders!

callig

For the good of the species?

mickoneill30

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

Is there any good, solid, logical, non-emotional reason to have children?

It's probably logical to the species from an evolutionary point of view. Any species that found having offspring illogical will most likely die out so logically only species that have an instinct to mate and reproduce will survive.

If you ask any parent if they would prefer to go back in time and not have their kids to avoid all of the stresses they had to put up with over the years I'd say they would say they wouldn't.

Most likely the happiness of having a kid > stresses of having a kid.
So logically you should have a kid to have more happiness in your life

Disclaimer: I'm not a parent and I see kids every day that would make you wonder why anybody would have kids ever again.

AARRRGH

Pretty much everyone I know did it for emotional reasons, e.g. my life is boring, I am not happy, it'll make my relationship better, etc.

opinion guy

Because we are evolved to want children. Logically, having them fulfills that evolutionary evolved emotional drive making us feel happy/complete etc etc.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You want to have people to look after you when you're old is the best one that comes to mind.

Never hurts to have a few compatible organs around either eh ??? :P

Joey the lips wrote: »

It seems that we are all joined on an emotional level... jesus i hate eastenders!

.....for some reason when i read this line i hear peggy mitchell's voice saying - its all about FAMMMMMMILY

PhysiologyRocks

I get all the evolutionary arguments. I even mentioned it indirectly in my original post. Still, realistically, how will it affect the parent after death? What is the mechanism by which we are programmed to feel this way? Why is is personally advantageous to keep the human species alive?

Largely arguing for argument's sake here, but am genuinely curious.

miec

Hi Op

Can I just check with you that when you say a logical reason for a having a child is based on practical reasons?

Working from the above definition of logical child producing, the first one is that one needs to produce a new generation otherwise entire communities would die away, there would a strain on the younger generation who care for or financially support the older generation, there would be no new workforce, no new ideas and as such conservative forms of thinking would remain. Declining populations affect the economy and the entire social structure and causes it to collapse in on itself, in a similar way that an over expanding population places to many burdens on a limited social structure.

I am going to give two examples of how this operates. Rural Ireland after the famine changed their practises from sub division (where land was shared amongst all the children) to leaving the land to one single heir. This precipitated a drop in marriage and the rise of celibate men and women which resulted in a drop in population. It was a practical immediate solution but continued on for too long and whole communities in rural Ireland died away (in particular the west of Ireland). The social problems caused by the lack of a new generation resulted in ageing, lonely and marganilised men and women, the death of whole communities (I should add this problem was also exacaberated by emigration) along with social, economic and individual entropy.

Another example is the catholic church in Ireland, as there are no new priests joining, the burden on the older priests is greater and because there is no new blood in the Catholic church they cling to old and outdated ideas and it is dying on its knees. I am not a practising catholic nor am I advocating an increase in their power, God knows this country suffered enough from them, but I wanted to use them as an example of an institution that is ran by old men who cling to old ways, and this is causing its death.

Another logical reason to have a child is because having a child can help an adult to develop and grow as an individual. You said that children are stressful, but a parent has to learn how to be a teacher (teach their children from dressing to manners, to housework, to cooking, etc, etc) a parent has to be a counsellor and a leader for their children, you learn these skills through trial and error but in effect what I am trying to say is that children help the parent to grow and they enlarge their consciousness because they have to consider another person.

Not everyone takes parenting that seriously, and many think that they can just pop a child into a microwave and hey presto! a well adjusted adult emerges with minimal effort from the parent. It does not work like that. Parenting is hard, hard work but it also enriches the world and consciousness of the parent. I have now slipped into the emotive but the thing is I don't know if you can have children based on logical reasoning only.

If you look at parenting completely objectively, it involves many stresses that could be avoided. Yet people still have children.

Life is stressful and I wonder have we developed a mentality that seeks to avoid all forms of stress from life and is that a good thing but you raise some interesting points because prior to contraception humanity could not think like this or make a choice about having children. For the first time humanity can make a choice about having children and how will this affect things in the future?

CathyMoran

Not a logical reason, but one of my reasons is to see what a mix of my husband and I look like.

PhysiologyRocks

miec wrote: »

Life is stressful and I wonder have we developed a mentality that seeks to avoid all forms of stress from life

Believe me, I'm not one to avoid stress! I'm just making an intellectual exercise out of this, really. Would not make this kind of decision for another long time yet, and would certainly base it on things other than logical arguments, as well as a few practicalities!

But is there a reason why it's a problem that a community dies out, if the potential parent is not there to see it? Why?

EDIT: By logical, I suppose I mean 'cold' reasons. I'd consider 'enrichment/personal development' to be emotive reasoning, but having someone to look after you in old age to be solid and logical. Biology seems to explain why people do it, so I'm not really looking for explanations, as such. I'm just wondering if there are any logical/cold/tangible/solid reasons to have children, in terms of its effect on your life.

Firetrap

Seems to be some sort of genetic thing. Or maybe it's a nature/nurture thing. I'm not sure. I've never figured out the purpose of humans in the first place

miec

Hi Op

It is an interesting question and one I enjoyed twisting my brain into so for that thanks,

But is there a reason why it's a problem that a community dies out, if the potential parent is not there to see it? Why?

EDIT: By logical, I suppose I mean 'cold' reasons. I'd consider 'enrichment/personal development' to be emotive reasoning, but having someone to look after you in old age to be solid and logical.

Okay so sticking with my first point, the difficulty is that the lack of a new generation affects the entire community in a number of ways. Say for example a village has 500 people and many of them decide not to have a children, they are happy with this. The schools have to be reduced because there are not enough children to fill them so those teachers become unemployed, have to move away or retire early. The post office has to close down because it is no longer viable, other social outlets close down because they do not have enough customers. The remaining young people who live there have fewer people to interact with and when they are old enough they leave the place because it is too boring and stagnant. People's chances to meet other people romantically also become limited in their local area so they either remain alone or move away. In actual fact a brilliant book that shows the effects of this is called Inishkillane by Hugh Brody. So lets say that community dies, who cares, well maybe those old people who are attached to it, but they will die away so maybe no one, but let's say this practise occurs on a large scale, (very hypothetical here) then in effect this occurs on a larger scale and whole towns die away. If humans do not procreate, the human race would die away (this is taking it to nth degree). So that for me is one very logical reason to procreate. I can't think of any other reasons at this point but I might come back to you on that.

PhysiologyRocks

Hello miec!

I understand that, and did when I started the thread, but I doubt potential parents say to themselves that they should reproduce so the race doesn't die out. Also, it doesn't affect their lives directly even if the species finishes.

It is a logical reason in terms of certain bigger pictures, but not in terms of the life of the parent.

Zombrex

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I get all the evolutionary arguments. I even mentioned it indirectly in my original post. Still, realistically, how will it affect the parent after death?

It doesn't, it effects the parent while they are alive

We have evolved to feel good by having children, this is because those with genes to make them feel this way will obviously reproduce more and thus evolutionary speaking they have a higher fitness.

To ask what is the logic of reproduction requires that you first establish what are the goals you have. The logic only comes into play then if the reason to reproduce logically facilitates your goal.

If your goal is to feel good then reproduction leads to that goal

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

What is the mechanism by which we are programmed to feel this way? Why is is personally advantageous to keep the human species alive?

It isn't. That is why evolution gives us other reasons to have children. If you have one man who isn't that bothered about sex and another man, through a genetic mutation, has a strong desire to have sex then the second man is going to reproduce and the first man may not. He is then lost to the mists of time and the second man and his offspring continue to survive, with everyone have a gene that makes them have a strong desire to have sex.

To ask why is it logic for them to have sex is some what irrelevant, it is "logical" because their desires are controlled by their genes.

Zulu

Because we aspire to be gods?
We can create an individual, and shape them (to some extent) into a better form of ourselves, which we can then take great pride in?

Max Headroom

callig wrote: »

For the good of the species?

AARRRGH wrote: »

Pretty much everyone I know did it for emotional reasons, e.g. my life is boring, I am not happy, it'll make my relationship better, etc.

CathyMoran wrote: »

Not a logical reason, but one of my reasons is to see what a mix of my husband and I look like.

Three brilliant answers.....Think it shows what parents think these days........i'm just waiting for the answer "because ye get more child benefits".......;)

miec

It is a logical reason in terms of certain bigger pictures, but not in terms of the life of the parent.

Lol, that is a good come back there but can the individual seperate themselves from the collective? Maybe that is another thread, but okay to try and answer your point in that is it logical to have a child on an individual basis, well I think Wicknight gives a very good arguement for the individual reason to have a chil when he says

To ask why is it logic for them to have sex is some what irrelevant, it is "logical" because their desires are controlled by their genes.

As a woman I have experienced powerful biological urges to have a child (and had one child at the time) at the moment I am undergoing another powerful urge to procreate again, is it logical for me to have one, in a sense no, I am much older now but I have a lot more wisdom and cop on and I cannot truly reason why I want a child, I just feel the urge (mind you my circumstances are pretty strong now to have one, but the last time, they were not so good, but reason went out the window then). I don't know if one can logically have a child. Can humans base decisions purely on logic only? I don't know, maybe some can and some can't. What I am interested to hear is your thoughts on this, do you think an individual can logically have a child?

PhysiologyRocks

Hi again miec.

I don't see how logic could dictate a decision like that. I certainly wouldn't decide with some form of equation! I may well have children at some point.

I asked because I couldn't see any form of logical lifestyle-related reason to reproduce. We were discussing it after a lecture about genetics and reproduction. We had all the emotional arguments, but nothing tangible. We had just listened to an hour about genetics dictating it, which I don't doubt. Still, genes can be overpowered by actions. They make people hairy, and we shave! I was really looking for everyday, quite universal, practical applications of the benefits of having kids, to put it coldly.

I think you can often separate the individual from the herd, but perhaps not here. For example, I have never heard of anyone playing video games for the good of the species, or getting a haircut for the same.

In summation, I wouldn't use logic as a main tool to make a decision of this nature. I doubt it could be done. I was just wondering if it was possible.

CathyMoran

I cant think of any logical reasons either but I know that the urge to reproduce can be very strong, its like love, well it is love...this little thing growing in me at the moment (which is about 2 inches in length now) is totally reliant on me and has turned our lives upside down but my husband and I love it and want to protect it, it has been very wanted always.

PhysiologyRocks

CathyMoran wrote: »

I cant think of any logical reasons either but I know that the urge to reproduce can be very strong, its like love, well it is love...this little thing growing in me at the moment (which is about 2 inches in length now) is totally reliant on me and has turned our lives upside down but my husband and I love it and want to protect it, it has been very wanted always.

Congratulations on being pregnant!

Best of luck with all things baby-related. Hope he or she is healthy and happy and lovely - lucky baby to be so wanted.:)

Max Headroom

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

Congratulations on being pregnant!

Best of luck with all things baby-related. Hope he or she is healthy and happy and lovely - lucky baby to be so wanted.:)

+1;)

I'm just glad to know there are still some responsible people out there ...hope you wont let it wander around the street half naked....

jady88

Max Headroom wrote: »

Three brilliant answers.....Think it shows what parents think these days........i'm just waiting for the answer "because ye get more child benefits".......;)

One of my cousins' cousins had a second baby because they got rejected for a council house with only one...

Zulu

jady88 wrote: »

One of my cousins' cousins had a second baby because they got rejected for a council house with only one...

"My mates friend..."

Max Headroom

jady88 wrote: »

One of my cousins' cousins had a second baby because they got rejected for a council house with only one...

Gutted for them..maybe if they try harder and pop out another couple it'll improve their chances...Judging..?..moi..?..how very dare you..:rolleyes:

miec

logical lifestyle-related reason

Hi Op

When I saw that particular phrase I realised what you meant, the only logical lifestyle-related reason (as an individual but somewhat ties back to the collective) is to produce a future generation who could potentially care for you in old age. Now there is a likelihood that your future offspring will hate you and not want to care for you in old age, or they emigrate, die young, etc, etc, but if you decide not to have a child, then it is forgone conclusion that you will have to rely on private or public care in your old age, whereas if you have a child, then the possibility of care in old age is greater (not guaranteened but greater). That for me is a logical reason to have a child (but a pretty daft one as it is one heck of a gamble).

Also just to add, if you have a business and you want to pass it on to an heir, then having a child is another logical reason as the business remains within the family. (On an emotive level it is another daft reason but people do have children for that reason).

TwoShedsJackson

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You want to have people to look after you when you're old is the best one that comes to mind.

That's probably one of the most selfish reasons you can have kids.

Quite apart from the fact the ungrateful wretches will probably abandon you when you're old anyway.

Jesus Wept

For a long time, I have strugged to find a reason why it isn't predominantly an act of incredible self indulgence.

opinion guy

The-Rigger wrote: »

For a long time, I have strugged to find a reason why it isn't predominantly an act of incredible self indulgence.

Because our genes drive us to. Thats not selfish. Hmmm you could argue its selfless but mmmeeeh no I'm not convinced by that. I guess its both selfish and selfless at the same time.....but only because our genes evolved to make us want them to be happy.....some of us anyhow

Jesus Wept

opinion guy wrote: »

Because our genes drive us to. Thats not selfish. Hmmm you could argue its selfless but mmmeeeh no I'm not convinced by that. I guess its both selfish and selfless at the same time.....but only because our genes evolved to make us want them to be happy.....some of us anyhow

I didn't mention selfish.

Being driven by your genes/instincts is understandable however nowadays many of us are far more aware of our biological drives and influences than our ancestors were.

looksee

It's not always a decision, much less logical .

Otherwise, no, I don't think there are too many logical reasons for having children. Fortunately for the future of the species, illogical reasons are much more compelling.

aidan24326

callig wrote: »

For the good of the species?

And what would that be? That's a slightly naieve way to look at it. Having kids may perpetuate the species yes, but to what end? We will almost certainly go extinct eventually anyway.

Firetrap wrote: »

Seems to be some sort of genetic thing. Or maybe it's a nature/nurture thing. I'm not sure. I've never figured out the purpose of humans in the first place

Probably because there isn't one. There doesn't appear to be a 'purpose' to our being here at all, we just are. People like to have kids because we're programmed that way, it stands to reason that we would be. Needless to say, any species that doesn't like producing offspring won't last very long, and probably wouldn't be here in the first place.

tech77

The-Rigger wrote: »

For a long time, I have strugged to find a reason why it isn't predominantly an act of incredible self indulgence.

[Facetious] The most egotistical thing anyone can ever do :P [/Facetious].

oneintotwo

Why is everyone talking about logic here? "Any species that found reproduction illogical..." - unless you're religiously Darwinian your desire will be instinctive, not based on reason.

Anyways, before contraception it was a simple desire for pleasure that led to reproduction, the progenitor isn't necessarily conscious of the ends to his desires, evolution just takes the path of least resistance, which is a basic urge to satisfy desire.

O Brave New World...

tech77

The-Rigger wrote: »

I didn't mention selfish.

Being driven by your genes/instincts is understandable however nowadays many of us are far more aware of our biological drives and influences than our ancestors were.

The relationship between evolution and psychology is quite interesting.
I often wonder how absolutely pre-determined psychology is by genetics.
Humans like to think they are in control of course but i'd imagine an awful lot of psychology (from basic instinctual drives up to cognition/attitudes etc) is coloured in some way by genes.
I'd imagine that the desire to have kids is one of those aspects of psychology that is strongly genetically mediated and there is always probably a constant enough fraction of the population with a desire/ability to have kids.

tech77

oneintotwo wrote: »

Why is everyone talking about logic here? "Any species that found reproduction illogical..." - unless you're religiously Darwinian your desire will be instinctive, not based on reason.
O Brave New World...

Are they not talking about the logical basis/reason for those instincts.
That would of course be evolutionarily mediated.
That's a given.
But (all the above basic desires being equal as it were) i think the OP is talking more specifically nowadays about the logic/sense behind the desire to have a family.
What is the logic of the psychology behind that.
Again i would say (this is just my opinion) there is still probably a strong evolutionary component informing this (admittedly higher-minded ) predisposition.

The Corinthian

tech77 wrote: »

But (all the above basic desires being equal as it were) i think the OP is talking more specifically nowadays about the logic/sense behind the desire to have a family.
What is the logic of the psychology behind that.

Interesting question. I suspect there are a number of reasons in the modern context, and instinct aside. Here's a few:

Peer pressure. As people go from their twenties to thirties and onwards, their social circle grows smaller. Friends who once went out with you on the town settle down and start families and unless you socialize with groups that are progressively younger than you, you will find you will have little in common with your peers. Additionally, at twenty-five you can party for days in a row - by thirty-five you progressively feel like going home from a night on the town by 1am.

Having children brings you back into your social sphere; gives you common interests with those you have known for years.

Pension. Children have been used as pension plans for millennia, with the only period of human history where the majority could realistically have an independent pension having started after WW2 and even that is increasingly unlikely as any recession could wipe out our private pensions, leaving us dependant on state pension plans that may not even be around by the time we reach our sixties.

I've read that to raise a child costs about €200,000. To build up a decent pension fund costs €400,000. Do the math.

Alternative Career. Not everyone grows up to be an astronaut or becomes a millionaire by thirty. A frightening number of people live pay-check to pay-check in jobs they hate or don't even know what they want to do when they grow up long after they actually have. Others will never get beyond minimum wage, because they lack talent, education or were just plain unlucky.

Changing career in mid life is increasingly common, and parenthood has become such a career change - especially when it is full time and paid for by the state or a more successful partner. For some, they have very few career options to begin with and so makes sense even when young. If you include the aforementioned pension logic, some people are simply economically better off as parents.

Immortality. Practically speaking this is as close as we get unless you manage to become the next Shakespeare, Napoleon, Michelangelo or Mozart. When you hit your mid thirties in particular, this hits people as this is when parents begin to retire or die, and the terrible reality hits you that in a century it will be as if you never existed.

Sure, there may be a footnote in some obscure book about you, but that's it. Even your grave will have been recycled twenty-five years after your death. Genetically, and in memory, children keep part of us alive a little longer (there is no guarantee that they will have kids after all).

Added to this parents transfer their ambition to their children. We had our time and didn't become millionaires or fly to the moon. We're not getting that time back - thank you for playing. However, if we teach our children what we learned along the way, maybe they will succeed where we failed - thus making our own failure less important.

I'm sure there is other logic there, but these are a few that come to mind.

Sleepy

I'm not sure you can discuss this without discussing contraception tbh. Given that we've only lived with effective contraception for less than a century, reproduction being a logical choice is rather an alien concept to humanity.

Even in this context, is doing something to satiate a desire to do it illogical?

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not sure you can discuss this without discussing contraception tbh. Given that we've only lived with effective contraception for less than a century, reproduction being a logical choice is rather an alien concept to humanity.

I thought that this discussion was about the modern context though. Why people chose to have children prior to this or in a hundred years time is another, if related, discussion.

Even in this context, is doing something to satiate a desire to do it illogical?

Evolutionary theory would hold that many of our desires, or instincts, have become prevalent because they were ultimately logical. Even if evolutionary traits are random, those that turn out to give an advantage will thrive, while those that are not will become extinct.

If you answer a multi-choice test randomly, you're bound to get some of the answers right. They are logical in themselves, even if they were not arrived at logically and the logic was only realized afterwords.

kdave

The Corinthian wrote: »

Immortality. Practically speaking this is as close as we get unless you manage to become the next Shakespeare, Napoleon, Michelangelo or Mozart. When you hit your mid thirties in particular, this hits people as this is when parents begin to retire or die, and the terrible reality hits you that in a century it will be as if you never existed.

Sure, there may be a footnote in some obscure book about you, but that's it. Even your grave will have been recycled twenty-five years after your death. Genetically, and in memory, children keep part of us alive a little longer (there is no guarantee that they will have kids after all).

Added to this parents transfer their ambition to their children. We had our time and didn't become millionaires or fly to the moon. We're not getting that time back - thank you for playing. However, if we teach our children what we learned along the way, maybe they will succeed where we failed - thus making our own failure less important.

I'm sure there is other logic there, but these are a few that come to mind.

99% of people in the world will be less than a footnote anyway after they die,why will it matter you will be dead, children would only keep alive your memory in a small way usually but they will mostly carry ono with their own lives, children can be significantly different from their parents.I think people have an even lesser individual identity when they marry/have kids as they will be known as someones husband/wife/mother/father more often than richard or jane
The best that a parent can achive by transfering their ambitions to their children is to even further highlight their own failures or be the worlds biggest hypocrite by pawning off their own failed ambitions and forcing their kids to pursue them

The Corinthian

I think that is the logic often used - I never said it was good or even altruistic.

Realization of one's mortality is a pretty scary thing. Makes us do all sorts of dumb things. I suspect you'll realize that in a few years.

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Realization of one's mortality is a pretty scary thing. Makes us do all sorts of dumb things.

Yep... that's what pretty much lead to me running down a crowded street in Pamplona in front of a dozen bulls...