If we really, deeply wonder why people have children, the rational answer is simple : genetic setting and hormones that control our behaviour. If we think about the purpose of having children, the answer is simple again : to perpetuate the species, and transmit some of one's genes to the next generation.
Survival : fighting for oneself rather than the species
People and animals fight for survival. The more intelligent they are, the more sophisticated ways they will find to survive. But let us not forget that each life being fights for its own survival before that of the whole species. Competition with one's own kind is part of nature. Both animals and humans fight each others for a mate, for food, for territory... Sometimes competition within the same species can be tougher than against other species. Cats fight each others, but cats will never try to attack a cow or a horse, and vice-versa. The same is true for humans. Humans make war and kill each others, but usually don't care about the birds making a nest in their gardens or the worms inside the trees. We are far more focused on competing with our own species than with others. That's just the way it is, for all species...
The basic purpose of life
The primary purpose of life is to survive, by eating and not being killed. Since no life being is eternal, we must procreate to assure that part of our genes continue to exist. Unfortunately, the paradox of life is that we, sexual beings, cannot pass more than half our DNA to our progeny. We can have many children though, to compensate and hope that the totality of our genes will survive. Men, who are not limited in the number of potential children, have higher potential than women to pass a greater percentage of genes. But competition between them is stronger as for each women who bears one man's offspring, she deprives the opportunity to other men.
The purpose of life for modern humans
Modern humans in rich and developed countries do not have to care much about fighting for food and security - particularly in more socially minded and egalitarian societies. The new purpose of life has recently become enjoyment for its own sake. Sex has become a form of entertainment rather than just a means of procreation. Food has become an enjoyment rather than a means of survival. Comfort has supplanted security (already achieved) as a basic necessity. People always carry the same blend of sociability and selfishness as before, a balance that ultimately depends on one's gender, character and culture (that is, genes and environment).
What does progeny have to do with the purposes of modern life ?
Reflecting about what humans really crave, 'power' and 'money' first spring to mind. It is understandable, since they both theoretically assure, or at least help, one's survival. Money buys food, property, and even security. Power brings money and control. Extremely rich and powerful people can hope to have more children than the average and pass as many of their genes as possible to posterity. This attitude has been fairly typical of developing countries throughout history, be it Western countries until one or two centuries ago, most of the developing world today.
The extreme cases of power
What is the purpose of having many children if many of them probably won't be able survive ? More rational people have thought about this issue and decided it would be better to have fewer children, and make sure that they remain on top of society, with a good education, lots of resources and enough political influence. It is how the upper classes usually behave, including dynasties of business barons and top politicians of which the United States has the most illustrious examples. These all-powerful people control most of the country's economy, possess most of the land, and are the real decision-makers of the so-called democracy, since they can control the media, finance political campaigns and bribe politicians. They usually know each others, and marry each others, forming a new aristocracy. Every organised society has always had its elite and aristocracy. Power and money breed aristocratic dynasties.
But why would these rich and powerful people want to marry each others ? Keeping money inside the family is an obvious reason. But for whom, for what ultimate purpose ? The parents will eventually die, so why care about their offspring ? Obvious answer: because part of their genes are passed on. And why would they keep marrying each others within a circle of a few thousands people of similar status ? Because they want to prevent their genes dissipating too much, while at the same time avoiding problems of consanguinity. The smaller the gene pool, the higher the chance that future generations will resemble the present one (which are deemed superior present-day individuals as they have been so successful in reaching or maintaining this upper class status). This is the ultimate rationale to assure that one's genes survive for as long as possible (the more money/property, the more generations inheriting it will be able to survive, whatever happens in the world or the economy).
One could say that humans, like all life beings, only care about their own survival, and as they are bound to die, will do whatever it takes to assure that their genes survive.
This is the principle guiding all human behaviours and emotions. Jealousy (in love) is the fear to lose one's mate and thus of losing one's chance pass on one's genes (even if we don't think about it consciously). Envy is a craving for money, that is resources that help someone survive (or reproduce). In what way does a sports car help a man survive/reproduce ? Because that increase his chances of seducing potential mates. Knowledge directly or indirectly helps people survive. It can help them get a better job, more money, power or mates.
What is the point of one's offspring survival in an open, cosmopolitan and rich society ?
We can only pass 50% of our genes in each child, and are limited in the number of children through financial constraints. Each child loses in average a further quarter of our genes. After a few generations, the percentage of DNA left from a single ancestor becomes rather tiny, but the total genes passed on can increase if we have a lot of descendants (more than two each generation).
Until the 20th century, most people stayed all their lives in the place where the were born. People might migrate once to a distant place, but their descendants would in all likelihood stay in that new area. This way people in a small village would constantly marry some distant relatives (3rd, 4th, 5th cousins...), or sometimes even first or second cousins (although this is genetically risky). But that was a way to preserve as much of their ancestors genes as they could. Some people weren't able to procreate or lost all their children to diseases. But their brothers and sisters and cousins would have children, which would ensure that some of everyone's genes were passed on to posterity, no matter what. This was a truly reassuring feeling.
Now that people have less children and find mates all over the world, in any ethnic group, the risk of completely losing one's genes after a few generations has increased. People having 3 or 4 children have higher chances to see their genes survive in the long-run than those with just 1 or 2 children. And if we do not care about the survival of our genes, then what is our life's purpose ? Enjoying oneself ? Then why succumb to one's instinct and hormones to make children, as they are going to be costly, hard to educate properly, and take most of our free time away from our selfish enjoyment ? Ironically it is often the people with the least personal ambitions in life that have the most children, as if to fill a void and give themselves a new purpose in life. Unfortunately that is danger for the future of society. If all the brightest, most creative, most successful and most beautiful people just enjoy their life by realising all their dreams and ambitions, partying and enjoying their money, that only leaves the others to procreate. As intelligence, creativity and even physical beauty are to some extend determined by the genes, a society that lets its best elements childless is ultimately doomed.
I hope this will make some of you reflect about the importance of having children, and wonder about what is the ultimate purpose of life.
After all, life is a biochemical process creating tiny beings in an infinite universe. We humans are nothing in this infinity. Why do we have to feel such existential torment about our progeny and what to do with our life, when we know it is meaningless at the scale of the universe ? On the other end, if we feel too meaningless, then what's the point of living at all ?
Survival : fighting for oneself rather than the species
People and animals fight for survival. The more intelligent they are, the more sophisticated ways they will find to survive. But let us not forget that each life being fights for its own survival before that of the whole species. Competition with one's own kind is part of nature. Both animals and humans fight each others for a mate, for food, for territory... Sometimes competition within the same species can be tougher than against other species. Cats fight each others, but cats will never try to attack a cow or a horse, and vice-versa. The same is true for humans. Humans make war and kill each others, but usually don't care about the birds making a nest in their gardens or the worms inside the trees. We are far more focused on competing with our own species than with others. That's just the way it is, for all species...
The basic purpose of life
The primary purpose of life is to survive, by eating and not being killed. Since no life being is eternal, we must procreate to assure that part of our genes continue to exist. Unfortunately, the paradox of life is that we, sexual beings, cannot pass more than half our DNA to our progeny. We can have many children though, to compensate and hope that the totality of our genes will survive. Men, who are not limited in the number of potential children, have higher potential than women to pass a greater percentage of genes. But competition between them is stronger as for each women who bears one man's offspring, she deprives the opportunity to other men.
The purpose of life for modern humans
Modern humans in rich and developed countries do not have to care much about fighting for food and security - particularly in more socially minded and egalitarian societies. The new purpose of life has recently become enjoyment for its own sake. Sex has become a form of entertainment rather than just a means of procreation. Food has become an enjoyment rather than a means of survival. Comfort has supplanted security (already achieved) as a basic necessity. People always carry the same blend of sociability and selfishness as before, a balance that ultimately depends on one's gender, character and culture (that is, genes and environment).
What does progeny have to do with the purposes of modern life ?
Reflecting about what humans really crave, 'power' and 'money' first spring to mind. It is understandable, since they both theoretically assure, or at least help, one's survival. Money buys food, property, and even security. Power brings money and control. Extremely rich and powerful people can hope to have more children than the average and pass as many of their genes as possible to posterity. This attitude has been fairly typical of developing countries throughout history, be it Western countries until one or two centuries ago, most of the developing world today.
The extreme cases of power
What is the purpose of having many children if many of them probably won't be able survive ? More rational people have thought about this issue and decided it would be better to have fewer children, and make sure that they remain on top of society, with a good education, lots of resources and enough political influence. It is how the upper classes usually behave, including dynasties of business barons and top politicians of which the United States has the most illustrious examples. These all-powerful people control most of the country's economy, possess most of the land, and are the real decision-makers of the so-called democracy, since they can control the media, finance political campaigns and bribe politicians. They usually know each others, and marry each others, forming a new aristocracy. Every organised society has always had its elite and aristocracy. Power and money breed aristocratic dynasties.
But why would these rich and powerful people want to marry each others ? Keeping money inside the family is an obvious reason. But for whom, for what ultimate purpose ? The parents will eventually die, so why care about their offspring ? Obvious answer: because part of their genes are passed on. And why would they keep marrying each others within a circle of a few thousands people of similar status ? Because they want to prevent their genes dissipating too much, while at the same time avoiding problems of consanguinity. The smaller the gene pool, the higher the chance that future generations will resemble the present one (which are deemed superior present-day individuals as they have been so successful in reaching or maintaining this upper class status). This is the ultimate rationale to assure that one's genes survive for as long as possible (the more money/property, the more generations inheriting it will be able to survive, whatever happens in the world or the economy).
One could say that humans, like all life beings, only care about their own survival, and as they are bound to die, will do whatever it takes to assure that their genes survive.
This is the principle guiding all human behaviours and emotions. Jealousy (in love) is the fear to lose one's mate and thus of losing one's chance pass on one's genes (even if we don't think about it consciously). Envy is a craving for money, that is resources that help someone survive (or reproduce). In what way does a sports car help a man survive/reproduce ? Because that increase his chances of seducing potential mates. Knowledge directly or indirectly helps people survive. It can help them get a better job, more money, power or mates.
What is the point of one's offspring survival in an open, cosmopolitan and rich society ?
We can only pass 50% of our genes in each child, and are limited in the number of children through financial constraints. Each child loses in average a further quarter of our genes. After a few generations, the percentage of DNA left from a single ancestor becomes rather tiny, but the total genes passed on can increase if we have a lot of descendants (more than two each generation).
Until the 20th century, most people stayed all their lives in the place where the were born. People might migrate once to a distant place, but their descendants would in all likelihood stay in that new area. This way people in a small village would constantly marry some distant relatives (3rd, 4th, 5th cousins...), or sometimes even first or second cousins (although this is genetically risky). But that was a way to preserve as much of their ancestors genes as they could. Some people weren't able to procreate or lost all their children to diseases. But their brothers and sisters and cousins would have children, which would ensure that some of everyone's genes were passed on to posterity, no matter what. This was a truly reassuring feeling.
Now that people have less children and find mates all over the world, in any ethnic group, the risk of completely losing one's genes after a few generations has increased. People having 3 or 4 children have higher chances to see their genes survive in the long-run than those with just 1 or 2 children. And if we do not care about the survival of our genes, then what is our life's purpose ? Enjoying oneself ? Then why succumb to one's instinct and hormones to make children, as they are going to be costly, hard to educate properly, and take most of our free time away from our selfish enjoyment ? Ironically it is often the people with the least personal ambitions in life that have the most children, as if to fill a void and give themselves a new purpose in life. Unfortunately that is danger for the future of society. If all the brightest, most creative, most successful and most beautiful people just enjoy their life by realising all their dreams and ambitions, partying and enjoying their money, that only leaves the others to procreate. As intelligence, creativity and even physical beauty are to some extend determined by the genes, a society that lets its best elements childless is ultimately doomed.
I hope this will make some of you reflect about the importance of having children, and wonder about what is the ultimate purpose of life.
After all, life is a biochemical process creating tiny beings in an infinite universe. We humans are nothing in this infinity. Why do we have to feel such existential torment about our progeny and what to do with our life, when we know it is meaningless at the scale of the universe ? On the other end, if we feel too meaningless, then what's the point of living at all ?
Last edited: