I'm not sure how you are using the term axiomatize. However, I will say that life does not have ideas, only people do. People choose to have offspring. — schopenhauer1

All life fundamentally chooses to have offspring. That is why it still exists in the first place.

They are following the ideology that ways of life of a society are good. — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own.

Yeah, you can give me some fringe exceptions, but besides that this isn't sustainable as a widespread thing, these fringes are only in relation to the non-fringes, so you need both. — schopenhauer1

A fringe can easily become the mainstream. That happens all the time. In fact, most people are sheeple. Their opinion concerning the mainstream ideology, (or concerning anything at all, for that matter) does not matter at all. Nassim Taleb has written a good article exactly on that subject: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. The opinion of most people is immaterial and irrelevant. Only intolerant people matter. Society changes its ideology according to the principle of group renormalization in line with the opinion of its most intolerant members.

So, you can happily ignore the opinion of most people, because it is known to be worthless.

It's the implication of this that is most important, not just awareness (though I doubt parents think of birthing children as assenting to an ideology). The implication is that if ideology is debatable, putting new people into these ways-of-life should be debated as well. It is no different a political debate as health care, and in fact is more fundamental and important — schopenhauer1

Yes, indeed. Without a consensus on how to live, a good ideology to live by, procreating simply amounts to increasing the number of confused souls.

Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own. — alcontali

The key word here is chooses. To say that most animals "choose" to have offspring, is a misuse of that word. Animals may have instincts for children, but choosing is something different. They may "choose" a mate, but "choose" in this regard, is a loosely used meaning, referring to rote cognitive processes. Same goes for "choosing" what time to mate, or if to mate.

Humans, on the other hand, can deliberate based on the fact that we are linguistic animals. Again, I don't even want this debate. If you want to start another thread on animal cognition, be my guest, but this is my final word on it in this thread. If you answer it, I will ignore it as it is not what the thread is about.

Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own. — alcontali

No, this example does not have anything to do with what I am discussing. To clarify, I meant ANY society- not just the majority, not just a minority, not just a small one, or a large one, but choosing to birth someone in ANY society is an ideology. In fact, I'd still say that since all parties involved (majority and minority) are part of a bigger system anyways, the more general ways of life (having to survive, having to maintain comfort, having to maintain some form of entertainment/meaning) make it simply SOCIETY rather than various intra-societies. That is to say, when you pan out of it, really ALL societies are going to have similar ways of life.. even if they look different on the surface. Everyone needs to eat and so need to be a part of an economy (bit coin, real currency, markets, hunting, whatever..).. Everyone will want comfortable levels at some point (too cold, too hot, too this or that)... Everyone will want some sort of entertainment or meaning (boredom, needs and wants of all kinds). So, really we can just say any or all societies at this point in the argument.

A fringe can easily become the mainstream. That happens all the time. In fact, most people are sheeple. Their opinion concerning the mainstream ideology, (or concerning anything at all, for that matter) does not matter at all. Nassim Taleb has written a good article exactly on that subject: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. The opinion of most people is immaterial and irrelevant. Only intolerant people matter. Society changes its ideology according to the principle of group renormalization in line with the opinion of its most intolerant members.

So, you can happily ignore the opinion of most people, because it is known to be worthless. — alcontali

So again, it doesn't matter what particular society, but SOCIETY en totale. Ask yourself, is there a society at all in question? If yes, bringing someone into that way of life (majority, minority, or any at all) is an ideology in itself.

Psychology and economics were never blindly trusted and are widely considered to be mostly conjectural. Medicine has also always been distrusted to an important extent.

[...]No, it is just standard epistemology. — alcontali

Never trusted by whom?

I think we would agree here that "they were never blindly trusted by people properly training in reasoning and the scientific method".

Of course, psychologists and economists may say otherwise, and say key points in their belief system and decision making process as likewise following from an "objective epistemology", whereas we would say it is an ideology motivated by social control: That physicists call these "soft sciences" and their own methods "hard science" to signal amongst themselves that these people down the hall are, largely, raving lunatics; if we had the money and decided to hire a team of physicists and mathematicians to study psychological phenomenon it is unlikely they would suddenly declare "well, we're doing soft science now, so anything goes, just post whatever bullshit you want on the wall and we'll take a vote on it"; rather, they would likely continue to do "hard science" but just not come to any of the radical conclusions about mental states that governments require to keep things a bit quieter; they would likely simply completely discard cherished works that turn out to be just the anecdotal musings of a pervert with a beard and whatever frameworks have since been built up on them.

Which is of course why physicists are not invited into these disciplines to "harden them up"; but of course it goes without saying that, in the case of economics, when a venture actually requires the best predictions available to make money, they hire a bunch of physicists and mathematicians to build those models, and whatever propaganda an economist believes is completely ornamental in such a situation.

And indeed, when a group of mathematicians worked up the courage and took it upon themselves, completely uninvited of course, to review the reasoning rigour in the "soft sciences" they built up a robust statistical model concluding the conclusions rarely follow from the premises.

So, maybe we agree broadly speaking on these sorts of happenings, but my point is that someone who disagrees with us will say "no, no, no, you guys have an agenda and have built an 'anti-soft-science' ideology to justify it ... and not only an agenda! but authority but Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and you need treatment fast!".

What we view as epistemic deficiency in arriving at critical conclusions in the soft sciences, well, supporters of these frameworks of classifying people as "mentally ill (...nothing wrong with society, it's just them)" will say their framework follows from an objective epistemology.

And indeed, in general, any disagreement between anyone as to what is true, each side will accuse the other of being merely an ideology whereas they're own ideas are derived from solid "standard epistemology".

Hence, in my view at least, insisting one's own ideas are epistemic whereas anyone who disagrees has a made-up ideology is simply to invite sterile debate. Your ideas about epistemology are just that, your ideas, and so form an ideology about what you consider true within epistemology; many people may agree with some key points, but if someone disagrees (for instance claims all is empty and your own self that believes these things doesn't even really exist), well they will say their's is the true epistemology and yours is just the ideology of a deluded ego.

We just look at how beliefs can be objectively justified, and if they can't, then it is ideology and not knowledge. — alcontali

People who were told "opiods, totally safe, science says so" by "scientific medical authorities" and live the terrible consequences are entirely valid in doubting the next important thing scientific institutions tell them to believe.
— boethius

And they are right in that regard. If there is doubt possible, they should doubt; especially when it is obvious that some people stand to handsomely profit from the fact that we believe their lies. — alcontali

Yes, we agree here, this is exactly my point. Most people's interaction with the broader scientific community is with medicine, psychology and economics. So, if they were promised trickle-down benefits that then don't arrive, or that their negative feelings arising from precarious and exhausting economic and working conditions can be "fixed", or that a certain medication is recommended and has "hard evidence it's likely more beneficial than not", it is completely reasonable that, if these promises don't turn out to be true, they then start to doubt every single scientific community.

It's of course easy for people with proper mathematical training to simply ask the doctor for the studies supporting the recommendation and then laugh it away when sample sizes are ludicrously small and, even if the conclusions are true (which is never the case, there's always "well ... we didn't study a whole range of risks .. .and are not technically recomending anything BUT! if the practioner feels this is will help their patient we don't have any evidence it will do more harm than good at this point; tada!" of course, to cover the asses of the scientists doing the study; not so "scientifically incompetent" after all) -- even if the conclusions are true on face value, only establish the thinnest of possible risk-benefits -- and in one case where I've requested the evidence, I had a few hours later the report that no such evidence exists, it's just the "policy" of the hospital to make such a recommendation; lolz.

My point is exactly that: the "bet", by most academics, that calling out bullshit they see in other areas will undermine trust in science, is completely counterproductive and has no reasoning basis but simply exemplifies their own corruption (self-censorship for money) with regards to the scientific process. Wrong science has very real world consequences for people, and living those consequences undermines faith in the scientific community far faster and surely than scientists debating "what is actually true".

As far as I am concerned, we cannot trust the interventionistas, especially, not in the subject of climate change. — alcontali

Now, my bringing up climate change was not to debate it, but just as an example of the reasoning process above academics of hard science use to justify censoring themselves about the tons of bullshit found in the "soft sciences": that if I point out economists use of mathematics is like a child driving a car on a the highway ... maybe people won't swallow the line "scientific consensus, science knows best!".

So, I agree that the arguments presented to people about climate change are terrible: basically assuming people don't have any critical thinking skills and therefore the best they can do is just follow a consensus of experts ... without realizing that whether or not to trust a consensus of experts requires critical thinking.

However, why we differ is a difference in our ideological approach to science. Whereas you see people gaining from the notion of man made climate change, I see it far more plausible much more powerful interests have to gain from denial of man made climate change. Likewise, the science of climate change is a hard science question, following from physical theories of energy conservation and thermodynamics as well as geology, built-up by scientists over decades and centuries who have earned my trust.

Of course, doubt is always possible, but the correct reasoning framework is not "a consensus of experts" but rather a risk-management framework, within the context of all the other environmental problems. Again, what is a "reasonable risk to maintain a preferred social lifestyle" and what is not, is ideological -- and not simply of one's ideological approach to science but one's value system -- there is no epistemic given on reasonable risk nor even that people care about future generations or even other people alive right now, or even their future selves!; different moral systems will yield radically different conclusions based on the same evidence, even if there wasn't a consensus.

As for the example of living off of sunlight, there are plenty of valid epistemological positions where this would be true, and not just "magic" but even with current scientific (had science) theories one could believe we really are in a simulation (many people do) and will power can "bend the rules" (that the movie "the Matrix" was just the AI gas-lighting us for fun, and "deja vu" really is hard scientific evidence proving the Matrix is real and has flaws inconsistent with thermodynamics and that you can verify yourself). Likewise, we can't rule out aliens that can live off sunlight and have come to earth to teach important spiritual lessons; that our "western rationalism" has failed and these spiritual truths "freeing" is proof the guru has the truth, maybe is an alien, and not our "science". So, not only is excluding all these epistemic possibilities the formation of an ideology (and my own, we agree on what we expect to be true about such claims of living off sunlight), coming to the conclusion that "yes, living off sunlight can't be done, anyone who says so is lying or delusional" requires trusting the scientific community "enough" (simply verifying you can't live off sunlight doesn't exclude others can't) and what "trust" level is justifiable can't be objectively verified by definition.

I think your examples miss the point of the premise. Rather, I am saying that by birthing someone, one is assenting to a set of ideals (one being that at least life is worth living, that the current society is good enough to bring someone into it, that the ways of life of that society are something to instantiate a new person into, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Yes, I misunderstood your question, it seems uncontroversial to me that parents signup to a large part of the ideology of the society they are in when deciding to conceive.

I had originally understood you were questioning whether it's possible for the resulting person that's born can escape the ideology they grow up in; wherein, my basic point is a large part of the "social common ideology" is simply necessary to live, because it happens to be true, and trying to escape it will get a person killed far before they manage to purge themselves of all socially inherited beliefs; and other parts that are arbitrary simply have little reason to forego; such as inventing one's own language and refusing to speak according to society's "rules". But of course, that "lot's of things are true" doesn't establish some things aren't false, and I would argue that everything a society believes in can be escaped from.

But we seem to be largely in agreement vis-a-vis parents choosing to conceive (and risking it is also an ideological choice):

If yes, bringing someone into that way of life (majority, minority, or any at all) is an ideology in itself. — schopenhauer1

I would agree with.

Of course, not all pregnancies are chosen, so I would not say a rape victim that conceives and gives birth does so out of any particular ideology; though I'm not sure this is relevant point for what you want to discuss the philosophical implications of this scenario.

But we seem to be largely in agreement vis-a-vis parents choosing to conceive (and risking it is also an ideological choice): — boethius

I would agree with. — boethius

So to take this implication further, I believe this to be the utmost important political decision. I see political ideology as ideas that one believes not just oneself, but other should follow. Thus, forcing other people into society should be the first thing debated. Everything else is secondary to this as everything else literally, comes from this.

You're probably going to work for some employer or maybe start a business. If you don't for a long enough, you will go hungry and become homeless. You can try to hack it in the wilderness yourself. Someone thought that this was a good situation to bring you in. But this wasn't examined more than- it is good to bring this person into society. The ideology is, "At least some people should be brought into society". Why is any person being brought into a society a good thing? It is simply an ideology that the way of life is good, and others should be brought into it.

Yes, indeed. Without a consensus on how to live, a good ideology to live by, procreating simply amounts to increasing the number of confused souls. — TheMadFool

But to live at all is the ideology in this case. Why should people live at all (be conceived, birthed into existence)? To work, to entertain themselves, in a certain socio-economic context etc. seems to be the ideology for the children. But why are we assuming this is good for people to enter into? The ideology of living in a society is assuming another person should live in the society. Why this assumption? Why isn't this ideology debated? That should be a political debate, not an assumption of inevitability.

But to live at all is the ideology in this case. Why should people live at all (be conceived, birthed into existence)? To work, to entertain themselves, in a certain socio-economic context etc. seems to be the ideology for the children. But why are we assuming this is good for people to enter into? The ideology of living in a society is assuming another person should live in the society. Why this assumption? Why isn't this ideology debated? That should be a political debate, not an assumption of inevitability. — schopenhauer1

I think there's a simple explanation for the situation as you describe it. I think it's related to what I said earlier about people procreating despite knowledge of the unpleasant facts of life but exactly the opposite. What I mean is that it's not that people giving birth the children are making a conscious effort in full knowledge of the situation such as their children having to work, having to find some form of entertainment, in short having to undertake the arduous task to find a niche for themselves in society and then go on to repeat what their parents did and have children of their own. Au contraire, people are completely oblivious about the ideology they're endorsing and have never in their lives given a single thought to the issue. Of course it could be as I said earlier, people are in the know but are overwhelmed by social pressure to continue the tradition of family-making, either with resignation to, or in defiance of, the facts.

Enter your question as to why the matter doesn't make an appearance in social debates. Perhaps people value life to the right degree to preclude persuasion otherwise. You haven't spoken of suffering at all but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. However think of it this way: nonexistence you've "known" before your birth and you will "know" it at death. Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull life seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible!

I couldn't agree with you more in the first paragraph and couldn't agree with you less in the second (if you weren't joking).

Au contraire, people are completely oblivious about the ideology they're endorsing and have never in their lives given a single thought to the issue. Of course it could be as I said earlier, people are in the know but are overwhelmed by social pressure to continue the tradition of family-making, either with resignation to, or in defiance of, the facts. — TheMadFool

This is probably a major part of the issue as to why procreating is not considered an ideology. People don't stop and think that what they are doing is indeed a political ideology- one that is putting a stamp of approval on a way of life.

Enter your question as to why the matter doesn't make an appearance in social debates. Perhaps people value life to the right degree to preclude persuasion otherwise. You haven't spoken of suffering at all but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. However think of it this way: nonexistence you've "known" before your birth and you will "know" it at death. Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull lives seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible! — TheMadFool

TheMadFool, have you seen my other posts? Almost all of them pertain to suffering as a reason for antinatalism. However, this thread was meant to be about as you said:

but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. — TheMadFool

That's sort of true. This thread is more about the inability to recognize procreation of someone into a society as a political decision for someone. That is the issue at hand in this context.

Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull lives seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible! — TheMadFool

So now you are just defending the ideology I guess?

Just an opinion, that's all. It does seem reasonable to spice things up by choosing life, no matter how brief and dull, if nonexistence is the main theme . Comic relief? No offense intended to the millions suffering from excruciating pain (disease, torture, etc.) but don't forget these are corrigible aspects of living.

All in all, you're right on the money about how empty the ideology of procreation is.

So to take this implication further, I believe this to be the utmost important political decision. I see political ideology as ideas that one believes not just oneself, but other should follow. — schopenhauer1

I am essentially in agreement.

However, for me it is not a problem to categorize all beliefs as ideological and all decisions as ideologically based.

I'll make a small tangent to elucidate the negative connotation of the word ideology, which I want to avoid in this conversation, as I think you do as well, and so if there is not even a slight hint of negative connotation of ideology influencing your argument, then the following is for the benefit of others.

The idea that "ideology is bad", generally speaking, comes from propagandists defending the status quo. For instance, if a business makes some controversial decision that many don't like. We might ask "was it for ideological reasons?" which has the implicit alternative that if it wasn't "for ideological reasons" then it was just some marketing calculation intended to maximize profits by drumming up controversy and increasing loyalty in at least some people by building an us-vs-them feeling.

However, of course, maximizing profits is also an ideology. By categorizing any other decision making basis as "ideological", and thus not justifiable at best and simply irrational at worst, is simply a subtle trick to emphasize "don't go outside the lines".

So yes, deciding to have children is ideological based and implicitly accepts a large part of society's ideology.

However, I would argue that "a large part" of society's ideology is a prerequisite for having children because it happens to be true. Though I view all decisions as ideological, that does not mean all ideology is false. "You shouldn't eat poisonous mushrooms" is a part of society's ideology I've inherited, and I imagine you as well, but doesn't mean it's false.

Now, I agree that most people don't give the ideology they've inherited much thought, obviously simply going along with it in a "it's worked until now at least" sense isn't necessarily contradictory. Of course, most people who don't think much about it, just a normal thing people wanting and having children (a fact of life as it were), probably don't even argue that far. So it is an interesting debate whether such an assumption without attempting to justify it is a justifiable assumption; but of course, it can only be debated from outside by people that are reflecting on the issue and considering both proposals. So, probably best to discuss those proposals in themselves first.

So, although we agree that it an ideological choice, I would not agree completely with:

Thus, forcing other people into society should be the first thing debated. Everything else is secondary to this as everything else literally, comes from this. — schopenhauer1

At least not in terms of a face-value interpretation, of relation to parents conceiving children, as it excludes people who cannot have children from participating in what is essential and not secondary.

A reformulation I would agree with, is that the fundamental issue is "whether it is worthwhile to continue humanity or not", and, if yes, then several principles follow as a corollary. The most important would be preserving the environmental conditions that make humanity possible, not simply because that's the foundation for humanity's project but we have responsibility to other living creatures and not just ourselves. The idea that "sometimes people should have children" also follows from deciding to continue humanity. And, for some, the best way to contribute to continuing humanity does involves having children, while others may see the best way for them as other activities.

Of course, most people who have children may not think in these terms or even intuitively share this world view; for instance may not care too much about the environment and want children anyway to satisfy their own parental desire or increase their social standing.

However, as I mention above, I believe we can't escape a large part of society's ideology because it happens to be true (and going without it leads quickly to death) but I also believe that whatever is false we inherit we can escape from. Deciding to have children is not an intrinsic commitment to perpetuate false beliefs society has. The "true ideology" may overlap a large part of society's ideology, either defined as the status quo or then just the collection of what everyone happens to believe, and the true ideology may include valuing the continuation of humanity.

I'd argue it's a phenomenon, not an "ideology", but more or less the many different individuals and groups (e.x. whether individual families, businesses, churches, legal institutions, private social groups, or others within some given area or approximation).

Given that even a fairly small "town" can potentially have hundreds of different people, groups, and so forth, most of not all mathematical approximations of "society" or any given society are lacking in that regard, and will only end up being a very small part of a much bigger whole,

So yes, deciding to have children is ideological based and implicitly accepts a large part of society's ideology.

However, I would argue that "a large part" of society's ideology is a prerequisite for having children because it happens to be true. Though I view all decisions as ideological, that does not mean all ideology is false. "You shouldn't eat poisonous mushrooms" is a part of society's ideology I've inherited, and I imagine you as well, but doesn't mean it's false.

Now, I agree ↪TheMadFool that most people don't give the ideology they've inherited much thought, obviously simply going along with it in a "it's worked until now at least" sense isn't necessarily contradictory. Of course, most people who don't think much about it, just a normal thing people wanting and having children (a fact of life as it were), probably don't even argue that far. So it is an interesting debate whether such an assumption without attempting to justify it is a justifiable assumption; but of course, it can only be debated from outside by people that are reflecting on the issue and considering both proposals. So, probably best to discuss those proposals in themselves first. — boethius

So I think we are basically in agreement except that wanting/having children is a "fact of life". I have argued several times that in the human animal, it is a deliberate choice made from deliberate actions. I don't think other animals have the same ability to deliberate on any number of choices- including whether to procreate. Thus indeed, procreating is a deliberate choice. Politically speaking, it is taking in the ways-of-life of a current society (or hoped for future society?) and wanting to put a new person into that- making the decision for them, that this is deemed as good and a new person should deal with whatever the ways-of-life are.

At least not in terms of a face-value interpretation, of relation to parents conceiving children, as it excludes people who cannot have children from participating in what is essential and not secondary. — boethius

That is taking that a bit too literally. Anyone can debate whether procreation is good. After all, procreation certainly affects the progeny born into existence. Although I don't think anyone can force their idea of procreating or not on someone else, it is ironic that indeed the parent is forcing procreation on a new person, whether or not that parent's neighbor disapproves or not. So again, anyone can have this conversation, whether if one can actually procreate or not.

A reformulation I would agree with, is that the fundamental issue is "whether it is worthwhile to continue humanity or not", and, if yes, then several principles follow as a corollary. The most important would be preserving the environmental conditions that make humanity possible, not simply because that's the foundation for humanity's project but we have responsibility to other living creatures and not just ourselves. The idea that "sometimes people should have children" also follows from deciding to continue humanity. And, for some, the best way to contribute to continuing humanity does involves having children, while others may see the best way for them as other activities. — boethius

But why is the assumption that we should contribute to continuing humanity? That is the exact ideological assumption I am questioning. Perhaps we should contribute to reducing ALL suffering unto a future person by simply not having said person (who will eventually suffer)?

However, as I mention above, I believe we can't escape a large part of society's ideology because it happens to be true (and going without it leads quickly to death) but I also believe that whatever is false we inherit we can escape from. Deciding to have children is not an intrinsic commitment to perpetuate false beliefs society has. The "true ideology" may overlap a large part of society's ideology, either defined as the status quo or then just the collection of what everyone happens to believe, and the true ideology may include valuing the continuation of humanity. — boethius

I don't get how you are using "true" in this post. What makes an ideology "true"? Any answer you provide will beg the question, even unto the simple answer "it helps us survive" as even that ideology can be questioned as to why we should contribute to that cause rather than reduction of suffering (which would equate to preventing any new person from being born to experience suffering).

So I think we are basically in agreement except that wanting/having children is a "fact of life". — schopenhauer1

Yes, we seem to agree on the basic framework that society runs on ideology.

By "fact of life" I mean to reference that most people with children or who see children around may not have thought through the philosophical implications.

It is an aside, however, to what extent people can be justified holding a position without thinking through the justification. My statement wasn't well written if it is not clear I was not taking a position relative this issue. Apologetics for people who haven't thought their actions through much is not a subject that interests me -- though not because the answers are clear to these questions but simply because the only person who can benefit from such arguments is someone who does have the time and desire to think about the subject and so is no longer in the category of "not having thought about it".

That is taking that a bit too literally. Anyone can debate whether procreation is good. After all, procreation certainly affects the progeny born into existence. Although I don't think anyone can force their idea of procreating or not on someone else, it is ironic that indeed the parent is forcing procreation on a new person, whether or not that parent's neighbor disapproves or not. So again, anyone can have this conversation, whether if one can actually procreate or not. — schopenhauer1

Though I agree that people who can't have children can still talk about it, and so indirectly affect others who can, it would certainly seem to me a position of less moral responsibility than actually deciding to have children or not, in the "face-value" framework of conceiving children in itself as the most important political act.

My main purpose in my response, however, is to make a moral equivalence between having children and all actions that maintain and perpetuate society.

But why is the assumption that we should contribute to continuing humanity? That is the exact ideological assumption I am questioning. Perhaps we should contribute to reducing ALL suffering unto a future person by simply not having said person (who will eventually suffer)? — schopenhauer1

In my last comments I have been outlining (in my view) how a justification for having children can be argued; although it is indeed a very weight decision in itself, it follows from the broader question of valuing humanity as a whole or not. If humanity has value, and we conclude we should continue it, then it follows children are consistent with such a value system.

I have not yet argued for these premises, that humanity does have value and should be continued.

We could of course move onto this question, but so far my goal here is to give an idea of how ideology does not exclude coherent ideology which in turn does not exclude an ideology being true. That indeed, everything is ideological, and the word only has meaning when contrasting with the status quo (which at best is simply a short hand way to say "I'm going to now describe some ideas the majority does not agree with" and at worst is the ideology of denying the status quo is an ideology -- such as maximizing profits is simply rationality beyond reproach and not an ideology in itself), and in a philosophical context is simply equivalent to "world view". We are still left with all the same questions of whether the ideology or world view in question has merit or not, is sound or not, and is true or not. It's not a useless word in the philosophical context, it makes sense to contrast "my ideological foundations to yours"; but my main point so far is that identifying something as ideological does not provide us any further information than that we are considering the ideas in question together; it remains to be seen if those ideas have justification or are really true.

I don't get how you are using "true" in this post. What makes an ideology "true"? Any answer you provide will beg the question, even unto the simple answer "it helps us survive" as even that ideology can be questioned as to why we should contribute to that cause rather than reduction of suffering (which would equate to preventing any new person from being born to experience suffering). — schopenhauer1

Yes, this is exactly why, as with my discussion here with @alcontali, I have been arguing there are no "epistemic givens"; perhaps none at all (even within our own minds), but in the least there are no epistemic givens in philosophical debate. What I believe makes something true or false is itself part of my ideology, and if you don't share the same criteria of what's true and false in your ideology, then you will not be convinced by the same reasoning. If we find common ground, we cannot conclude that "therefore that common ground is true" but only we have shared ideology, if only partly.

However, that we are unable to convince each other of anything without sharing premises that we can always beg the question about, does not imply there is no true positions. It does not even mean that we can't be truly convinced that we really do have the truth about something. Though I accept that you see my ideology (wherever we disagree) as one ideology among many, I see my ideology (certainly the critical foundations of it) as really true, otherwise I would not believe it; and I expect you to see things the same way for the key parts of your ideology.

It is an aside, however, to what extent people can be justified holding a position without thinking through the justification. My statement wasn't well written if it is not clear I was not taking a position relative this issue. Apologetics for people who haven't thought their actions through much is not a subject that interests me -- though not because the answers are clear to these questions but simply because the only person who can benefit from such arguments is someone who does have the time and desire to think about the subject and so is no longer in the category of "not having thought about it". — boethius

Good point.

My main purpose in my response, however, is to make a moral equivalence between having children and all actions that maintain and perpetuate society. — boethius

Interesting. I can agree being that parents are assenting to perpetuate a certain way-of-life from being born. There is possibly a tangential aspect here too of the fact that the parent is doing it on BEHALF of the child. Therefore, procreation specifically (more than other societal perpetuation activities) is that much more under scrutiny as the participants cannot make the decision on their own behalf. Someone ELSE feels society is worth living through, and another person is the one who deals with the consequence of this decision. This makes procreation that much more of a focal point. The parent not only deems society good enough for THEMSELVES, but deem it such that ANOTHER PERSON must enter into its fray. Thus more than any other ideology, indeed there is as an aspect of forced ideology. The consequence is that it forces another person to play the game of life (society). [As an aside, let's not get bogged down if there was an actual "person" to be "forced". We can both agree that a new person would exist where there was not a person in the case of procreation, and that new person would be "forced" by having to play the game of life or die.. in that sense I mean "forced"..Others on here have tried to bog the conversation down in semantics regarding "forced" due to no person being around beforehand. Besides being off point of this particular thread, it is trying to use "forced" in a metaphysical sense and not as a shorthand for "have to go through society's ways-of-life lest the person die].

In my last comments I have been outlining (in my view) how a justification for having children can be argued; although it is indeed a very weight decision in itself, it follows from the broader question of valuing humanity as a whole or not. If humanity has value, and we conclude we should continue it, then it follows children are consistent with such a value system. — boethius

Of course, using people by "forcing" them into a way-of-life because one thinks the abstract concept of "humanity" is good, is still using the individual for an abstract concept...

We could of course move onto this question, but so far my goal here is to give an idea of how ideology does not exclude coherent ideology which in turn does not exclude an ideology being true. That indeed, everything is ideological, and the word only has meaning when contrasting with the status quo (which at best is simply a short hand way to say "I'm going to now describe some ideas the majority does not agree with" and at worst is the ideology of denying the status quo is an ideology -- such as maximizing profits is simply rationality beyond reproach and not an ideology in itself), and in a philosophical context is simply equivalent to "world view". We are still left with all the same questions of whether the ideology or world view in question has merit or not, is sound or not, and is true or not. It's not a useless word in the philosophical context, it makes sense to contrast "my ideological foundations to yours"; but my main point so far is that identifying something as ideological does not provide us any further information than that we are considering the ideas in question together; it remains to be seen if those ideas have justification or are really true. — boethius

I would only add that ideology is any set of ideals a particular person or group holds. My point with society being an ideology is that for all the things we do not hold in common, there are ways-of-life of any particular society (how we produce/consume/need some form of entertainment or meaning) that a parent is tacitly consenting to by having a child. That is to say, the parent agrees with the BROADER ways-of-life of a society and assents to it by having the child (which bears the consequence due to someone else's assent). This particular ideology is that of assenting to the current (or hoped-for) ways-of-life. The parent believes this is GOOD for SOMEONE ELSE (to be born at all and live out the ways-of-life).

However, that we are unable to convince each other of anything without sharing premises that we can always beg the question about, does not imply there is no true positions. It does not even mean that we can't be truly convinced that we really do have the truth about something. Though I accept that you see my ideology (wherever we disagree) as one ideology among many, I see my ideology (certainly the critical foundations of it) as really true, otherwise I would not believe it; and I expect you to see things the same way for the key parts of your ideology. — boethius

Indeed, I think parents are convinced they have the "truth" about something- mainly that the ways-of-life of society are good and should be perpetuated. What are the costs? Who is affected? In this case it is on behalf of someone else. The parent is so convinced of their truth, they will put another person into a situation, affecting them for a lifetime because THEY think the ways-of-life are so good it MUST be good for someone else.

Has it been mentioned that we are born into a particular time and each cohort is different? We are all shaped by the historical events that occur when we come of age. I am a baby boomer and we experienced the protest of Vietnam. We learned we had been lied to. Also at that time there was talk of overpopulation and we had the birth control pill and sexual freedom. I think the hippie movement was a direct result of a booming economy and our parent's experience with the Great Depression and then war only now times were good and we thought "no one born white and middle class could experience poverty". It is not really poverty unless the economy collapses and there are no jobs and one doesn't have middle-class parents to call for help. We acknowledge the good life was dependent on being white.

My children's generation came of age during the Great Recession, and corruption was in the news, the young could not be assimilated into mainstream society because of there were no jobs for them and in Oregon, two-parent families could not get public assistance, so father's abandoned their families because they had to, and young lovers did not get married. All this lead to serious social problems. We announced a national youth crisis that swept the country as the Hippie movement did.

Without question, we live in a very different society today. Traditional values have been destroyed and few women want to be "just a housewife". More women are choosing not to have children at all. Instead of a focus on liberty, we have a focus on security and we have been giving up liberty ever since 911. We can't even talk about many things because the young have no memory of the past and the meaning of our words and values are so changed, we have lost the ability to communicate across generations.

I am horrified that after our commitment to liberty so many people look forward to a day when robots will control our lives!

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. So this thread is about how deciding to have children is itself an ideology. The ideology would be something like "The current society is one where a someone ELSE should have to live all the ways-of-life of that society". Why do you suppose someone else should live all the ways-of-life of a society because the parent deems this to be good for the child? Why is it ever good to force the ideology of society (aka the game of life) on someone else? Unlike other "forced" ideologies, this one is permanent lest suicide. I would just like to see your justification for why it is acceptable and not questioned like any other ideology. The ideology of bringing another person into the world because you believe it is good for them to be brought into the world should be questioned.

:lol: You didn't get I speak of cohorts and cultural change because I have lived through that? Women my age over 70, are homeless and dying on the streets because they obeyed social dictates to get married and have children and stay home to care for the family. That is what a good woman did and few of them had any other choice because of discrimination against them. Do you have any memory of that past? I got a good grade in one of my college classes, where I did absolutely nothing to get a good grade, not even attend class, because I got married and it was the professor's policy to give us a good grade if we got married. That was a junior college that didn't matter. Women were not allowed to enter some colleges and even after getting a degree, they were not allowed the same job opportunities as men. Now you tell me what choices would you make in that reality?

Why should we enforce some values on everyone? Someone has to care for the children and there is an important difference between giving children a home life or institutionalizing them. Homemakers played an extremely important role in society and I am not sure we are better off without them.

Why should we enforce some values on everyone? Someone has to care for the children and there is an important difference between giving children a home life or institutionalizing them. Homemakers played an extremely important role in society and I am not sure we are better off without them. — Athena

So I don't think you are getting me here. You are talking about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. That is an interesting topic. However, this particular topic is about whether bringing children into the world is considered a political ideology in itself. In other words, choosing to have a child is equivalent to saying, "I like the current society and its ways-of-life and want to make another person also go through the ways-of-life of the society". To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society.

As an aside, it is an interesting debate whether having someone stay at home full time is a better arrangement than two working parents. But that would be a different topic.

So I don't think you are getting me here. You are talking about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. That is an interesting topic. However, this particular topic is about whether bringing children into the world is considered a political ideology in itself. In other words, choosing to have a child is equivalent to saying, "I like the current society and its ways-of-life and want to make another person also go through the ways-of-life of the society". To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society.

As an aside, it is an interesting debate whether having someone stay at home full time is a better arrangement than two working parents. But that would be a different topic. — schopenhauer1

Good luck having children if women are not valued as mothers. Trump has not promoted having children as national patriotism as Hitler did.

All life fundamentally chooses to have offspring. That is why it still exists in the first place. — alcontali

That was before women's liberation and different forms of birth control. Life may choose life, but we should not take it for granted that woman choose to give birth.

I know I am not of line in this thread, but I would like to know how many women are in this thread? It troubles me that until recently extremely few women were allowed to participate in philosophy or anything else besides bearing children and caring for them. For centuries males debated truth without a woman's point of view. When the subject is having children, I certainly think a woman's point of view is an important one, so please tell me, how many women are contributing to this thread's understanding of truth?

That was before women's liberation and different forms of birth control. Life may choose life, but we should not take it for granted that woman choose to give birth. — Athena

That was before women's re-enslavement by the corporate oligarchy.

In fact, by becoming wage slaves, women have become very dependent on corporations, from whom, unlike from their husbands, they will certainly not get a divorce settlement when they inevitably part ways. Corporate wage slavery is a Faustian pact, both for men and for women, but even more so for women. It is a very fake kind of freedom.

With the 401k-style accounts melting away on the stock exchange right now, in spite of the Fed's most recent intervention, the corporation-controlled retirement savings will soon be largely gone too.

For anybody who mistakenly believes that receiving a corporate wage is a sustainable way of life, the hour of truth is nigh. The next economic downturn is just around the corner and it will be a dire moment of truth. It even looks like the Corona virus may precipitate the inevitable.

A man will always look for ways to solve the problem without any hand holding. For quite a few men, it will not matter that the existing social script no longer works. So, we will recover as we always have in the past.

In fact, men even like it when the shit hits the fan, because that allows us to creatively find solutions, rise to the occasion, and show our mettle. Hard times tend to be good for men. Still, we are certainly not going to help anybody who has always insisted that they do not need us. These people will have to help themselves.

Now that the storm finally seems to be coming to shore, let's rejoice!

Well I appreciate a reply to my thoughts and an explanation of the new economic slavery.

What I have read of the Great Depression totally disagrees with

In fact, men even like it when the shit hits the fan, because that allows us to creatively find solutions, rise to the occasion, and show our mettle. Hard times tend to be good for men. — alcontali

For me, the great recession following the OPEC embargo of oil to the US was very different from men benefitting from economic collapse.

I want to be careful to not derail this thread but economic collapses tend to destroy men's self-esteem and they abandoned their families, leaving the women alone to provide for their children and care for them too. It is nothing like your notion of the effect of economic collapse. Now let us speak of having children to pass on an ideology. :gasp: I DON'T THINK SO. Only a sheltered woman without much life experience would think that is sound thinking. Mothers rarely enjoy the freedom of men and if she does assume the freedom of a man, I think the children are in trouble. So if a woman wants freedom, she doesn't have children. At least not intentionally.

What I have read of the Great Depression totally disagrees with — Athena

Yes, because in that particular downturn the government still managed to keep afloat. In fact, the government will keep afloat as long as the currency does not collapse. When it does, however, that will lead to Venezuela/Zimbabwe situations.

When the currency will be gone, in all practical terms, the government will be gone too.

I want to be careful to not derail this thread but economic collapses tend to destroy men's self-esteem and they abandoned their families, leaving the women alone to provide for their children and care for them too. It is nothing like your notion of the effect of economic collapse. — Athena

Where are the few remaining families that could still fall apart? This time, we will mostly be looking at single men and single women fending each for themselves.

So if a woman wants freedom, she doesn't have children. — Athena

That is the current situation already.

It is the fake freedom afforded by corporate wage slavery.

That will only keep flying as long as the corporations do. The corporations will be gone in Venezuela/Zimbabwe type of situations. In fact, they may already be mostly closing, just in a corona-virus situation.

Not all men will figure out how to survive economically, and still make it, but most of the ones who do make it, will be men. These men will probably want to take care of people who depend on them today already but it will not be a good time for them to take on new burdens. Therefore, unattached people will have to fend for themselves, and make it through the storm alone.

We can also expect that the security situation will deteriorate drastically. I expect to see riots and looting. Things have been too good for too long. Some people have become way too arrogant, and it is time to pay the bills now.

All in all, you're right on the money about how empty the ideology of procreation is. — TheMadFool

I should use the user name Ms. Contrary because no matter what is said, I can take the opposite side. I think what we think of having children is dependent on several factors. Our age is one of those factors.

When I came of age, females went to college to find a good husband and then they stayed home to have children and care for the family. Homemakers did more than care for their families, as they cared for everyone in the community, or in large cities, got involved with volunteer work. It is all about being a good woman, and that can be considered a part of an ideology.

I love our brief mother goddess period following on the trail of the Hippie movement. I loved identifying with the movement and baking homemade bread, gardening and preserving food, being creative. I was a woman and women are mothers. That was most important to me at the time. I am not sure what that had to do with politics but I am sure it was not an empty ideology because it lives in me with great joy.

Later as I learned of Athens and Sparta, I came to the conclusion that family values are very important to democracy and our liberty. I can understand having a sense of patriotic duty in being a traditional woman. This is highest in my priority of importance but I would be surprised if that is what you all are talking about.

When the currency will be gone, in all practical terms, the government will be gone too. — alcontali

That is why I talk so much about liberty and democracy. In the beginning of all civilizations, people have nothing but a determination to work together and manifest a good life for all. I do not fear an economic collapse. I fear facing one without a shared ideology favoring democracy and liberty. Our way of life can not be sustained so I expect the worst to happen, but if our democratic ideology is strong, I believe we can maintain our civility and adjust to having a good life with less.

Where are the few remaining families that could still fall apart? — alcontali

:grimace: The remaining families are in the mothers fighting to give their children good lives. The problem is there are too few good men, and hopefully, we can change that. OMG that was sexist :lol: to be fair, our modern young ladies could use some improvement too. I am sorry for being so bad but hang with me okay?

Where does our idology come from and how is it transmitted?

That will only keep flying as long as the corporations do. The corporations will be gone in Venezuela/Zimbabwe type of situations. In fact, they may already be mostly closing, just in a corona-virus situation. — alcontali

Agreed, but this Military-Industrial Complex is nothing like the democracy we defended in two world wars and it is not our only possible reality. This is why I had to jump into this thread. What ideology are you all talking about when you talk about having children to maintain the manifestation of the ideology. We are what we defended our democracy against. Having children does not maintain an ideology. Only educating children for an ideology maintains the ideology.

We can also expect that the security situation will deteriorate drastically. I expect to see riots and looting. Things have been too good for too long. Some people have become way too arrogant, and it is time to pay the bills now. — alcontali

Yes, we educated for that and we elected Trump. :lol:

It is past time for me to get in the pool and exercise. While I am gone, please tell me what ideology you all are talking about. It seems to me this thread took a turn when it became about having children. Otherwise, the ideology could be any tribe of native Americans, or any religion. If the people die, so does their culture and consciousness. Sparta became extinct because it could not reproduce fast enough to outnumber their enemies and it was their ideology that created this problem.

It seems to me this thread took a turn when it became about having children. — Athena

So it is about having children in that, by having children, a parent is assenting to the current society and its ways of life. They are agreeing with it to the point that they will create more adherents to the current society. One must have a strong conviction that society is good if one is making the decision on behalf of someone else (by procreating them) that they should also be involved in and participate in the current society and it ways of life. This assenting to bringing new people into society is an ideology in itself of perpetuating the current society. Its such a strong assent to the point of making the decision that others must go through it as well.

Your question has gnawed at me for hours now. Thank you for that, sincerely. If I answered as a social animal I'd say no, if I answered understanding the differences in the many societies existing today I'd say yes.

It's our instinct to group together and live cohesively, how we do that is the question. When the how is imposed on you it's natural to feel it's arbitrary and capricious. I don't know that I can equate instinct to ideology, but I can say it's the progenitor of ideology.

I don't know that I can equate instinct to ideology, but I can say it's the progenitor of ideology. — MyOwnWay

That's an interesting thought. Is the assent to perpetuate society (through procreating more people) an instinct? I say no. It is a preference and thus something that can be deliberated and reflected upon. In other words, we can choose to follow an ideology (perpetuate society) or we can choose not to. This is unlike instinct where there is no choice. There is no ideological animal instinct.

Is the assent to perpetuate society (through procreating more people) an instinct? I say no.

I disagree.

It is a preference and thus something that can be deliberated and reflected upon. In other words, we can choose to follow an ideology (perpetuate society) or we can choose not to. This is unlike instinct where there is no choice. There is no ideological animal instinct.

Eating is undoubtedly an instinct of all creatures that do it. That being said, in captivity wild animals will often starve themselves. Why do they do this? Are they deliberating on this choice? If they are is eating no longer an instinct? I would say this isn't the case. Maybe the lack of ability to fulfill one instinctual obligation will cause you to neglect another. Maybe the ability to deliberate can cause you to act against your own instinct and therefor your own self interest. It's something I personally like to call the curse of philosophy.

To go deeper, a severely disabled person could easily imagine that passing on their genetic material could curse somebody to the troubles of the same disability, thus making their life worse by default as well as poisoning the gene pool. On the opposing end one could argue that being able to think in this way means they are a value to the gene pool but a detriment to their own natural interests.

I hope this explanation illuminates my point.