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

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kids
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the motivations for having children, exploring various reasons such as innate desires, societal pressures, and the desire for legacy. Key points include the idea that many people may feel an innate urge to nurture and care for a child, while others may view parenthood as a societal expectation or a way to ensure their genes continue. Some participants suggest that the decision can stem from a mix of emotional factors, including the desire for companionship, the hope for future support, or even the notion of children as an investment for the future. The conversation also touches on the implications of having children in different socio-economic contexts, noting that in poorer regions, children may be seen more as a means of support for parents. Additionally, the discussion reflects on the complexity of human motivations, suggesting that while biological instincts play a role, conscious choices and societal influences are also significant in the decision to have children.

Why have kids of your own?

  • Innate

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • Moral Responsibilty

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • Pass on your own gene

    Votes: 18 34.6%
  • Accidental

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • Peer/family pressure

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Someone to look after you when you're old

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • Investment

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Ego Boost

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 23.1%

  • Total voters
    52
  • #51
ranger said:
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.

Not really, I don't see how the world is going to come to an end because I haven't procreated, and this just goes to show people are generally brainwashed by societal factors, and don't make the decision based on personal choice. There is some idea that somehow you must conform, married two kids, must pass on genes? Why, are you Einstein, are you Schrödinger? Are you the next big I am: D'you think there aren't enough of type A on the planet?

It's becoming much more common to chose not to have children, this is because there are not the same societal pressures there were 40 years ago, this is not exactly a bad thing, people value a career over children, if you want children by all means have them, if you don't, don't feel there's some sort of genetic ticking time bomb lurking over your head, do what you want. The world will go on turning with or without loads of little yous running around.:smile: I'm pretty easy myself, might do might not, depends if I meet the right girl and all that, I won't be weeping into my sleeve though if it doesn't happen.

Families are more than just one person having children anyway. What about: Gay uncle Peter? Never had kids, dyou think there aren't traces of his DNA knocking around the familly?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
pivoxa15 said:
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?
I should have been more specific. I was taking about groups such as Eskimos.
a member of an indigenous people of Greenland, northern Canada, Alaska, and northeastern Siberia, characterized by short, stocky build and light-brown complexion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Eskimo

The taller than average people are located in certain African countries. Their lean physique is best suited for their environment. For example the Watusi tribe. Where a seven feet man is a normal sight.
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Africa/Giants.Africa1.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Not really, I don't see how the world is going to come to an end because I haven't procreated, and this just goes to show people are generally brainwashed by societal factors, and don't make the decision based on personal choice. There is some idea that somehow you must conform, married two kids, must pass on genes? Why, are you Einstein, are you Schrödinger? Are you the next big I am: D'you think there aren't enough of type A on the planet?
The world would not have come to an end, but you would :biggrin: I see your point about the entire society thing. But there is no correlation between intelligence and genes. I personally feel the need to pass on my genes (that is, if I get married), not becuase I'm Einstein, but just because I want to and there isn't any pressure to get it over with either.
It's becoming much more common to chose not to have children, this is because there are not the same societal pressures there were 40 years ago, this is not exactly a bad thing, people value a career over children, if you want children by all means have them, if you don't, don't feel there's some sort of genetic ticking time bomb lurking over your head, do what you want. The world will go on turning with or without loads of little yous running around.:smile: I'm pretty easy myself, might do might not, depends if I meet the right girl and all that, I won't be weeping into my sleeve though if it doesn't happen.
Yup, I agree with you.
Families are more than just one person having children anyway. What about: Gay uncle Peter? Never had kids, dyou think there aren't traces of his DNA knocking around the familly?
I would think so. But the thing is, people don't see it as DNA for the entire family. Its more personalized, like "his" DNA or "her" DNA. I know this is not how it actually is, but people make it seem so, because they want to pass on their DNA.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
ranger said:
I should have been more specific. I was taking about groups such as Eskimos.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Eskimo

The taller than average people are located in certain African countries. Their lean physique is best suited for their environment. For example the Watusi tribe. Where a seven feet man is a normal sight.
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Africa/Giants.Africa1.html

I not know if I believe the information on that site. In describing Watusi Giants's "...these giants are born six feet tall,...". Are there any of them alive today? Probably not. It only takes a little unfavourable living conditions to make these people extent as they would have needed huge amounts of food.

Today, the population with the tallest mean height are the Dutch people with men averageing just under 6'1 and women 5'7.
http://www.channels.nl/knowledge/25041.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
ranger said:
The world would not have come to an end, but you would :biggrin: I see your point about the entire society thing. But there is no correlation between intelligence and genes. I personally feel the need to pass on my genes (that is, if I get married), not becuase I'm Einstein, but just because I want to and there isn't any pressure to get it over with either.

Yup, I agree with you.

I would think so. But the thing is, people don't see it as DNA for the entire family. Its more personalized, like "his" DNA or "her" DNA. I know this is not how it actually is, but people make it seem so, because they want to pass on their DNA.

I think we're pretty much in agreement, you want to for whatever reason, be it the biological thing, a legacy, some sort of immortality or whatever, which is entirely fine. It's after all your choice, and provided you don't feel your being pressured by anyone, go for it.:smile:
 
  • #56
I am starting to feel that it could be more an overriding feeling to have a kid when you reach a certain age and beyond. Because I realize that people's biology change with time and ie. a desire to find a mate increases with time. It is certainly stronger for someone in the 20s than in their teens. So the same with wanting to have kids? Maybe stronger in the 30s than 20s?
 
  • #57
Love for your spouse and wanting to create someone with a bit of you and her is another strong reason. It would also tie the relationship more. So its pass on your own gene. I didn't have love for your spouse there as an option. But it may be the case if you found a really good person and especially if you 'won' her/him from a pool of other candidates. This thought came from watching 'Life is Beautiful'. I can see why Guido Orefice would love to have a child, in this case was a son with his wife and fittingly treated him really well, in fact too well.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top