3 ms·
The problem with the article is it lumps together a whole bunch of different reasons for not wanting kids as if they're all equally reasonable reasons. It also
by lusr 14y ago
The problem with the article is it lumps together a whole bunch of different reasons for not wanting kids as if they're all equally reasonable reasons. It also doesn't address "normal" within any objective framework.
It's an interesting question in evolutionary theory whether there is an advantage to have a split of "breeders" and "non-breeders". Non-breeders, people who don't mind being e.g. soldiers and mine-technicians, seem pretty useful to society (actually a necessity once a large enough population of violent "non-breeders" evolve to threaten the breeders).
However they don't really contribute much genetically unless perhaps the "breeder" vs. "non-breeder" flag is entirely random and therefore allows for certain individuals to randomly specialize without negatively affecting the genetic potential of a family of mutations.
Intuitively, the value of "non-breeders" would seem to be very... expendable. I doubt people who are against having kids would enjoy that label, though. I wonder what other evolutionary value non-breeders bring to a species.
Perhaps having non-breeders who divert all their energy towards science and progress produce such an important species advantage that even if they don't necessarily contribute to the genetic pool they do contribute to the overall preservation and extension of the underlying genetic code.
- philwelch 14y agoYou're leaving out the most important factor. Since females are the limiting factor in animal reproduction (for most species, but importantly including humans), there is tremendous selective pressure, both biologically and culturally, for males to be the expendable ones. The specialization of individuals into breeding and non-breeding roles is the entire purpose of gender.
- lusr 14y agoI'm familiar with the theory that men are more expendable [1], but I don't think you can take that to imply that men don't have a breeding role. Men are critical to the family unit. Beside that, I'm suggesting that even on top of gender roles there is a breeder/non-breeder split. Otherwise all women AND men would have an urge to raise families, which is clearly not the case. [1] www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
- philwelch 14y agoYou're right. Unmarried and childless men are more expendable than married men with children. But not even unmarried or childless women are expendable. Even married men with children are more expendable than unmarried or childless women.