I never thought about should I or should I not have kids. I always wanted a family. My wife and I discovered that we could not have a natural birthing process, so, I thought…move on. But my wife insisted we adopt. I can’t imagine life without the joy and trouble of my children.
There is also the environmental aspect, and the ability of the earth to support a continually increasing population and continually increasing consumption of resources, which are finite. With the climate crisis, it is understandable that some young people are consciously considering whether it is wise to have children.
People who do not, through choice or who are unable to have children, are not necessarily less concerned about the future as a result. I certainly am extremely concerned about the future and the climate crisis in particular, and I am unable to have children. If we have a cosmopolitan attitude, and a love of humanity, we still want to be "good ancestors" for future generations, and are concerned about the future of humanity and the survival of life on earth as a whole.
You pose an interesting question, and while I agree that childlessness is a personal choice and should never be denigrated, it's important to point out that, with death rates exceeding birth rates in some countries, sperm counts- globally - plummeting, and increasing numbers of terminated pregnancies gender transformations, the continuation of our species is at risk if some degree of balance isn't found. You might not need to have children to care about the future, but if there are no children there will be no future to care about.
Choosing to have children is no guarantee that you (or your children) will care about the future of humanity. Perhaps it’s likely that a parent does care, but this generalization seems simplistic. Likewise, choosing to not have children is no guarantee that you don’t care about the future of humanity.
As an example, some say humanity faces extinction due to overpopulation… Some say humanity faces extinction due to population decline and potential collapse. Is it those who have children or those who don’t have children who truly care about the future?
I don't have any children (at least not that I know of), but I've been lucky to work as a psychotherapist for many children. It's fulfilling to see many of them grow up and have their own children now. I also create art and writing for others to enjoy long after I'm gone, and I plant gardens that will surely be appreciated by the next generation.
Cicero quotes a version of that same proverb in the Tusculan Disputations (a philosophical dialogue that's concerned with education and moral improvement). Interestingly - in this context - Cicero *seems* to equate "the procreation of children" with just one of several ways all of us care about the future. I don't think I'm reading present concerns into what he says (but could be, so reader beware!). Here are his ipsissima verba in Latin and then the great new translation by Quintus Curtius:
XIV. 14 Maxumum vero argumentum est naturam ipsam de inmortalitate animorum tacitam iudicare, quod omnibus curae sunt, et maxumae quidem, quae post mortem futura sint. 'serit arbores, quae alteri saeclo prosint', ut ait (Statius) in Synephebis, quid spectans nisi etiam postera saecula ad se pertinere? ergo arbores seret diligens agricola, quarum aspiciet bacam ipse numquam; vir magnus leges, instituta, rem publicam non seret? quid procreatio liberorum, quid propagatio nominis, quid adoptationes filiorum, quid testamentorum diligentia, quid ipsa sepulcrorum monumenta, elogia significant nisi nos futura etiam cogitare?
14. Indeed the most convincing argument is that nature herself offers a quiet verdict in favor of the immortality of souls, because everyone is interested—deeply interested, in fact—about what may lie in store for them after death: One plants trees that will be enjoyed by future ages, as the poet Statius says in his Synephebi. And what is his purpose in saying this, except that future ages are his concern? Should a diligent farmer plant trees, the fruit of which he will never live to see, and a great man not plant the seeds of laws, institutions, and the infrastructure of a republic? The procreation of children, the propagation of a family name, the adoption of sons, the careful drafting of wills, the erection of sepulchral monuments and the inscriptions carved on them—of what significance are they, except that our mindfulness of the future is what motivates us to do them?
In the twilight of old age in this earthly existence, one's accomplishments and experiences are summed up in the experiences and accomplishments of their offspring. There is no more sublime satisfaction than to see one's children become virtuous and successful replacements in the material realm.
I have witnessed one incident where the female was an only child because her mother coming of age in the 60s and 70s decided not to add much to the world population. To correct that matter her daughter wound up having four children. It occurred to me that maybe nature has a way of evening things out.
Having children renders people incapable of attaining any remotely reasonable perspective on the future. Instead they are compelled, as "good parents," to "safeguard" the economic prospects of their sprog
Here's another thought I'll pass along that I find personally challenging, but it's relevant to the topic and so worth considering.
When I published How to Grieve a couple years ago, a young scholar wrote to ask about a passage I'd translated. (The book deals with the death of Cicero's daughter Tullia, who died from complications of childbirth at the age of 32; the baby did not live, either.) The scholar was writing an essay on "antinatalism" that was published earlier this year. Here's the abstract and link; the book is open access so you can read it for yourself:
Antinatalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2024
Matti Häyry
and
Amanda Sukenick
Summary
This Element provides an exploration of antinatalism, the view that assigns a negative value to reproduction. First, the history of Western philosophy as a two-and-a-half millennia reaction to antinatalist sentiments. Human life has no obvious meaning and philosophers have been forced to build elaborate theories to invent imaginary purposes. Second, analysis of the concept of antinatalism in the light of human extinction. If people stop having children, the species will cease to exist, and this prospect has prompted attempts to find alternatives and excuses. Third, outlines a normative view defending antinatalism both theoretically and practically. If it is wrong to bring about suffering in the absence of redeeming meaning and if it is possible to create meaning only by imposing a pronatalist mentality upon children before they can make up their own minds, parents morally corrupt themselves by procreating. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Fascinating! It's interesting to see antinatalism as not a modern phenomenon (though I had erroneously thought as much initially). Certainly puts the current movement/common explanations in a new light.
Perhaps:
Arbores serit diligens agricola, quarum aspiciet nunquam ipse baccam.
Cicero
The industrious husbandman plants trees, of which he himself will never see a berry.
Cicero studied under Philon at the Academy, so there is possibly an earlier Greek proverb.
I never thought about should I or should I not have kids. I always wanted a family. My wife and I discovered that we could not have a natural birthing process, so, I thought…move on. But my wife insisted we adopt. I can’t imagine life without the joy and trouble of my children.
There is also the environmental aspect, and the ability of the earth to support a continually increasing population and continually increasing consumption of resources, which are finite. With the climate crisis, it is understandable that some young people are consciously considering whether it is wise to have children.
People who do not, through choice or who are unable to have children, are not necessarily less concerned about the future as a result. I certainly am extremely concerned about the future and the climate crisis in particular, and I am unable to have children. If we have a cosmopolitan attitude, and a love of humanity, we still want to be "good ancestors" for future generations, and are concerned about the future of humanity and the survival of life on earth as a whole.
You pose an interesting question, and while I agree that childlessness is a personal choice and should never be denigrated, it's important to point out that, with death rates exceeding birth rates in some countries, sperm counts- globally - plummeting, and increasing numbers of terminated pregnancies gender transformations, the continuation of our species is at risk if some degree of balance isn't found. You might not need to have children to care about the future, but if there are no children there will be no future to care about.
Choosing to have children is no guarantee that you (or your children) will care about the future of humanity. Perhaps it’s likely that a parent does care, but this generalization seems simplistic. Likewise, choosing to not have children is no guarantee that you don’t care about the future of humanity.
Additionally, who decides how and when we evaluate what is good or bad for the future of humanity?
As an example, some say humanity faces extinction due to overpopulation… Some say humanity faces extinction due to population decline and potential collapse. Is it those who have children or those who don’t have children who truly care about the future?
Excellent questions!! And ones certainly worth a full discussion...
I never felt bound to have children for posterity but I have found my children and now my grandson to be a source of inspiration.
I don't have any children (at least not that I know of), but I've been lucky to work as a psychotherapist for many children. It's fulfilling to see many of them grow up and have their own children now. I also create art and writing for others to enjoy long after I'm gone, and I plant gardens that will surely be appreciated by the next generation.
Cicero quotes a version of that same proverb in the Tusculan Disputations (a philosophical dialogue that's concerned with education and moral improvement). Interestingly - in this context - Cicero *seems* to equate "the procreation of children" with just one of several ways all of us care about the future. I don't think I'm reading present concerns into what he says (but could be, so reader beware!). Here are his ipsissima verba in Latin and then the great new translation by Quintus Curtius:
XIV. 14 Maxumum vero argumentum est naturam ipsam de inmortalitate animorum tacitam iudicare, quod omnibus curae sunt, et maxumae quidem, quae post mortem futura sint. 'serit arbores, quae alteri saeclo prosint', ut ait (Statius) in Synephebis, quid spectans nisi etiam postera saecula ad se pertinere? ergo arbores seret diligens agricola, quarum aspiciet bacam ipse numquam; vir magnus leges, instituta, rem publicam non seret? quid procreatio liberorum, quid propagatio nominis, quid adoptationes filiorum, quid testamentorum diligentia, quid ipsa sepulcrorum monumenta, elogia significant nisi nos futura etiam cogitare?
14. Indeed the most convincing argument is that nature herself offers a quiet verdict in favor of the immortality of souls, because everyone is interested—deeply interested, in fact—about what may lie in store for them after death: One plants trees that will be enjoyed by future ages, as the poet Statius says in his Synephebi. And what is his purpose in saying this, except that future ages are his concern? Should a diligent farmer plant trees, the fruit of which he will never live to see, and a great man not plant the seeds of laws, institutions, and the infrastructure of a republic? The procreation of children, the propagation of a family name, the adoption of sons, the careful drafting of wills, the erection of sepulchral monuments and the inscriptions carved on them—of what significance are they, except that our mindfulness of the future is what motivates us to do them?
I was hoping you'd chime in with some insights on the quote!
In the twilight of old age in this earthly existence, one's accomplishments and experiences are summed up in the experiences and accomplishments of their offspring. There is no more sublime satisfaction than to see one's children become virtuous and successful replacements in the material realm.
I have witnessed one incident where the female was an only child because her mother coming of age in the 60s and 70s decided not to add much to the world population. To correct that matter her daughter wound up having four children. It occurred to me that maybe nature has a way of evening things out.
I often think that... we often think we understand things more than we do... but we are also a part of nature.
I do not think I need children in order to think about and care about the future. But I will never know for sure because I already boast one son.
I can’t help with the quote but Cicero seems as likely as anyone. It fits him and the quote at the end is very close.
Two children and one grandson! Doing my part! And now I plant trees for my grandson.
I always liked the: 'Have a son (or daughter), plant a tree, write a book' mission.
Great opening quote! Believe it!
Having children renders people incapable of attaining any remotely reasonable perspective on the future. Instead they are compelled, as "good parents," to "safeguard" the economic prospects of their sprog
Here's another thought I'll pass along that I find personally challenging, but it's relevant to the topic and so worth considering.
When I published How to Grieve a couple years ago, a young scholar wrote to ask about a passage I'd translated. (The book deals with the death of Cicero's daughter Tullia, who died from complications of childbirth at the age of 32; the baby did not live, either.) The scholar was writing an essay on "antinatalism" that was published earlier this year. Here's the abstract and link; the book is open access so you can read it for yourself:
Antinatalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2024
Matti Häyry
and
Amanda Sukenick
Summary
This Element provides an exploration of antinatalism, the view that assigns a negative value to reproduction. First, the history of Western philosophy as a two-and-a-half millennia reaction to antinatalist sentiments. Human life has no obvious meaning and philosophers have been forced to build elaborate theories to invent imaginary purposes. Second, analysis of the concept of antinatalism in the light of human extinction. If people stop having children, the species will cease to exist, and this prospect has prompted attempts to find alternatives and excuses. Third, outlines a normative view defending antinatalism both theoretically and practically. If it is wrong to bring about suffering in the absence of redeeming meaning and if it is possible to create meaning only by imposing a pronatalist mentality upon children before they can make up their own minds, parents morally corrupt themselves by procreating. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/antinatalism-extinction-and-the-end-of-procreative-selfcorruption/A88E18CA50EF6D919CE459C007447DB4
Fascinating! It's interesting to see antinatalism as not a modern phenomenon (though I had erroneously thought as much initially). Certainly puts the current movement/common explanations in a new light.