What are the main reasons for having children in Western society?

[pivoxa15]

I am a bit young to completely know the answer to this question nor do I have kids but I wonder about it.

Is it because
1. You reach a certain age and innately really feel like having one (i.e. to love and care for a child)
2. You think it's the 'right' thing to do and have the resources so you just do it
3. You know that you are mortal but want a part of you to survive after you die so you decide to have a kid
4. Usually by accident and instead of going on treatment you just let the baby grow
5. Lots of other people your age are having it so you decide to have one also. Or pressure from family.
6. You want someone to take care of you when you're sick and old
7. Hope oneday your kids will be very successful so treat it like an investment
8. Have kids as a kind of way to show off and satisfy yourself so an ego boost
9. Other

Select your choices in the anonymous poll above.

If 9. then please tell us what it is.

A discussion of your choice would be good.Obviously there will be a multiple number of factors involved but which is usually the overridng one for a couple in a Western society?

 

[DaveC426913]

You must realize that everyone is going to have a different answer, and that no one can provide any overarching answer...

Maybe you should just treat it as a poll.

I suggest responders pick from the choices listed (including 'other'), and limit their responses to one sentence. Just a suggestion.

Me:

8. Other - Had someone else' kids instead (step kids).

 

[pivoxa15]

A poll would be an efficient way of doing things.

 

[Daverz]

You forgot: "to have little rugrats to love", "egoboo", and "middle class accoutrement".

Investment! That one cracks me up.

 

[pivoxa15]

You forgot: "to have little rugrats to love", "egoboo", and "middle class accoutrement".

Investment! That one cracks me up.

I'd count "to have little rugrats to love" as innate as I am sure most people like this.

What is "egoboo"?

What is "middle class accoutrement"?

Investment doesn't seem too outrageous as it seems like a good way of explaining why some (not wealthy nor very educated) parents push their kids so much and send them to private schools.

 

[verty]

You didn't mention "to get more grant money". It happens, quite often actually.

 

[Daverz]

I'd count "to have little rugrats to love" as innate as I am sure most people like this.

"Innate" is much too vague to be a useful description.

What is "egoboo"?

Ego boost.

What is "middle class accoutrement"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accouterment

Meaning #3.

Investment doesn't seem too outrageous as it seems like a good way of explaining why some (not wealthy nor very educated) parents push their kids so much and send them to private schools.

Do you know of anyone who is actually paying back -- with interest at greater than the rate of inflation! -- what their parents spent on them?

 

[pivoxa15]

You didn't mention "to get more grant money". It happens, quite often actually.

You mean money from the government? I guess that is like investment since you would expect to receive more than your scarifice to bring up the kids.

 

[pivoxa15]

"Innate" is much too vague to be a useful description.

True but I am trying to convey something that is independent of the society you live in. I added an example which is 'to love and care for a child'.

Ego boost.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accouterment

Meaning #3.

They seem like geniune reasons. I probably should have added them although when I wrote 5. I had these things in mind but didn't spell it out.

Do you know of anyone who is actually paying back -- with interest at greater than the rate of inflation! -- what their parents spent on them?

It's obviously a very different kind of investment. The people I know are mostly young adults so not one of them are doing it at the moment but you'd think some of the wealthy individuals would comfortably give their parents back more than what they spent on them. Although this is very rare offcourse. But if they do become very stably successful then parents are set for the rest of their life.

I guess this option would be more attractive for poorer people as it would mean their kids can be less successful (hence more common) in order for their investment to be worthwhile. That could explain why people in poorer countries tend to have more kids.

Although I could be very wrong with all this.

 

[Arian]

The popular vote is correct.
While, the others may have something to do with it, on a purely animal level, the reason humans have sex is to have off spring with the same genes*, who will have off spring with the same genes*. *well, mixed genes.

 

[pivoxa15]

The popular vote is correct.
While, the others may have something to do with it, on a purely animal level, the reason humans have sex is to have off spring with the same genes*, who will have off spring with the same genes*. *well, mixed genes.

Humans are very different from animals because we have choice. Rationally, we have kids so that we can pass our genes down to the next generation. But is that the reason why we deliberately have kids?

In choosing 3. you are saying that passing our genes so that someone like us can live after we die is what we want and what makes us most happy (more then the other options).

 

[verty]

Is passing our genes on such a rational decision?

 

[pivoxa15]

Is passing our genes on such a rational decision?

After I made that post I realized that my use of the word 'rational' was not accurate.

I tried to say, if we were biological robots and were programmed to reproduce than we do not have choice and if we have kids than the (logical, most objective) answer for us why we had kids would have to be 'so that we can pass on our genes'. The programmer could program some other answer but the most logical one, that recquires least amount of subjectivity or 'human factor' would have to be that one.

 

[DaveC426913]

After I made that post I realized that my use of the word 'rational' was not accurate.

I tried to say, if we were biological robots and were programmed to reproduce than we do not have choice and if we have kids than the (logical, most objective) answer for us why we had kids would have to be 'so that we can pass on our genes'. The programmer could program some other answer but the most logical one, that recquires least amount of subjectivity or 'human factor' would have to be that one.

This sounds like your 'innate' option, i.e. we have kids because that's what we do. It is not a 'decision' we make.

 

[verty]

This sounds like your 'innate' option, i.e. we have kids because that's what we do. It is not a 'decision' we make.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[pivoxa15]

This sounds like your 'innate' option, i.e. we have kids because that's what we do. It is not a 'decision' we make.

I didn't mean innate in the most literal sense because we are not robots or unconscious animals. I like it to mean the innate 'want' to have kids is greater than the other factors we consciously think up. This results in us to consciously decide to have kids because we think the benefits (from satisfing our innate want) will outweigh the costs.

All of the options are of this kind except for maybe investment as it is a more direct, quantitive measure of this kind of thinking, that is benefits outweigh costs.

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't mean innate in the most literal sense because we are not robots or unconscious animals. I like it to mean the innate 'want' to have kids is greater than the other factors we consciously think up. This results in us to consciously decide to have kids because we think the benefits (from satisfing our innate want) will outweigh the costs.

That's what I'm saying too.

But it would be folly to pretend that we've overcome 3 billion years of evolution and now simply do things by conscious choice.

 

[pivoxa15]

That's what I'm saying too.

But it would be folly to pretend that we've overcome 3 billion years of evolution and now simply do things by conscious choice.

Ever since the industrial revolution there are exponentially more choices then before so that makes us in a more of a position to choose, simply because we have much more options.

I have a feeling I should have changed 'innate' to 'To love and care for a child' because innate is too vague and could cause misconceptions such as the willingness to have sexual intercourse which is not what I intend. Maybe the 'Accidental' option would fit this better. However, it is probably this single want that has driven human reproduction for most of the period of time of human evolution.

 

[pivoxa15]

Another reason might be because you love your wife very much and want a human that is a hybrid of your favourate two people on earth, you and your wife. By doing that and raising up the child, you will learn a lot more of your wife and yourself. And also deepen your relationship with your wife. How common is this reason?

 

[verty]

Another reason might be because you love your wife very much and want a human that is a hybrid of your favourate two people on earth, you and your wife. By doing that and raising up the child, you will learn a lot more of your wife and yourself. And also deepen your relationship with your wife. How common is this reason?

Unfortunately, people who 'want' a human tend to want to control them and I think that is bad. That's what pets are for.

 

[Panda]

As strange as it sounds, I had one because I knew that if I didn't then I would never know if I was missing out and may regret it later. This coincided with me getting bored with my job.

I am assuming that if I bring him up without too many social hang-ups he should be self sufficient in 30 years and can go his own way.

All the other bits of love etc are in there as well but the actual decision of should I go to Venice or Have a Kid, Buy a Jensen Interceptor or a Skoda Estate came down to the above.

My sister is also passing 40 with no kids yet and you can see the hidden female clock kicking in big time. At times she gets really angry at me for being so lucky, so in some ways I'm glad I didn't have to wait until my girl friend (That sounds so pants when we have lived together for 11 years) went through something similar.

I think you have kids for different reasons based on sex (Type not Quantity), age, peers, job satisfaction.
16months since sitting in a pub and making that decision (Things can happen fast) I'm now about to start working 3 days a week and spending the rest of the time playing with childrens toys. Great life...

 

[pivoxa15]

Many people seem to have chosen 'Passing on your own genes'. Is that a sign that the reason I posed in #19 is popular?

However, that reason maybe one of many emergent properties. The fundalmental reason is deep down at the gene level, the 'want' from the genes to pass down themselves is extremely strong and manifest in such high want from the person in attracting the opposite sex, reproduction etc. I read this from a beginners book in Evolutionary Psychology. It seems to explain the emergent properties well.

Although, Panda gave a realistic view or real world picture for having kids which also makes sense.

 

[ranger]

When I took child psychology, the number one response to this question was to pass on your own gene. I guess most people don't like the thought of leaving nothing behind, as they wish to be directly/indirectly remembered. This reassures that you will, in some form still be here after you pass on. I guess its like trying to keep the bloodline alive.

 

[pivoxa15]

When I took child psychology, the number one response to this question was to pass on your own gene. I guess most people don't like the thought of leaving nothing behind, as they wish to be directly/indirectly remembered. This reassures that you will, in some form still be here after you pass on. I guess its like trying to keep the bloodline alive.

Did you take child psychology while in Uni? Was it a full course on it? What you say is interesting, it is probably another manifestation (on the 'more conscious' mind) to reproduce from our genes. Although maybe strangely this 'keep the bloodline' idea is not very attractive to me, personally. However, I do very much like the idea of being remembered after I die, for the achievements in my life.

 

[ranger]

Did you take child psychology while in Uni? Was it a full course on it? What you say is interesting, it is probably another manifestation (on the 'more conscious' mind) to reproduce from our genes. Although maybe strangely this 'keep the bloodline' idea is not very attractive to me, personally. However, I do very much like the idea of being remembered after I die, for the achievements in my life.

I did take it college. The course basically covered all aspects of development from conception to preadolescence. IMHO, this is one of the most valuable courses I think I'll ever take. It would be cool if at least one spouse was made to take this course before they have a child. You learn so much about children and how they develop (mentally, socially, and physically) and you will be a better parent and friend [to your child].

 

[pivoxa15]

Sounds good Ranger.

Another thing I realized is that our ancestors (obviously) all have had children so we share genes that strongly encourage us to reproduce. Not only the act of reproduction but also raising up the children. To such an extent that people who raise up children are healthier, if not healthier emotionally (in the long term) than ones who do not. In other words, when the time comes it is a more normal (normal being eating when hungary) feeling to raise than to not raise up children even though raising up children is a difficult and sometimes very unpleasant task.

 

[pivoxa15]

Another thing is creating a new human that is a hybrid of you and your wife will tie the husband-wife relationship better so it is in the interest of both parties to born a child.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

None of the above are good reasons to have kids, having kids should be a decision free of peer pressure, selfish concerns etc, biologically you may feel a need or you might just want to see what all the fuss is about, but once you start saying things like I need to pass on my genes then your being somewhat philosophical? Why, what difference would it make if you didn't? Are your genes that important that the world would suffer irevocably without loads of little you's running around, and you can pretty much pull apart most of the other ones for simillar reasons, the answer is then if you want to and for no other reason: because you want to, or vise a versa.

 

[Marghk]

Personally for 2 reason's. First, being the most popular of choice that of passing on your own gene. More in a sense of leaving a legacy people will come to realize, behold and notice.

But if anything, it would be pressure onward from family/friends and generally the way human life is suppose to exist. Your born, you marry, you breed... you die. Sure, it doesn't always go that way, but to pass on that... or even think of giving up that opportunity to experience something like that... is to much of a risk to take.

 

[radou]

Reason: without kids, I suppose you kind of 'die alone' in a way. The 'gene-passing' factor isn't important, since, like Schrog explained,

Are your genes that important that the world would suffer irevocably without loads of little you's running around

they're, in most cases not genious genes, and even if they were, there's no guarantee that the kids will be genoiuses too.

I suppose it's 'just' the beauty of looking at your kid grow up and having your life brightened up by it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Reason: without kids, I suppose you kind of 'die alone' in a way. The 'gene-passing' factor isn't important, since, like Schrog explained,



they're, in most cases not genious genes, and even if they were, there's no guarantee that the kids will be genoiuses too.

I suppose it's 'just' the beauty of looking at your kid grow up and having your life brightened up by it. It's as simple as that.

That's the sort of reason that makes sense

 

[ranger]

None of the above are good reasons to have kids, having kids should be a decision free of peer pressure, selfish concerns etc, biologically you may feel a need or you might just want to see what all the fuss is about, but once you start saying things like I need to pass on my genes then your being somewhat philosophical? Why, what difference would it make if you didn't? Are your genes that important that the world would suffer irevocably without loads of little you's running around, and you can pretty much pull apart most of the other ones for simillar reasons, the answer is then if you want to and for no other reason: because you want to, or vise a versa.

I agree with your reasoning. Having children should be a free decision not influenced by outside factors, but that's not how it is anymore (for the majority). I take the example from my psychology course (over 70+ students). A majority of the answers to that question was to pass on one's genes. The second most popular answer was that they feel obliged (like under a moral obligation) to have kids becuase of family and peers.

To pass on one's genes is not to have loads of you running or for others to face the consequences. A persons genes are important. Do you not consider yours to be so?

Take an example of a family with 3 [boy] children. If the mother suddenly wants a girl, what do you make of this? Is it becuase she wants to do it [free of pressure and so on]? In most cases the answer is no. The reason is that the the father has his "boys" to mold them into sort of like his image. In other words the mother considers the boys to be only the father's genes. Hence that would explain why she what's a girl child, so she can in turn mold her daughter and "her genes" will live on.

But your reason should be the only true reason why one should have children.

 

[Moonbear]

The options in the poll aren't all mutually exclusive. For example, one may want to pass on their genes due to an innate drive, or one may want to pass on their genes because it gives them an ego boost (they think they're so good they have to pass their genes to another generation), or there may be family pressure to pass on their genes and continue the lineage, or all of the above.

What they all have in common is selfishness. That doesn't mean it's a bad type of selfishness, or someone will make a bad parent, but when you look at the entire picture, it's that the parents want a baby...they do it to satisfy a desire they have, whatever the basis of that desire. Even "accidental" is selfish, because it means someone was indulging in something to satisfy their own pleasure without taking adequate precautions to prevent pregnancy when they didn't desire a baby. (I am laughing at the "investment" option...that's one I've never heard before.)

 

[pivoxa15]

I was thinking 'passing your own genes' not because they are necessary good as good by definition is only a very small part of the population and if people went by passing their genes because they are good than not many people can have kids but as ranger pointed out in the survey and the poll results here, 'passing your own genes' is most popular probably due to most people have much satisfaction seeing another human like themself, whether 'good' or not.

The thing is, people in poorer countries tend to have more children, I wonder if it's more accidental or more because they breed children as a kind of investment? Certainly in the western civilisation children as an investment isn't very popular which reflects the low birth rate in developed worlds. The other thing is, I got this investment idea when I overheard a mother paying school books for his son and saying to the shopkeeper that "it's like an investment isn't it?". Although she was probably treating buying the book as an investment.

The poll options are not mutually exclusive but it's hard coming up with better ones because I myself have no idea. Although the topic is a vague one with vague answers that are mostly due to the individual.

I think that selfshiness is surely involved in bringing up a children because there is a lot of sacrifice on the parent for more than 2 decades/child so the reasons for having a child must be extremely strong and naturally selfish. If something goes wrong, the parent is to blame so a lot of cost and uncertainly is involved. One can roughly say that anything anyone does is because the benefits outweight the costs. Schrodinger's Dog's response might be that you have a child because you want to but surely, you would have done some 'calculations' about this big decision?

 

[ranger]

The thing is, people in poorer countries tend to have more children, I wonder if it's more accidental or more because they breed children as a kind of investment? Certainly in the western civilisation children as an investment isn't very popular which reflects the low birth rate in developed worlds.
...

I think it has to do more with ignorance. By saying this I mean that they are not educated like how most westerners are when it comes to safer sex and "planning ahead". This not only goes for poorer countries, but also for poor neighborhoods in general.

 

[radou]

I think that selfshiness is surely involved in bringing up a children because there is a lot of sacrifice on the parent for more than 2 decades/child so the reasons for having a child must be extremely strong and naturally selfish.

Now, this is a weird sentence. Could you perhaps explain how it can be selfish to put a 2-decade-effort into raising a child properly?

I think it has to do more with ignorance. By saying this I mean that they are not educated like how most westerners are when it comes to safer sex and "planning ahead". This not only goes for poorer countries, but also for poor neighborhoods in general.

I agree completely.

 

[3trQN]

Where is the "No children option?", Not everyone will think that we must reproduce and so it becomes "Why not?". The question should be "If you decided to have children, what would be your rational?".

If i was to decide to have children, i think "innate" would most likely be the best description of why.
Its a combination of many emotional factors, which is hard to pin down exactly and can only be described as an innate desire. :!)

But that's a prediction, in reality the reason could be "Accidental" or any other as the event hasn't happened yet.

At present I decide not to have children because i wouldn't want to be morally responsible for bringing a new life into existence in the current social/economic conditions.

I guess I am not prepared to make that kind of commitment.

 

[pivoxa15]

I think it has to do more with ignorance. By saying this I mean that they are not educated like how most westerners are when it comes to safer sex and "planning ahead". This not only goes for poorer countries, but also for poor neighborhoods in general.

Okay.

Now, this is a weird sentence. Could you perhaps explain how it can be selfish to put a 2-decade-effort into raising a child properly?

I was counting the benefit and only the benefit of having a child as the reason for having a child. This is evident from the poll options which as Moonbear pointed out were all selfish in nature. But with all things, there is a cost associated and one usually does anything when the benefits outweight the costs. The costs as I have stated with raising a child properly is high so if someone were to go ahead and raise one than the benefits they perceive from raising this child must be greater in magnitude than the cost (all the selfshiness is in the benefits part). Although this is a very simplistic mindset but it serves as a first model I hope.

Where is the "No children option?", Not everyone will think that we must reproduce and so it becomes "Why not?". The question should be "If you decided to have children, what would be your rational?".

If i was to decide to have children, i think "innate" would most likely be the best description of why.
Its a combination of many emotional factors, which is hard to pin down exactly and can only be described as an innate desire. :!)

But that's a prediction, in reality the reason could be "Accidental" or any other as the event hasn't happened yet.

At present I decide not to have children because i wouldn't want to be morally responsible for bringing a new life into existence in the current social/economic conditions.

I guess I am not prepared to make that kind of commitment.

The thread was mainly questioning people who would like or already have a child, why they made this decision. However, I seem to share your views very much especially not wanting a child and the reason why to not have a child. I guess we both are pessimists.

 

[GeorginaS]

The "investment" option of having children makes a load of sense if looked at from a different cultural perspective. If you live in a poorer country, children can grow up to help support you and the rest of the family. If they move away and work and send money home. Like that, and I can forsee other potential situations particularly with cultures that live together multi-generationally. (Is that a word?)

 

[pivoxa15]

The "investment" option of having children makes a load of sense if looked at from a different cultural perspective. If you live in a poorer country, children can grow up to help support you and the rest of the family. If they move away and work and send money home. Like that, and I can forsee other potential situations particularly with cultures that live together multi-generationally. (Is that a word?)

It's a word if you can provide evidence for your claim.

 

[pivoxa15]

Some people here raised the issue that your own genes may not be 'good' so why would you want to pass it on so much and bear such a high cost doing so - if that was the primary reason for you to have a child, which is popular. At first I thought that it was more to do with the genes are yours so you tend to like them a lot. But the other thing is people do want 'good' genes in their children. And they can let their children have better genes than their own by marrying someone with better genes. Therefore people at a certain age tend to devote a lot of time attracting people with 'good' genes to be their spouse. This point make a lot of sense and the evidence is extremely strong.

 

[ranger]

So what's being stated here, that genes will ultimately determine kind of individual the child will turn out to be? I sense another argument about nature vs. nurture coming up.

 

[pivoxa15]

So what's being stated here, that genes will ultimately determine kind of individual the child will turn out to be? I sense another argument about nature vs. nurture coming up.

I think with humans it's not entirely nature or nurture but a combination although nature is more dominant. So having good genes to start with is definitely a plus and makes parenting a little easier. It will make the parent more encouraged to care for the child which is another big plus and means the child will be better nurtured as well.

 

[ranger]

I think with humans it's not entirely nature or nurture but a combination although nature is more dominant. So having good genes to start with is definitely a plus and makes parenting a little easier.

We do not know exactly which factor (nature or nurture) contributes to develop more. In most cases, its hardly 50-50. It just depends; its incorrect to say nature is more dominant (I can think of numerous examples that counter your claim) and vice versa.

 

[pivoxa15]

We do not know exactly which factor (nature or nurture) contributes to develop more. In most cases, its hardly 50-50. It just depends; its incorrect to say nature is more dominant (I can think of numerous examples that counter your claim) and vice versa.

I agree that the percentage depends on the situation or characteristic under examination. Although the big factors like a lot of personal characteristics is predominantly in the genes e.g physical features. Is there consensus that personality and intelligence is also mostly in the genes? Judging from my own personal experienes and observation of others, I think so. Having 'good' personal characteristics will always be a big plus no matter in which situation you find yourself in.

If someone was to want to have a child and do as much as possible nurturing this child, they rather marry someone with 'good' genes than someone not. In other words if we fix the amount of nurturing, a child with 'good' genes will tend to make the adults more pleased hence happy and their time more worthwhile.

 

[ranger]

Is there consensus that personality and intelligence is also mostly in the genes?

Nope

Judging from my own personal experienes and observation of others, I think so. Having 'good' personal characteristics will always be a big plus no matter in which situation you find yourself in.

The key word there is personal experiences. While your observations of others may not be wrong, your conclusion about intelligence and genes is. If I look at my extended family, we have a range of personalities and "intelligence". For example one of my uncle is an engineer, while the other is a used car salesman. Note that I'm not saying that one is dumber than the other. Its just that most people would think the engineer is the more intelligent one. Or another example, one uncle is a total alcoholic with no respect for his wife and kids (most unfortunate) while the other is well respected by his peers and family.
I'm just trying to say that its not all nature or all nurture. I think this would just have to be one of those questions that may never be answered.

If someone was to want to have a child and do as much as possible nurturing this child, they rather marry someone with 'good' genes than someone not. In other words if we fix the amount of nurturing, a child with 'good' genes will tend to make the adults more pleased hence happy and their time more worthwhile

Yup, I agree with this. But what if one parent had a history of family members with anti social behavior? It is clear that by nurturing him the "right" way, it will seem as if we have removed the nature aspect from the child. In other words, I'm saying we took the "bad" genes and made "good" genes of them.

 

[pivoxa15]

Nope

The key word there is personal experiences. While your observations of others may not be wrong, your conclusion about intelligence and genes is. If I look at my extended family, we have a range of personalities and "intelligence". For example one of my uncle is an engineer, while the other is a used car salesman. Note that I'm not saying that one is dumber than the other. Its just that most people would think the engineer is the more intelligent one. Or another example, one uncle is a total alcoholic with no respect for his wife and kids (most unfortunate) while the other is well respected by his peers and family.
I'm just trying to say that its not all nature or all nurture. I think this would just have to be one of those questions that may never be answered.

Yup, I agree with this. But what if one parent had a history of family members with anti social behavior? It is clear that by nurturing him the "right" way, it will seem as if we have removed the nature aspect from the child. In other words, I'm saying we took the "bad" genes and made "good" genes of them.

I am not surprised that there is so much variation in your family. There is a possibily that these variations could be due to genes alone. A couple could have two siblings that have very different genes hence act very differently. The offspring of these sibilings could vary even more to the extent that you have described.

The anti-social gene could come back later in the child's life when the nuturing is no longer existent. It could very easily come back to the person when things are not going well later in that person's life. I can speak with some degree of personal experience on this topic.

It is true that personality and intelligence is not easy to determine in one's offspring, however, physical features are. And evolution has made us to pick potential partners with good physical features quicker than other personal features. Although that could be because for most of the past, only phyiscal features was important for survival. In most cases, however, we tend to choose potential partners that have personalies similar to ourselves so another indication that we want our offspring to act similar to us. Unless we consciously don't like our own personality and marry someone with a personality we like so there is a chance our offspring will not have a personality like our own.

 

[pivoxa15]

The "investment" option of having children makes a load of sense if looked at from a different cultural perspective. If you live in a poorer country, children can grow up to help support you and the rest of the family. If they move away and work and send money home. Like that, and I can forsee other potential situations particularly with cultures that live together multi-generationally. (Is that a word?)

Certainly the option of 'looking after you when you're older' is popular for people in poor countries because there are no health care in these countries. That could contribute to the high number of kids. When you have one, the marginal cost of adding another is not as high. It's the case of when you are young and capable, stretch yourself and care for your own children because you will reap the rewards later in life when you're old and incapable, hopefully.

In developed countries with hearlth care, this option may not be as popular.

 

[ranger]

I am not surprised that there is so much variation in your family. There is a possibily that these variations could be due to genes alone. A couple could have two siblings that have very different genes hence act very differently. The offspring of these sibilings could vary even more to the extent that you have described.

Well, we can say that nature took its course here. As they were all raised in the same environment.

The anti-social gene could come back later in the child's life when the nuturing is no longer existent. It could very easily come back to the person when things are not going well later in that person's life. I can speak with some degree of personal experience on this topic.

This one you could say is a sort of a struggle between nature and nurture.

It is true that personality and intelligence is not easy to determine in one's offspring, however, physical features are. And evolution has made us to pick potential partners with good physical features quicker than other personal features. Although that could be because for most of the past, only phyiscal features was important for survival. In most cases, however, we tend to choose potential partners that have personalies similar to ourselves so another indication that we want our offspring to act similar to us. Unless we consciously don't like our own personality and marry someone with a personality we like so there is a chance our offspring will not have a personality like our own.

Well in this case we have nature and nurture working together. Our bodies have adapted to the environment. For example, in very cold regions of the world, people there are short and stocky. Which of course makes life easier for them in their environment. But then, we have those very genes being passed on to offspring.

 

[pivoxa15]

Well in this case we have nature and nurture working together. Our bodies have adapted to the environment. For example, in very cold regions of the world, people there are short and stocky. Which of course makes life easier for them in their environment. But then, we have those very genes being passed on to offspring.

Cold => Short and stocky? What about people in Switzland, Sweden? Is it cold there? I get the impression of vikings when I think about people in those countries and the image of icebergs in water. This might immediately show that I have no clue about people there or their environment. But it's usually colder than most places up there isn't it? But the people there are taller than average? Most of their pro tennis players seem to be pretty tall which may not be an accident. It suggests most of their population is taller than the mean. Russia is another place that is colder than normal but the people there are larger than normal as well - correct?