Procreation as an Anachronism

29 January 2016

There was a time when children had economic value. If viewed from a purely economic perspective, from the cost/benefit perspective, that is certainly not the case today. At least not for most people- there are of course welfare recipients whose business it is to procreate. The more children, the more money comes in the form of welfare entitlements. But that is not my direction here, deconstructing the welfare system, or the state of humanity.

If prospective parents sat down and discussed the potential economic benefits and economic burdens attached to procreation before having children, I think many would opt out of the process. If a spreadsheet was used, or a budget was prepared, or a “business plan” was written, if due diligence was done, the economic burden would surpass the benefits, not to mention the income, of many Americans. Okay, some people do plan well enough for their children. And some, I am sure, do opt out of the process for economic, as well as other reasons- I actually know a number of people who have. Unfortunately many of these people are the kind of parents kids need- logical, caring, practical, and educated. Still, too often logic is overridden by emotion and animal instinct, not to mention marketing.

Throughout history parents have had flocks of children purely as an economic endeavor- the more children you had, the more that were likely to survive and thus help provide for the family. It was about cost/benefits. And it was human instinct- animal instinct, at work. There were 40,000 years of human evolution behind the process, not to mention millions upon millions of years of pre-modern human instinct to back it up. Yes, it is true- humans are not different than so many animals- having large litters of offspring is an adaptive response intended to enhance the perpetuation  of a species. Of course with most animals there are checks and balances in the form of population pressures- the physical environment, availability of food, climate, and disease to name a few. These limit the number of animals in the species, the viability of offspring, and in all cases on a long enough timeline, the species itself. It is, or was, a self-correcting system.

This premise can be applied to other systems at work in our society as well- say religion. Various religions tell people to “be fruitful” and so forth. The idea here is the same animal instinct institutionalised. The more offspring members have, the more power that religion will eventually have.

Following these ides then, natural selection has been undermined by technology and marketing, religion, and our world today, by entitlements. What was once a necessity has now become about economics, which translates into power. The continuation of a vicious cycle is at play here, still institutionalised. But instead of a church, or a militaristic state, or the needs of an extended family promoting procreation and perpetuation of the lineage, now it is about the perpetuation of our economic system. The more mouths to feed, the more iPhones will eventually be sold. The more babies there are, the more consumers in the future. The more humans, the more money can be made by the few who make most of it. It is neo-feudalism, where the general population, the vassals, are paid a pittance, but kept happy through beer, drugs, and television. And unfortunately the more the population grows, the more limited the resources become.The more we “need”, the shorter our timeline becomes.

What was once adaptive, a response that insured our survival as a species, has now become detrimental to our very survival.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: