File: i dont get it.png (633.1 KB)
I live in the capital city of Poland and so I very frequently see various protests. During independence day I was met with this banner. Translated:
"Neither wykop (forum similar to r**dit), PC nor basement will replace your inheritor"
Followed by a call to action to have kids.
I still think about it because I still don't get what the argument is even supposed to be? Is my biggest problem in life really supposed to be the fact that when I face death, I will have to choose who to give money to? Is that the argument?
I didn't ask at the time because the prostestors seemed like knuckle-draggers who would at best call me a faggot for raising a question, but seriously, there is this entire movement that's specifically designed to convince people like me to have kids and their arguments aren't even weak, they're incomprehensible.
Can someone please, PLEASE, explain to me the theory on why I should want to have children? I feel like i'm trapped in some truman's show type scenario where the joke is that everyone acts as though they just accept "a man's greatest aspiration in life is by default to have lots of children" as an axiom. Even people who are against having kids usually voice their opinion on the matter as "well maybe people would want to have kids if the economy wasn't so bad" or similar statements. childfree on r**dit is a notable exception and the only times I hear of that place mentioned outside of itself is when they're being made fun of, usually by just repeating the arguments in a mocking tone, as though the notion of choosing not to have children is so ridiculous, the fact that people are voicing that opinion is in itself the punchline. In this regard I see flatearthers get more respect.
When it comes to literature, it's seemingly the complete opposite. Epicurus discourages having children as that brings on anxiety and suffering. Kierkegaard doesn't really touch on the subject directly, but he views celibacy very highly, which would logically make procreation a negative. (Not really a philosopher, but this is seemingly also St. Paul's view as well.)
Kant, while not seeing the creation of a child as a violation of the categorical imperative in of itself, places very high standards and obligations on the part of the parents in order for procreation to be moral, insisting a parent needs to ensure the child's well-being, education and so on. I can't see any reference to him viewing NOT having children in a negative light, and since most of us can't be sure of what will happen to us in the future, even if we plan ahead, this seems to me like a solid approach.
Schopenhauer is positively against having children, going as far as calling it immoral.
Are there ANY books or texts pretaining to natalism theory, that is to say, reasons to have children? The attitude of the general public seems to be the opposite of everything I've read.
Showing all 16 replies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>25325009
Well I’d assume most arguments for having children would be utilitarian. A society cannot work without them. Anyone who benefits from society (so literally everyone) should want it to be stable and functional. Therefore you should want to have children out of a sense of duty to the society that you participate in. You don’t scream, cuss, litter or parade naked in public, even though it isn’t necessary something that would have negative consequences for you (except for fines, but I’m not gonna assume that you only avoid doing such things because of the laws and nothing else). You avoid such things because they would bother others and thus harm the society as a whole, even if just by a little bit. It’s a similar thing here, a sense of responsibility for a common good.
A completely different take, but Plato in symphosion wrote something like
>what is beautiful is good
>people love “goodness” and want to have it, own it eternally
>eros is fertilising what’s beautiful, both for the body and the soul
>there is a spark of immortality in creation, therefore Eros pushes people to create
>all mortal beings crave immortality
>craving immortality can be fulfilled by either breeding and creating offspring or gaining immortal fame
It was roughly something like that. I remember the way it was described made me think of the selfish gene idea, because Plato put it as though a being’s offspring was essentially just an extension of this being, a shot at immortality.
>>
>>
>>25325009
Stop reading so much navel gazing garbage from quacks who had too much free time. Your culture is a direct expression of your genetics, same as a newborn orb weaver spider knows immediately how to build their iconic orb pattern webs without needing to be taught. Then further refines it into the next generation by seeking a female that preserves the pattern.
You breed to perpetuate this or it ceases to exist eventually. Simple as that. Overthinking it is pseudo-intellectualism at its worst. How valuable is Poland to you?
>>
>>25325009
>their arguments aren't even weak, they're incomprehensible
To you maybe, but I think most would have no trouble understanding the sentiment. They're saying that unless you have children you won't have a legacy to leave behind. Just a life of empty consumerism that will be sent to the landfill.
It's a fair point. Whether you agree or not is another matter.
>Can someone please, PLEASE, explain to me the theory on why I should want to have children?
I could give you many, both generic and more esoteric. What you deem persuadable will depend on your particular outlook on life. I think human life is a beautiful and valuable thing that should be perpetuated. I think human consciousness is integral to the unfolding of the cosmos. I think we play a vital part in the universe's desire to grow and know itself. That's what would motivate me.
Divorced from religion and philosophy, you have more practical arguments around having someone to care for you in old age or to carry forward some aspect of your life's work (a family business, etc).
Take your pick, basically.
>>
>>
>>25325009
Your country has a fertility rate that is below half of replacement. If you expect to live 30-40 more years you will either see replacement migration (real replacement, akin to the Americas) or the wholesale collapse of pension and social welfare systems and probably the state. That's why people care. And people don't want kids because they have come to see them, like faith, philosophy, virtue, and beauty, as nothing but consumer choices. So obviously people lash out at a culture that is so obviously anti-life it is going to hit 90% population decline over three generations and all in service to the gratification of the appetites.
This is especially true when the number one reason for not wanting kids is:
>It's hard work
>And I wouldn't get to consoooom as much.
>>
>>
>>
>>25328076
Median incomes have risen adjusted for inflation. Not much, wages have been largely stagnant for half a century, but people today are still dramatically wealthier than in 1960 or 1930.
Also, the countries with the most generous welfare states in the world have some of the lowest birth rates. The idea that kids are more expensive as a share of earnings compared to 1930 is ridiculous. People just have much higher standards for consumption.
Also, in developed countries people making more money have less kids. People pulling down $500,000 a year aren't not having kids because they cannot afford them but because they seek various pleasures of the flesh and status instead.
>>
File: 1_2oBiD8sb2P1Ra3i3vjcBug.png (9.4 KB)
>>25328076
See also: