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

[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 because 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 because 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. Schrödinger'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?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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 because 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 because 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. 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?

 

[ranger]

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

 

[ranger]

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 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 because 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. 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.

 

[pivoxa15]

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

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The world would not have come to an end, but you would 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 because 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.

 

[pivoxa15]

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?

 

[pivoxa15]

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.