Why do people want to have children?

Quora is a great place to find my favorite kind of idiot. That is, the idiot who always thinks he has smart things to say, says them in a way that (he believes) sounds smart, and spends his life patting himself on the back.

Quora is also a great place to find people asking questions that our modern liberal paradigms cannot answer. When you combine these genuinely good questions with obnoxious and bad answers, you get quite the spectacle.

So a user asked the question, "Why do people want to have children." I have pasted the full question below.

Give the OP credit- he has really thought this through. He has covered all bases, and successfully deconstructed all mainstream arguments for having children from a mainstream perspective (which is rather liberal).

The last three bullet point rebuttals are quite funny. According to this poster, people who have children because they simply think that it will bring joy or fulfillment are just losers who "get bored by themselves" and have "unsatisfied dreams/ego." Corroborate this with the related question on the right, "Do people want to change the world after having children?" This is a concern to some people. Worldly greatness is the number one priority, and it might be problematic if children get in the way of seeking money or status.

The poster adds two more arguments for having children, but not under the bullet points (why do they not get bullet points?). The first is that having children is a tradition or routine. Needless to say, as an enlightened young person in this current year, the OP knows that a working tradition is never a valid reason to do something that brings you joy: you must find joy in something deemed worthwhile under liberal or liberal-individualist notions, such as seeking of status and money, or maybe humanitarianism to Africans. Second is the idea that one has a legacy. This is not rebutted by the OP. Having a legacy is something that would probably be acceptable to him, just abnormal.

So that is all for the post, now the answers.

One poster explained that it makes no sense to want to pass on one's blood:

They want children of their own, with their own bloodline. By this reason, anyone who donates blood to another person should become family. Logically correct? This reason, for me, is really very narrow because there isn't really a word like mine or ours. Our body is not our own. Even our partner is not our own. I didn't even know my husband existed before I met him. But when I met him, I tried to find various ways to know him and he did the same. So, we make a person or a thing our own. The same applies to children. If you are really so eager to have one or two, you don't need to create your own. Adopt and provide an orphan a home that he or she has been wishing for.

When the question first came out, a female scientist had the top answer, and she had said that one should ABSOLUTELY NOT have some desire to pass on a biological legacy. I cannot find her answer now, which is sad. She is probably smart enough to realize that people who want a biological legacy probably care about their identity, and people who care about their identity probably like to form societies that reinforce their identity, which is not kosher to a tolerant liberal multiculturalist.

Another poster tries to tackle the question from the economic angle. One thing you will notice in political debates is that just about anything gets boiled down to economics, because economics is thought to answer questions about utility, and therefore, happiness. 

From a psychological point of view, as stated by Professor Daniel Gilbert in one of his lectures, having a child is equivalent to money spent badly.

Imagine that you bought a pair of cashmere socks. Now, cashmere socks are really expensive; they cost more than a hundred dollars. Suppose you buy a pair.

A basic law of economics is that people pay more for the things that they love. A basic law of psychology is that people love more the things they pay for.

The more you make somebody pay, the more they'll love the thing they paid for.

Something similar happens in case of cashmere socks. You tend to love them more every day, because you paid a lot for them. After some time, you begin to feel the goodness that these socks possess, even if initially, you regret the money spent on them.

Once you put them on, and start walking, your state of mind changes to "Ah! I never thought these would be so soft! It's like I can finally see the light! The feeling is incomprehensible!" And just in case someone asks you why you bought a pair, you tell them, "You've got to buy a pair to realize how awesome they are!"

Now what does that sound like? Children!

People who have children have put in their money, blood and sweat to help them become great individuals. Studies show that children DO NOT cause happiness among people. Rather the fact that you have done so much for them, makes you happy!

He is right. There are studies showing that people with children are not happier. But I wonder if these studies are really comparing apples-to-apples, or if they are measuring happiness properly. Happiness is hard to measure, and often you will see that researchers just use physical health as some kind of proxy. He is also making an interesting point that people's immediate purchasing decisions might have a complicated relationship with the happiness brought to them by their spending. Turning this theme around in a few different directions could obliterate libertarianism.

And of course, we get the answer from the dude who ignored all the arguments of the OP and says sentimental crap. Most of the other posters say similar sentimental crap. Feel free to read the first sentence and skip.

Having/raising a child can make you a better person. That being said, not having a child doesn’t make someone worse. Childless people just won’t benefit from being forced to rapidly improve themselves the way a good parent will.

First off, don’t let anyone lead you to believe it is easy. There may be some easier kids than others, personality wise, but they all require a great deal of self-sacrifice. A lot of time, resources, blood, sweat and tears (and SLEEP) are given up by the parents for the child.

Second, it forces a person to become more responsible. You have to put away the childish things, the irresponsible behaviors, because now, a completely helpless life is dependent on you for its survival. A steady job and living space becomes a must.

Third, a good parent practices humility. You are no longer the greatest thing in your life. This wonderful, stinky, cute, snot-nosed child is. I personally noticed that when i became a dad, some of the more vain things I used to care about, like how I look, what kind of car I drive, suddenly meant a lot less. Which is the reason dad jokes exist, dad socks, mini-vans, and mom pants.

Fourth, a good parent practices love. Children NEED love. You might have done everything wrong with parenting, but if you unconditionally love your child, the kid will turn out alright, although with some quirks. In practicing love, you end up becoming more compassionate about your fellow humans. I know personally, my heart has softened since having kids.

Fortunately, the top commenter does indeed have the best answer. He writes the following:

I'm befuddled by "apart from evolution theory," because I believe the urge to procreate is almost entirely driven by evolution. People justify it in other ways, often with platitudes, because we don't really feel our instincts as instincts, and we don't like to think of ourselves as "programmed machines," but it's hard to come up with anything more instinctual than the desire to have kids. Natural Selection crafted us to have it.

He is right. But he is, sadly, missing the point of the OP's comment. The OP is demanding a "rational" reason for childbearing. And the OP, like many liberals, does not take it as a given that humans should live in accordance with our nature, or that we should organize societies in accordance with our natural urges. It would be a huge problem if they did, because tribalism is as natural as the desire to have children.

So we are left without a "rational" way to justify the making of children.

I think it is "rational" to live in accordance with your natural urges - all of them, including tribalism. To build an identity and base it upon blood and territory, and to share it with a tribe is completely natural. Conceptualizing and spiritualizing these urges gives a lexicon by which one can explain these natural urges to those of us who are skeptical and rational of everything-including motivations and benefits of childbirth. One then explains that living in accordance with your nature leads to the kind of intense pleasure that the philosophically-challenged quora community expresses, that it is better to swim with the current of your instinct if you are aiming to reach fulfillment. Living this way can lead to the uniquely intense pleasure that the answerers describe.

And just as a person might miss out on some of the most intense pleasure in the human experience by not having children or not having sex, a person also misses out on intense pleasure by not having an identity or a tribe. One's identity and society, like a religion, can color every experience in one's life, imbuing them with meaning. But people who do not have identity, like those who do not have children, simply cannot understand this, because they have not experienced it.