To expand on my disagreement, the assent to perpetuate society is not an instinct, it's just a consequence of being a social animal. The instinct is the drive to pass on your genes.

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. — MyOwnWay

How is reproducing an instinct?

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. — MyOwnWay

What natural interests? How can you prove wanting a child is natural? Also, this example is oddly eugenic sounding. To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents.

How is reproducing not an instinct when even organisms without a brain do it?

What natural interests?

Eating and continued survival would be the best examples.

Also, this example is oddly eugenic sounding.

It was meant to. This isn't an implication of right or wrong though. What I'm trying to get across is the original question here must be answered in a clinical and biological way. If we fail to do that then I suppose every action must be viewed as part of or a contribution to ideology.

To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents.

Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society?

Oh dear. I always thought people had sex because of hormones not because of some kind of planned parenthood.

However, men did hold a notion that having a son proved they were a man, and back in the day, having children is what a good woman did. Are these examples of having children to manifest an ideology?

I knew a young man who was diagnosed with ALS at age 28 and he chose not to have children because the disease could be inherited, but later he regretted making that choice. It was not an ideology he wanted to preserve, but dying without experiencing beginning a parent seemed to be a regret. I think also that he would have liked to have had a child to extend his short life. But as things seem to be getting worse, I think increasingly people are hesitant to bring a child into this world. For sure people are choosing to have fewer children compared to having 8 to 14 children.

I disagree that society itself is an ideology.

I’m currently reading Aristotle’s Politics and he clearly states that the state is a community.

A community is composed of families that formed a larger social group. Typically for mutual support and survival.

I believe our ancestors hardly had the time to debate ideologies when they formed the earliest societies along lines following instincts.

Eating and continued survival would be the best examples. — MyOwnWay

Hunger certainly is. Continued survival is too broad, but generally we don't like the pain associated with dying and we may add fear of death. However, having a child is a choice. One can go their whole life without it and live. It is not like going to the bathroom or hunger.

It was meant to. This isn't an implication of right or wrong though. What I'm trying to get across is the original question here must be answered in a clinical and biological way. If we fail to do that then I suppose every action must be viewed as part of or a contribution to ideology. — MyOwnWay

So antinatalism believes ALL people should not procreate (due to preventing any suffering for new person born), not just some. I just don't want to get bogged down in discussing other ideas.

Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay

So in my earlier posts I explained that if we pan out of any society, the ways-of-life start looking more similar than different. There need to be social mechanisms for survival (through some sort of economy, even hunting-gathering), maintenance/comfort (keeping tools maintained, body temperature maintained, even sleep dwellings maintained and in more industrial society this gets exponentially ratcheted up as there are more "things" to maintain and worry about to keep oneself comfortable). Finally, there is entertainment/meaning that must be pursued (anything beyond mere survival or maintenance). All societies are going to perform these three aspects in SOME way. Earlier, I even mentioned the few on the fringe who want to hack it out in the wilderness. That is still in relation to the rest of society (being that's where they came from and that is what they are rebelling against). Thus, they are a consequence of a broader society, not in a vacuum.

Oh dear. I always thought people had sex because of hormones not because of some kind of planned parenthood. — Athena

Sex and reproduction are different. People have sex because it feels good. People find others attractive for all sorts of social and biological reasons (hormones being a part of that). However, to decide to have a child is a choice. Even "accidents" are willful ignorance. We know where babies come from. We know how to prevent it. If I have to go to the bathroom really bad, I still hold it until I get to a facility if you know what I mean.

However, men did hold a notion that having a son proved they were a man, and back in the day, having children is what a good woman did. Are these examples of having children to manifest an ideology? — Athena

Kind of. What I am proposing is that if a parent (man or woman) decides to have a child, generally, they are following an ideology of society. They are signalling, "I like society and think someone else should have to go through all the ways-of-life of the current society". Other ways I have said this point below:

To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents. — schopenhauer1

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. — schopenhauer1

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. — schopenhauer1

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. — schopenhauer1

So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1

Do these quotes give you the gist of what my argument is as how procreation relates to perpetuating society and thus becoming an ideology as the parents assent to a certain way of life?

I respectfully disagree with you. I love my fiancé and I want to sleep with her because I love her and I find her desirable. If we get pregnant, that’s the fruit of our love. Politics have nothing to do with it.

I’m thinking, if politics have anything to do with bringing a child into the world; it’s only because the parents consciously make it into a political decision.

I respectfully disagree with you. I love my fiancé and I want to sleep with her because I love her and I find her desirable. If we get pregnant, that’s the fruit of our love. Politics have nothing to do with it. — Agathob

So bringing a new person into the world is not a political decision? You may not think of it like that, but that's exactly why I started this thread, to make people aware that even if it's not interpreted that way, it is. You can decide NOT to have a child. It is generally known that a child would have to deal with all the things that they must do to navigate a particular society, keep themselves alive, maintained, and entertained. This decision to procreate is also something on behalf of someone else. It is in a way assenting to the society to the point of wanting to see yet another person maneuver society and its ways-of-life. That indeed is a political ideology of sorts.

As for your love for your fiance and find her desirable.. we know where babies come from. We know how to prevent it. By not preventing it, we are indeed making a political decision on someone else's behalf and assenting to an ideology, whether we actually see it that way or not, that is what is happening.

However, to decide to have a child is a choice. — schopenhauer1

For whom is it a choice? Is abortion an equally legitimate choice and should we make sure family planning and abortion services are available to everyone?

Many of us older people find it quite impossible to excise the control of our bodily functions as you so proudly assume is everyone's choice for control. And since when did we expect a male to exercise the control we demand of men today? Back in the day, 4F males took a lot of pride in not exercising a lot of self-control.

They are signalling, "I like society and think someone else should have to go through all the ways-of-life of the current society" — schopenhauer1

BS, they are horny and it happens and they sure as blazes are not pondering the social and political ramifications of having sex. My bad, that was not a very philosophical statement, but here is where philosophy gets a bad rap. The average person is reacting to feelings without analyzing why and what the consequences will be to self or society? Young people having children can't even comprehend how a child will change their own lives, let alone contemplating ideologies. When it comes to sex, it is the other head in control.

I disagree that society itself is an ideology.

I’m currently reading Aristotle’s Politics and he clearly states that the state is a community.

A community is composed of families that formed a larger social group. Typically for mutual support and survival.

I believe our ancestors hardly had the time to debate ideologies when they formed the earliest societies along lines following instincts. — Agathob

We should not assume our family is universal and determines our social order for all time. Sparta did not value families. In Sparta males in barracks and in the end were defeated because they could not reproduce fast enough and their enemies overwhelmed them.

In some cultures, there is no word for "father" because they are not organized around fathers. Not being sure who the father is, it is the mother's brother who holds the father's position.

In some areas in China, a child's father may be the guest in the mother's home but it is the women who rule not the men.

Since we destroyed the value of mothers and said they were just housewives, the number of women who refuse to have children has increased. And throughout modern countries the number of children a couple has greatly decreased, some countries barely reproducing enough to have a sustainable population.

The decision is not a political one, but an identity one. In this place and time, what do I need to do to have high social status? That can mean getting as many females pregnant as possible or not becoming a mother. However, the decision does have political ramifications. The US is no longer ordered by family order, but a New World Order that is very different from the democracy we defended in two world wars.

Many of us older people find it quite impossible to excise the control of our bodily functions as you so proudly assume is everyone's choice for control. And since when did we expect a male to exercise the control we demand of men today? Back in the day, 4F males took a lot of pride in not exercising a lot of self-control. — Athena

You get the analogy though.. Always adult diapers.

BS, they are horny and it happens and they sure as blazes are not pondering the social and political ramifications of having sex. My bad, that was not a very philosophical statement, but here is where philosophy gets a bad rap. The average person is reacting to feelings without analyzing why and what the consequences will be to self or society? Young people having children can't even comprehend how a child will change their own lives, let alone contemplating ideologies. When it comes to sex, it is the other head in control. — Athena

Birth control is readily available. There is still choice, no matter the mitigating circumstances. We all know the consequences. If it was as you say, accidental birth would be the only reason people are born, but its not. Rather, the average person when choosing to procreate, is perpetuating a type of lifestyle- a brand. It is wanting to continue a way-of-life. It is an ideology and the adherents are the people being born.

I must congratulate you on her tenacity. I will agree some people have children to perpetuate an ideology. Now once the child is born, what do they do to prepare the child to perpetuate that ideology?

In societies where people with a different ideology take control of resources and enforce a different way of living, it is devasting to the aboriginal people, leading to shattered lives, broken families and alcoholism. Are people who do this to other people guilty of a wrong? How important are our ideologies to the good life?

I must congratulate you on her tenacity. I will agree some people have children to perpetuate an ideology. Now once the child is born, what do they do to prepare the child to perpetuate that ideology?

In societies where people with a different ideology take control of resources and enforce a different way of living, it is devasting to the aboriginal people, leading to shattered lives, broken families and alcoholism. Are people who do this to other people guilty of a wrong? How important are our ideologies to the good life? — Athena

Hold on though, you are jumping off on an interesting but slight tangent. If we can make the argument that perpetuating society is like perpetuating a game, and each new person born is a new participant in the game, why should more people play this game?

Let's say the pitfalls of the game are at its most severe, death. Let's say its a continuum from there.. other pitfalls are the sufferings of all kinds throughout existence (pain, discomfort, disappointment, awkwardness, broken-heartedness, anger, boredom, etc).

Let's say the goal of this game is something like "self-actualization". The levels are things like survival-in-an-economic setting (i.e. employment), maintaining your comfort levels (cleaning, regulating surrounding temperatures, consuming preferred items, etc.). and entertaining yourself (keep your mind occupied, try to find meaning in some task or goal, etc.).

With all this in mind, why does this ideology of abiding by this well-trodden way of life (society) need to be perpetuated to yet another person in the first place? Let's not even jump into what kind of society, let's just assume any society needs ways of survival, maintaining, entertainment- its the game of life right? Why more players in this game in the first place? What is it that this game must be continued? We don't have a good answer, and its more complicated and less necessary than a stock answer like "its instinct". Its not in humans. As you admitted, its a choice, and thus a brand, and thus a sort of ideology. But why are we preferring to perpetuate this ideology? Its self-justifying and when we get to the root of the reasons, it doesn't even add up. What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person.

Hold on though, you are jumping off on an interesting but slight tangent. If we can make the argument that perpetuating society is like perpetuating a game, and each new person born is a new participant in the game, why should more people play this game? — schopenhauer1

Well in the US they are not playing the same game that started with the democratic republic. I would say the original is about dead. What are we doing about it? We are talking about our past as in such a way that we think the present is much better.

Let's say the goal of this game is something like "self-actualization". The levels are things like survival-in-an-economic setting (i.e. employment), maintaining your comfort levels (cleaning, regulating surrounding temperatures, consuming preferred items, etc.). and entertaining yourself (keep your mind occupied, try to find meaning in some task or goal, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Do you think that would have always described what is important?

With all this in mind, why does this ideology of abiding by this well-trodden way of life (society) need to be perpetuated to yet another person in the first place? — schopenhauer1

I don't think it does.

What is it that this game must be continued? — schopenhauer1

The purpose of mythology is to transmit social agreements and transition youth into adults who are valued by the community. The children just happen without planning. I know you think children are the result of planning, but for how many centuries has that been true?

But why are we preferring to perpetuate this ideology? — schopenhauer1

Because we believe it is best and will mean a good life for the members of our society, but as I said we have not perpetuated the ideology of our forefathers. We stopped using education to transmit our culture and began preparing our youth for a technological society with unknown values. Today what the young think is best is not what we wanted in the past. I absolutely hate the new fade of saying "perfect" to everything! That is so superficial and frivolous. I find business practices today, intolerable. I see a serious lack of individual liberty and power and this is not "perfect". This is surely off-topic, but maybe you can understand why I find it hard to go along with your train of thought?

Its self-justifying and when we get to the root of the reasons, it doesn't even add up. What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1

What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1

I think you must be young because you are unaware of a dramatic cultural change. The US has become what it defended its democracy against. That means all those people who defended our way of life, died for nothing. That bothers me a lot.

You skipped my question of how is an ideology transmitted.

Do you think that would have always described what is important? — Athena

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my argument to mean only this society should be questioned. My point is questioning if any society should be perpetuated, whether new/old, this way or that way. All societies are going to have the same basic ways-of-life (that is to say a way to survive, maintain environs, and entertain). It is not whether this specific society should be perpetuated vs. another type of society. That is where there is a mismatch of dialogue here.

The purpose of mythology is to transmit social agreements and transition youth into adults who are valued by the community. The children just happen without planning. I know you think children are the result of planning, but for how many centuries has that been true? — Athena

It might not be planned at a specific incidence, but the consequences were known and the cultural milieu was set up to accommodate what was a well-known fact regarding procreation (thus marry early, have a ceremony, make it sacred, make it tied to money and property, etc. etc.). Anyways, I don't want to veer off into feminist politics or gender roles, this is about society en totale, NOT specific cultural practices per se.

As far as youth and education, and enculturation, the question is why are we making new people? What is important to carrying out society to a new generation at all? The answer is harder than you might initially think. It's a basic question, but it's not a straightforward answer.

Because we believe it is best and will mean a good life for the members of our society, but as I said we have not perpetuated the ideology of our forefathers. We stopped using education to transmit our culture and began preparing our youth for a technological society with unknown values. Today what the young think is best is not what we wanted in the past. I absolutely hate the new fade of saying "perfect" to everything! That is so superficial and frivolous. I find business practices today, intolerable. I see a serious lack of individual liberty and power and this is not "perfect". This is surely off-topic, but maybe you can understand why I find it hard to go along with your train of thought? — Athena

While I agree on many points, indeed this would be another conversation, as interesting as it is.

I think you must be young because you are unaware of a dramatic cultural change. The US has become what it defended its democracy against. That means all those people who defended our way of life, died for nothing. That bothers me a lot. — Athena

Again the question is about why society should be perpetuated. Why we bring more people into the world, and spread THE (not a specific) brand of "society" (any way of life, not a specific one).

You skipped my question of how is an ideology transmitted. — Athena

Well, this thread is about specifically how society is perpetuated by procreation. I think we can move to that question after we discuss this a bit more.

Well, I'd argue that, if we use biology as an example, such as a unified body composed of different individual parts which function together in some way with each filling uni
This is somewhat false dichotomic, and unrelatable to theory and practice, given that different degrees and variety of "sociality" will exists in individual communities and people (e.x. dichotomies about extroversion vs introversion); and in some ways, dichotomies about "groups" vs "individuals" are false as well.

Nor does it substantiate what not being a "social animal" is or would even mean (in the sense that every animal has some desire to reproduce, sans maybe those which reproduce asexually, all would be "social" animals in this sense)

Likewise, in human (and possibly other) societies, groups, "tribes", and so on and so forth, it's not reducible solely to the desire to physically reproduce (e.x. a non-violent community of monks or nuns practicing celebacy, or a community of artists, musicians, or athletes which serves more of a creative purpose than a "surivial" purpose would be examples.

Likewise, in human (and possibly other) societies, groups, "tribes", and so on and so forth, it's not reducible solely to the desire to physically reproduce (e.x. a non-violent community of monks or nuns practicing celebacy, or a community of artists, musicians, or athletes which serves more of a creative purpose than a "surivial" purpose would be examples. — IvoryBlackBishop

It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born). It is such an assent (YES!) to society (life) that they want OTHER PEOPLE to live it and will make the decision that they should do so on their behalf.

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my argument to mean only this society should be questioned. My point is questioning if any society should be perpetuated, whether new/old, this way or that way. All societies are going to have the same basic ways-of-life (that is to say a way to survive, maintain environs, and entertain). It is not whether this specific society should be perpetuated vs. another type of society. That is where there is a mismatch of dialogue here. — schopenhauer1

That does not ring true to me. Perhaps you could describe it more precisely? Exactly what would a common ideology look like?

(thus marry early, have a ceremony, make it sacred, make it tied to money and property, etc. etc — schopenhauer1

I don't think those are universals. They are common but not universal and there is nothing sacred about our secular marriages.

As far as youth and education, and enculturation, the question is why are we making new people? — schopenhauer1

We reproduce for the same reason all other animals reproduce. It is nature, not an ideology that leads to reproduction. All animals do it. Marriage is about who is responsible for whom, and it is only common, not universal.

What is important to carrying out society to a new generation at all? — schopenhauer1

It is not about carrying out a society's ideology to a new generation unless there is a war and then reproduction becomes very important. Then it is important to have as many people as possible or the whole society will become extinct. Your own survival is in danger if your defense is weak. Isreal and Palestine are a good example of the importance of outnumbering "them". Israel's claim to democracy is especially difficult because if the Palestinians outnumber the Jews, the Jews would loose control of decision making. This forces Israel to increase its population faster than the Palestinians. It can not assimilate Palestinians into its culture, unlike the US that gladly assimilated most but not all immigrants. You don't become a Jew like you can become a citizen of the US. And this is about "us" and "then" not exactly ideology. A better subject might be why do divide between "us" and "them"?

Christians were super excellent at assimilating everyone they came into contact with. Jews are the reverse of this. One does not just decide to be a Jew. This is why there are more Christians than Jews.

While I agree on many points, indeed this would be another conversation, as interesting as it is. — schopenhauer1

That is not just another subject. It is stating you don't have an argument because the US is an example of a society that has not preserved its ideology.

Why we bring more people into the world, and spread THE (not a specific) brand of "society" (any way of life, not a specific one). — schopenhauer1

Why is it important for Christians to make everyone one of "them"? Why does one society assimilate others and another society keep itself pure of those others? Can we be sure those Jews forced to be Christians are really Christians or are they faking it and do they threaten "us"? I think you have locked onto the wrong premiums. Reproduction is not the only way to increase our numbers.

Well, this thread is about specifically how society is perpetuated by procreation. I think we can move to that question after we discuss this a bit more. — schopenhauer1

No, we procreate because of nature not because of ideology unless we are in a conflict with others and have to outnumber them. The drive to procreate drastically decreases when people start living in cities and most of the young survive. Now if you are a male Hindu, you must procreate to be sure you have a son to help you pass into the good life. For most men, it is important to have a male child because of ego reasons, and women, in general, want a girl child for ego reasons. It just isn't right to dress up a boy like a girl and teach him to cook and sew like a girl. Only recently did it stop mattering that boys be as boys and girls be as girls. This is about ego, not ideology. Give us the ideology that you are talking about. I don't think there is a universal ideology. There is "who I am" and "who I am not", and there is "us" and "them". What gets passed on is not an ideology! The US is not passing on its original ideology.
People living in the US think of themselves as belonging, even if they are children of illegal immigrants or criminals sitting in a prison. We think we are us and not them. But we do not share an ideology.

"To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents."
Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay

I am on your side of the argument. I think we need to question what does it mean to be one of us and why does it matter. A society needs a shared ideology but do we have that?

Is someone with a different skin color one of us? Are Japanese children one of us? Is a Mexican one of us? Can a Jew really be one of us? Do all these people share the same ideology?

Who can list 10 characteristics of democracy? How can a person who can not list 10 characteristics of democracy, pass the ideology of democracy on to his/her offspring? What does it mean to pass on an ideology?

It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born)
[/quote]
So what do you propose? Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born). It is such an assent (YES!) to society (life) that they want OTHER PEOPLE to live it and will make the decision that they should do so on their behalf.

I think you're conflating various things, such as cultures and ideologies with biology.

Obviously on some sub-rational level, the impulse or desire to physically reproduce exists independent of any specific culture or ideology.

Much as animals, such as ants, presumably have nothing akin to human rationality or rational notions such as law, society, culture, and so forth, but still reproduce on a purely instinctive level. (If people were 100% rational all of the time, then unplanned pregnancies or "sex" just for pleasure would presumably not exist).

Basically, your views sound "anarchist" to me. Yes, obviously on some basic level, in civilized nations and societies, a bare minimum of morality or "conformity" is imposed on people by force, assuming they can't or won't on their own accord (e.x. laws against rape, murder and things of those nature), but your anarchist view would somehow argue that "forcing" a rapist not to rape, or a murderer not to murder is "wrong", despite such behavior being based on force and disregards for others' life, rights, autonomy, and so forth.

Also for what it's worth, the state can't force a person to marry, cohabitat, or start a family at least in a 1st world country anyway; many famous historical people such as Adam Smith or Newton are reputed to have never married, with this having any goal on their higher-level intellectual careers or life-goals; which is why reduction of everything purely to "survivalistic" nonsense, reproduction or pure fatuous 'materialism' and/or aesthetically repellant consumerism, in general is rather nonsensical and anti-intellectual in practice to begin with, maybe this tends to be more of the case among societies "underclass" or anti-intellectual and/or serially disaffected demographics, but definitely not in the case of superior thinking men and thinking women.

That does not ring true to me. Perhaps you could describe it more precisely? Exactly what would a common ideology look like? — Athena

Any society needs at least three things: A way to survive (hunting and industrial trade would be the two sides of the spectrum I guess), maintenance/comfort regulation (humans generally regulate environment- everything from temperature adjustments to cleaning their ass), entertainment (big brain animals like ourselves generally need to occupy mind if not generally occupied with survival/maintenance activities.. Mind you all three things can be done simultaneously.. its not all cut-and-dry.. You clean the carcass of a deer, while laughing at your neighbor, and cleaning up the mess from the deer (survival, entertainment, and maintenance all at once). You turn down the heat, write up some document for work, while you laugh at a text, and sweep up your kitchen (survival, entertainment, maintenance all at once).

All societies have some way of life (they can be radically different even). It doesn't matter. whatever way -of-life there is (and I don't care if it is back-to-the-landers in the middle of the forest in some remote commune or the most straight-laced 2.5 kids in a suburb of regular heartland Western world).. the fact that some new person will live a way of life and have to maneuver that way of life will occur. The fact that any new life has to maneuver and "deal with" to survive, maintain, and entertain lest they die is an ideology in itself.. It doesn't matter what way of life (as repeated again).

I don't think those are universals. They are common but not universal and there is nothing sacred about our secular marriages. — Athena

See SURVIVAL, MAINTENANCE, ENTERTAINMENT above (aka what is needed in big-brained, linguistically-based, conceptually-based life forms such as ourselves... see Homo sapiens).

Why is it important for Christians to make everyone one of "them"? Why does one society assimilate others and another society keep itself pure of those others? Can we be sure those Jews forced to be Christians are really Christians or are they faking it and do they threaten "us"? I think you have locked onto the wrong premiums. Reproduction is not the only way to increase our numbers. — Athena

Not about one type of society versus another.. Only about having to navigate society (survival, maintenance, entertainment) in general.

Having a child at its core is procreation, and what is procreation if not a species DNA instinctual need to pass on a means in which to survive. Just because we have the means to live in a way where basics for survival are an after thought; does not mean that they were never and are not natural motums of our existence.

Having a child at its core is procreation, and what is procreation if not a species DNA instinctual need to pass on a means in which to survive. Just because we have the means to live in a way where basics for survival are an after thought; does not mean that they were never and are not natural motums of our existence. — LuckilyDefinitive

You are conflating procreation with actual instincts. An actual instinct is the feeling that you must go to the bathroom. An actual instinct is hunger. An actual instinct is the surprise you get when someone pops out of nowhere, or you fall from a ledge. Wanting a child is a preference. I really really want a particular brand of car.. Does that mean a preference is an instinct? Only if you mean that any "want" or preference is an instinct can you make that argument.. But that would be like saying "natural" and "synthetic" have no distinction since everything is technically "from nature" and the big bang. Clearly, there is a distinction between a preference that someone wants and instinct.

Also, let's make the distinction between the physical pleasure of sex and the preference or possible outcome of the procreation of new people. There is a major difference.

If the need to procreate is only driven by want why are we not the only species on the planet that procreates. Since it would require the ability to preconcieve to formulate a want then nothing else should mate according to your logic, correct?

If the need to procreate is only driven by want why are we not the only species on the planet that procreates. Since it would require the ability to preconcieve to formulate a want then nothing else should mate according to your logic, correct? — LuckilyDefinitive

No, the "need" to procreate in humans is (actually) driven by want.

How can anyone state that definitively if we have never experienced a life only lived through purity of one or the other?

How can anyone state that definitively if we have never experienced a life only lived through purity of one or the other? — LuckilyDefinitive

I don't get your question. Prove to me, procreation is anything but a preference.. I've already gave some reasons for why it is preference, not instinctual. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. All you've stated is the obvious- other animals procreate from instinct, not humans. Even though humans are animals, we are also different kinds of animals.

No one can state that procreation as it pertains to humans is definitively preferential or instinctual. How could that be proven without being able to experience both separately then at the same time. Does that make sense? Much like a control study.