Objectivism and Children

[George H. Smith]

Thanks for the evidence in support of what I pointed out in post #4, supra, Ayn's position on children is that:

"Children would certainly be a burden for her hero's and heroines and none of the main ones have any children."

I agree with Rand on birth control and abortion, obviously, but she makes having children seem like selling oneself into slavery. At one point she even refers to having a child as the end of one's own "sovereignty."

A bit extreme, if you ask me.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Here's Peikoff, and this is good Peikoff:

[Selene]

ND:

Good grief! It must be the Jewish mother guilt gig...

He is such a complete asshole.

Here is a rational concept of child rearing...teach your child to do his or her own laundry. I learned how to at eight (8). I can iron my own clothes. Sew buttons on. Hem my own pants. I am an excellent cook.

Gee, then maybe I do not have to marry my mommy!

[9thdoctor]

Good grief! It must be the Jewish mother guilt gig...

He is such a complete asshole.

Hmm, I've always thought this was one of his best moments. If you watch the whole debate you'll see that this comes during the question period, and Peikoff didn't introduce the laundry motif, he just ran with it. He certainly has some good lines, parenthood isn't about breeding slaves, for instance.

[Selene]

Good grief! It must be the Jewish mother guilt gig...

He is such a complete asshole.

Hmm, I've always thought this was one of his best moments. If you watch the whole debate you'll see that this comes during the question period, and Peikoff didn't introduce the laundry motif, he just ran with it. He certainly has some good lines, parenthood isn't about breeding slaves, for instance.

Correct. All the more reason to teach your children to be self sufficient both in meeting the material requirements of living as well as the learning and thinking pieces.

I remember Heinlein going over the basics of being a human:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, con a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

[Xray]

Not quite on point, but close:

Ghs

Quote from the above:

"Parenthood is an enormous responsibility. It is an impossible responsibility for young people. Parenthood would force them to give up their future and condemn them to life of hopeless tragedy, of slavery to a child's physical and financial needs." (A. Rand)

Are such statements still compatible with Objectivism as a philosophy of individualism?

The same goes for Rand's assertion in an interview that - "Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life".

Another quote from the YouTube audio:

"When you bring children into the world, you sacrifice your own sovereignty, and become a means to an end: the end, the primary concern of the children." (Ayn Rand)

This undercuts the premise Objectivism rests on.

For one one hand, it is claimed that "man's life" is the standard of value, on the other hand, both reproduction - by which after all, "man" comes into life - and child-rearing - which, after all, is an essential element in shaping "man" into the 'end product': a rational adult being - get the thumbs down because they are regarded as a 'sacrifice'.

This is quite a contradiction.

[BaalChatzaf]

A cogent argument for going childless, which if taken seriously would mean the extinction of our species in under a hundred years (give or take). Someone has to take the initiative and make babies or mankind is finished. Is that altruism? Or is that survival?

I have done my bit for the human race. Four children of the flesh and five grandchildren. Of True Blue Objectivists follow Rand's thinking then Objectivism will become extinct rather soon.

The best test for a set of idea is working out the consequences of following them. By that criterion, the consequence of following Rand to the letter and utterance is extinction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

OH MY! {With tongue firmly embedded in my philosophical cheek}

Ayn was a secret Shaker!

Like Mother Ann Lee, she emigrated to America to found a revolutionary colony!

In 1774 she and a small group of her followers emigrated from England to New York. After several years, they gathered at Niskayuna, renting land from the Manor of Rensselaerswyck, Albany County, New York (the area now called Colonie). They worshiped by ecstatic dancing or "shaking", which dubbed them as the Shaking Quakers, or Shakers. Ann Lee preached to the public and led the Shaker church at a time when few women did either.^[1]

See, Rand danced to her Pixie music.

Ann Lee recognized how revolutionary her ideas were when she said, "We [the Shakers] are the people who turned the world upside down." Lee was also neutral during the American Revolution. Maintaining the position that they were pacifists, Ann Lee and her followers did not side with either the British or the colonists.

See, Rand was a revolutionary first mover.

The followers of Mother Ann came to believe that she embodied all the perfections of God in female form.

See, Rand has occupied that form of Goddess to Oists!

You just have to overlook Mother Ann's psychotic rejection of sexual relations and the fact that she founded the Shakers who finally eliminated themselves because of their rigid belief in celibacy.

Conversion was their way of spreading the faith, kinda like Peikoff and Hsieh.

Hey, I know it is a square peg in a round hole theory, but Bob put it in my mind, so it is his fault!

[bmacwilliam]

A cogent argument for going childless, which if taken seriously would mean the extinction of our species in under a hundred years (give or take). Someone has to take the initiative and make babies or mankind is finished. Is that altruism? Or is that survival?

I have done my bit for the human race. Four children of the flesh and five grandchildren. Of True Blue Objectivists follow Rand's thinking then Objectivism will become extinct rather soon.

The best test for a set of idea is working out the consequences of following them. By that criterion, the consequence of following Rand to the letter and utterance is extinction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree. My position all along that you cannot even begin to describe human nature without recognising the fact (rather obvious too I think), brought to light in your example above as well, that humans must and should spend part of their time/life/energy etc, working in an altruistic sense where they confer a survival advantage to others at a survival cost to themselves. The key is in the balance of these competing interests where neither extreme is consistent with our nature. The altruism in this sense might not be pure Randian altruism, but it's close enough and it simply cannot be dismissed IMHO.

I believe her brand of egoism is not in agreement with reality. In fact it means DEATH !!! - As you've illustrated and as she would probably describe any other dissenting positions.

Bob

[anthony]

No - Various versions one hears of this argument seem intrinsicist-collectivist-mystic-elitist. (That's a new combination for me.)

Mystic, that we are fulfilling some Divine Will. Intrinsicist, that a child is in, and of itself, automatically 'the good' (what of a starving Somalian mother having her sixth child? or a bright young student with aspirations for her future?)

Collectivist, in that as 'gene carriers' we are responsible for the entire human race. Elitist, that it is MY progeny that will go forward to populate the Earth.

I don't think I have to point out that there are enough good, rational and selfish reasons for the majority of people to have a child, for no danger to the human race to eventuate.

it's almost axiomatic, and obviously Rand considered this a self-evident truth. She argued for the exceptions, the individuals.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a cultural issue involved that Rand never addressed to my knowledge.

And her intimidation rhetoric in saying things like, "I cannot imagine the mind of someone who... blah blah blah" even cuts off some people from thinking about it.

It's survival of the species and culture.

Here's a moral question for you. Should a selfish individual be concerned with survival of the human species, or maybe survival of his/her own culture? Granted, it's an individual choice, but I think some education without intimidation is the least we can expect when looking into it.

A while back our friend and Muslim member of OL (LM) posted an article showing a projected population increase of Muslims as compared with other cultures. I didn't like the article at the time because it was poorly sourced and full of speculation that was presented as fact.

I have since read about this in other places. (I should give a source here, but I am short of time--if it becomes necessary, I'll dig something up.) From what I've seen, the article LM posted is true in general, if not in details.

Let's look at the obvious fact.

On one side is a mystical culture--with indoctrination from the cradle and strong maintenance habits for adults (like praying 5 times a day)--that values procreation and is popping them out like bunny rabbits, and on the other side is a culture of enlightened self-interest that currently makes light of family values and, percentage-wise for reproduction, is falling far behind the other.

How long do we expect the individualistic ideas this last culture was founded on to be the controlling ones after the population numbers of the mystical culture catches up and passes? How long does someone expect a growing majority to be controlled culturally by a dwindling minority?

This current form of thinking and acting about reproduction is cultural suicide. And Rand was at the forefront of promoting that way of thinking.

This is one of the big holes in Objectivist thought. The results are observable and measurable. All anyone has to do is look.

If anyone is happy to say let the whole culture or human race go to hell, let it become extinct, who cares?, I got mine, that's his or her choice. But that is not my choice.

I move in a different direction on this issue. And I will be writing about it.

I hold we are not just totally isolated individual things spinning on a ball that is floating about in time and space. We are individual members of a species. That last is what Ayn Rand consistently brushed aside in her view of human nature.

(This, to me, is a scope problem. She got the individualism stuff right. But she left out the species stuff and extended individualism principles and values to cover the gap.)

If we propose individualism as a contextless absolute, and this threatens to extinguish the species, I say a revision of that principle and value is in order. I don't see any other alternative than those two choices. Reality imposes it. So I'll take the revision over the extinction of my progeny. And I believe it is fully rational to do so.

I don't even believe I would be acting selfishly as a an individual member of the human species if I promoted a philosophy that resulted in its extinction.

OK, a culture is not a species. But this path starts with proposing an absolute value that allows a faith-based culture to simply out-reproduce the individualistic reason-based culture into submission and, ultimately, into extinction.

There doesn't have to be a total reversal, though. Individualism is still the best thing going for the individual. But part of that concern needs to be devoted to preserving the species and the best cultures among us. Proposing a philosophy that results in cultural suicide because the members do not reproduce enough to pass it on to their offspring is simply not rational.

Reproduction is a human value, not just a human condition. And ethics should make room for it.

So I say rather than make the argument of individualism VERSUS species concerns, let's find a way to make it individualism PLUS species concerns.

If you want to put it on a trader basis, we have a responsibility--a debt--to our species in exchange for our very existence and rights as individuals. The simple fact is that without the human species, not one of us would be an individual in the first place. We got our life and individuality from the species that came before us. We can settle that debt by making efforts to ensure the species continues after us. (I don't think in such trader-like terms for the metaphysics of identifying human nature, but the logic works.)

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

My quick, tongue in cheek reference to Ayn as a Shaker, has, like all satire, a sharp edge of truth.

Objectivism has a glaring contradiction on this issue. Peikoff reinforces it in that ND clip and George provided the in depth evidence of Ayn's incredible bias on this point.

Her personal behavior in, either not wanting children, or, being unable to have children allows her to argue the position that was displayed in George's videos.

As with all philosophers, they are humans with personal issues that can easily encyst themselves into the argumentation and presentation of the philosophy.

To me, it does not diminish her greatness, it merely places her greatness in perspective.

Great post.

Adam

[anthony]

Michael,

I must have missed something about Rand's statements.

But never mind what she said.

There is truth in some of your thoughts, and some I am contrary to.

I don't believe individualism ever advocates each person not taking all these things into account, including "species concerns", of the environment,or, here the future quantity, or quality of the race.

I certainly don't believe individualism will, or must, lead to a decline in population numbers.

And if individualism declines or expires in the face of competing ideologies - well, first, it never was a majority ideology; also, perhaps it would be reality at work, and must be accepted; but last and critically, it will always spring back again, and not die completely, I think.

It's one thing to hold maximum value in just being here: in life, all life - without which our existence as the end result would not be possible; and another, to carry the debt. It is an impossible debt to repay, and there should be no onus on the *individual* to repay it - even if it is as simple (!) as having children of our own. This "debt" in itself contradicts individualism, and could ironically bring its demise.

I see only that individual choice continues to settle this, and let the chips fall as they will.

Tony

[john42t]

Michael,

This is one of the big holes in Objectivist thought. The results are observable and measurable. All anyone has to do is look.

The effect is the same here in Germany. All ideology over here is collectivist, the amoral pragmatics of every-day life are who keep the show running. Rand is unknown (or any individualist ideology for that matter).

Rand's not the one causing this, it's a side effect of mysticism. Rand's the cure.

If you want to put it on a trader basis, we have a responsibility--a debt--to our species in exchange for our very existence and rights as individuals. The simple fact is that without the human species, not one of us would be an individual in the first place. We got our life and individuality from the species that came before us. We can settle that debt by making efforts to ensure the species continues after us. (I don't think in such trader-like terms for the metaphysics of identifying human nature, but the logic works.)

And I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my parents. My arian race. My country, my culture.

This is what I believed before I read Rand: That I have a *duty* to my country / society to have kids. That, despite not wanting kids, it's the moral thing to do *for the sake of society*. My motivation was not the love of my potential children, but the affirmation of this "collective" I had in my head. I would have (unjustly) hated my children and they would have (justly) hated me in return as soon as they figured out what's wrong with me. Classical Kantian deontology.

I can't thank Rand enough to have spanked that sickness out of my head.

[Selene]

[studiodekadent]

And we all know Germans are kinky too.

[yes, I know, bad joke]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I certainly don't believe individualism will, or must, lead to a decline in population numbers.

Tony,

I didn't say individualism per se leads to a decline in population. My point is that if you exclude species values from your promotion of individualism--and even insinuate that people who raise the question are evil folks who want to enslave mankind--that, I submit, results in population decline.

Even without Rand's bashing, here in the USA, we have low population growth percentages compared to other cultures because an enormous quantity of abortions are made. Also, people are constantly encouraged to place immediate gratification over medium-and-long-term values. (Almost all advertising, for instance, appeals to immediate gratification.)

I'm not saying to make abortions illegal, but I am saying that family values need to be fostered more than they now are.

But the numbers are observable. I'll find some sources for you.

And believe me, I'm also aware of issues like homosexuality in speaking to this problem. As anyone who knows me can attest, I am all for letting folks do what they want. I do think, though, if society ever reached the point where sterile or low birth cultures became the majority, it would be an issue that had to be addressed. Otherwise the culture would die out.

My current concern is that there is a culture, Islam, that has world domination in its charter. I'm not speaking of Islamist stuff, or even evil conquer the world stuff. I'm speaking in terms of the religious philosophy. Their vision is that the whole world will ultimately become Islamic. So it's reasonable to assume they think working toward that end is the good.

If Muslims become the majority (as the evidence shows they will if current trends keep up), isn't it reasonable to assume that they will want to see this reflected in the government? Are you comfortable contemplating, say, The United States of Islamic America? Do you think the Muslim culture will place the Founding Fathers over Mohammad if they can vote for things to be otherwise?

This is a simple issue to correct. But the error is treating this as a political problem. It is a cultural one that is informed by the respective philosophies of the different cultures. One culture greatly values family life and growing babies. The other, not so much.

Which culture do you think will grow more babies over time?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you want to put it on a trader basis ... (I don't think in such trader-like terms for the metaphysics of identifying human nature, but the logic works.)

And I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my parents. My arian race. My country, my culture.

This is what I believed before I read Rand: That I have a *duty* to my country / society to have kids. That, despite not wanting kids, it's the moral thing to do *for the sake of society*. My motivation was not the love of my potential children, but the affirmation of this "collective" I had in my head.

John,

You just provided the perfect reason why I said I don't think in terms of the trader principle for identifying human nature.

I only mentioned it because I have argued some of this stuff with some individuals (in the Objectivist-libertarian subculture) who only think in terms of trade.

For instance, they deny that the herding inherent in primates is part of the human psyche, and maintain that we all live in groups by conscious choice because each individual gains more advantages that way. This isn't my interpretation of their words, either. I've actually seen it stated at this level of clarity of meaning.

I find this to be a weird way of thinking because it excludes all the findings from the entire field of anthropology from the concept of human nature.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

Here's one report from a respectable firm--Pew Research Center.

The Future of the Global Muslim Population

Projections for 2010-2030

ANALYSIS

January 27, 2011

From the report:

Executive Summary

The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

While the global Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, the Muslim population nevertheless is expected to grow at a slower pace in the next two decades than it did in the previous two decades. From 1990 to 2010, the global Muslim population increased at an average annual rate of 2.2%, compared with the projected rate of 1.5% for the period from 2010 to 2030.

This isn't "sky is falling" alarming, but it is a solid trend.

And it can be impacted (including accelerated) by philosophy one way or another.

We are the ones who chose which philosophical principles we promote. On the issue of reproduction, the Muslims are pretty clear. We are not.

Michael

[anthony]

Tony, Here's one report from a respectable firm--This isn't "sky is falling" alarming, but it is a solid trend. And it can be impacted (including accelerated) by philosophy one way or another. We are the ones who chose which philosophical principles we promote. On the issue of reproduction, the Muslims are pretty clear. We are not. Michael

Michael,

Sure, but it is a 'debt to the future' you are suggesting, and its collectivist premise can't be compatible with individualism.

Muslims are going to be one in four of the population.

OK, where? Mainly, where they are now, in Muslim nations. The West is going to become firmer about the populations in their countries becoming assimilated, and observing the law of the land - that's for certain. There is bound to be more inter-faith war in Africa, too.

Ultimately, when the dust has settled, the uneasy truce among ideologies will go on, I believe.

(And when 'the word' of individualism spreads, who knows, there may be a stampede of Muslims to Objectivism.)

Any other concerted ways (apart from giving the 'ideas market' a better idea, which I know you espouse) to right the cultural/philosophical balance, has overtones of social engineering, and I've seen enough of that.

About self-gratification, vis-a-vis "easy" abortions, I am completely with you. An abortion should never be a 'get out of jail free' card. It is a massive decision. And I'm pro-choice.

But that's the effect of the prevalent pseudo-self-esteem everywhere today - the precise opposite of rational individualism.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sure, but it is a 'debt to the future' you are suggesting, and its collectivist premise can't be compatible with individualism.

Tony,

No. I'm not suggesting that at all.

Did you read what I wrote? I even repeated it.

Do you want me to repeat it once again?

Or is there a part you have a doubt about?

I'm more than willing to further explain what I mean if it isn't clear.

Michael

[anthony]

I certainly don't believe individualism will, or must, lead to a decline in population numbers.

Tony, I didn't say individualism per se leads to a decline in population. My point is that if you exclude species values from your promotion of individualism--and even insinuate that people who raise the question are evil folks who want to enslave mankind--that, I submit, results in population decline. Even without Rand's bashing... Michael

Michael,

Therefore your point is NOT to exclude species values in one's promotion of individualism. To avoid a population decline.

Have I understood?

Which O'ists/individualists advocate for limited or zero birth rates, nowadays, anyhow? Never heard of it.

Not me. I've said that there are plenty of good, selfish reasons for individualists (and anyone) to have children, and they will, as always, decide for themselves. Anything more or less interferes with independence of mind, and encourages duty.

(The threat of Islamification was not around in Rand's day - and, the birthrate in the West was probably flying.

Now we have a different context.)

Being against advocating zero birth, is one thing alone, which obviously I am in agreement with;

Actively advocating increased birth, is another, altogether.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Therefore your point is NOT to exclude species values in one's promotion of individualism. To avoid a population decline.

Have I understood?

Tony,

No.

You're close, but really far from winning the cigar.

Michael

[caroljane]

I learned how to (do laundry) at eight (8). I can iron my own clothes. Sew buttons on. Hem my own pants. I am an excellent cook.

Gee, then maybe I do not have to marry my mommy!

Wow, I can hardly do any of those things. You ever think about relocating to Toronto?

Wistfully,

Carol

[Selene]

Carol:

Except for the cooking which I love and the ironing which I enjoy because it is actually quite relaxing if you have the right mind set, I try not to go too overboard with "housework," in other words, I try to keep those skills secret because a certain sex, which shall remain unidentified can be extremely demanding when they find out you can "do all that stuff!"