Anyone looking at having children (or any other relationship really) through the lens of cost/benefit will arrive at the logical conclusion that it's a huge investment with an uncertain reward, so likely not worth it from that perspective. There's no arguing with logical reasoning.
People in the developed world(or adjancent) have children anyway because they allow themselves to not apply such thinking for once.
Many people with children talk about how much more wonderful their life has been since they've had them (including here in HN comments). If you think there is a good chance of that happening to you, that's the "benefit" in the cost/benefit analysis and having children can end up being the logical conclusion.
I assume you meant developing world, in which case the reason is probably that many women do not have the opportunity to apply such thinking, due to lacking financial independence and/or access to highly effective contraception such as IUDs.
Nope, developed, where people have children despite a culture of analysing everything to death.
Agreed. Having kids can cause you to change, often for the better. You have the opportunity to be completely selfless.
People often do the worst things to the better part of humanity in the name of "family". I think, among other texts, this heuristic of not being overly attached to family is still relevant if we don't want to sublimate and becomes completely isolated as a species.
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37)
Yes I know the above isn't an article from Gwern or some sort of neuvo-techo-traditionalist diatribe, or even a peer reviewed paper. My point being that this civic feeling was enough of a point of contention that the authors of the Bible thought to include it.
Anyways, this wasn't meant to be an attack, more like a, what do you think?
I'd go further in the case for selflessness and say that _if_ the happenstance of the decision to be selfless is based on some unthoughtout biological drive, then can it really be selfless? Thinking is the thing here, and why should this necessarily lead to broader self effacement. That's like saying I'd donate my liver to my brother (cuz he's my brother) and after that the consequences and ritual and beauty of the donation are enough to warrant the possible future where I might donate another organ to a complete stranger, because I did the dance.
I argue that selflessness can only occur from people who can help those thar have no capacity to help themselves. The old, children, the infirmed, the powerless.
The bit I quoted in hindsight does read like fanatical dribble. I'll lean on Tolstoy here and say that from his angle, he posited that only a larger, universally conscious philosophical system (one that many people can understand, not just scientists or philosophers) would elevate our social systems to consider more than just our immediate family.
I think there is definitely choice wisdom in these kinds of collected works, the fact that corrupt churches etc leverage these things is another matter, I think you could read it tabula rasa.
Anyways back to the point, imo you probably don't need a large binding locus like God in smaller groups. I suppose even in larger societies bonds could be maintained along cultural/economic/etc lines. I could in fact just worship science (as DFW says, we all worship).
Having a philosophical system that encourages self-effacement seems to me to be what could undergird the impetus to be selfless. If it happens to be religion or science based doesn't matter, but it's atleast something that has thought put into it and has been QA'd so to speak.
Also I agree with you on your last point, but I think for it to occur it needs to have a why, and the why (to me) can't just be 'cuz family' because it doesn't scale (literally).
Both groups state what they consider to be socially appropriate reasons. They might not be entirely made up, but both groups keep the remaining deeply personal reasons for themselves. They reveal them only if they feel very safe.
Freedom of choice offers unlimited possibilities and claws out from momentum and yells at you to think about your choice. Most peoples 'secret' reason for having kids usually amounts to, 'because that's just how it is'.
Absolute statements like this are one of the reasons I avoid the conversation about kids vs no kids. It may be the most rewarding experience of your life, but I can assure you that your experience is not universal.
Unfortunately there is quite the philosophical, ideological, and even dogmatic schism between the two sides.
Like another post I read, if you do have to enter a debate about it, it's probably a more useful exercise to ask each other what it would take for their stance to change.