Entitlement and Having Children?

My inspiration for this thread is "What are the under-lying, invisible, culturally-transmitted psychological motivations behind commonplace activities? In this case, procreation. And secondly, what are rewilding ethics and how do they connect or conflict with these underlying motivations? While state and religion inspired ethics are made up to enforce civilization, the concept of “actions/decisions/choices to take/make that are in align with my world view and way of seeing the world” are important to think about— And in particular, to population growth.

The “urge to enjoy and cherish life” are part cultural, part personal/biological. What “enjoyment” means to people is part cultural, part personal/biological. Of course, we’re both on the same page with wanting family/village tending the wild. Yet, there are lots of people who have urges to enjoy life more, by consuming more. These urges are in also cultural and biological (sugar tastes good, drugs feel good, etc).

Quitting smoking was hard work. Quitting drinking was hard work. I struggle with all kinds of addictions. Civilization is just another kind of addiction. So are all of the cultural aspects we’ve been led to believe we should just do (get married, buy a house, have children, etc.).

Sometimes making changes in your lifestyle that will fit what you want is hard work (like rewilding). Does that mean you should just not do it? I see the connection here to Derrick Jensen’s rejection of “symbolic”, consumer-decision based programs like recycling and the connection to the hypocrisy argument. And I think I’m starting to call bullshit on some of it. Honestly, it feels a little lazy, like “I’ll just quit smoking when they outlaw cigarettes.” The interesting thing in here (and what I’m getting at) is that outlawing cigarettes would make people quit. It would be a state-mandated cultural ethic. Whereas, a Smoker’s Anonymous group is a micro culture in and of itself created to support people who want to quit smoking. Rewilding to me, is like this grass-roots Smoker’s Anonymous. We are a micro-culture, leveraging the micro-culture to change ourselves and our lives in the way we perceive as better than the dominant culture. Only, we’re sort of creating these ethics as we go along together. We don’t have a defined 12 step program.

You may not be concerned with population growth, but I am. I want to throw this into the mix of rewilding ethics. Indigenous cultures were and probably still are where they exist, constantly (probably consciously and through cultural elements) concerned with population/landbase capacity. They may not have thought about it in the way we do, but it was certainly deeply entrenched in their cultures.

I’m going to make a guess, that in an overly-populated community, they had methods for reducing their populations, or customs of restricting growth.

What I mean to say here is that procreating children (not to be confused with having and tending a family) is not really something that is questioned, and I think that is because of age-old taker entitlement: i.e. “Who cares if our landbase has enough resources to produce another human? We’ll just steal more resources from our neighbors.” Our culture has had the idea of “be fruitful and multiply” for so long, that we don’t really think about population dynamics or that there could even be ethics (an informed decision to protect the landbase and all the families) around population growth… So what would these ethics look like in a transitioning culture of rewilding?


Off-Topic Side Notes:

Conversely to the narcissistic single-adult… Are narcissistic parents. The ones who project themselves onto their child and think they are just the perfect kid ever and can never do anything wrong. The ones who play with their children like living dolls. The ones who have kids so they can check off a box on the things to do in life list and then have nothing to do with their kids lives. People who have kids because they believe they can do a better job of raising children than anyone else (I would/will be on this end of the spectrum if/when I have kids hahaha ).

Narcissism and privilege can play or role (or not) on both sides of the equation. There are plenty of awesome adults with children, and plenty of awesome adults without children.

I think the reason there are less births in first world countries are because people here are more educated, and that education allows them more of a choice.

I personally wouldn’t adopt. But that’s because I don’t want anyone else’s family ghosts… I’ve got enough of my own! There’s a whole other thread… or two… haha

One thing I think about in regards to a population growth ethic of “no procreation” is the highly successful Shaker movement, which forbid procreation. You’ve heard of them before right? You’ve seen them before? They’re all over the news. They are like one of the biggest movements… right? right? lol

One thing I think about too, is my mom used to tell me when I first read Ishmael, “I used to believe in zero population growth. I wasn’t going to have children.” I would ask, “Why did you have children then?” She replied, “Well, I don’t know. Things change.”

That always really bothered me as an explanation. I think she felt guilty or something because she still believed in the ethic but went against it while following other urges. This is the split in psyche that I think a lot of us feel in rewilding. What kinds of things would push us over the edge of making an informed decision? I think it’s a culture of support. I was able to quit drinking because there was no longer a need, I have a culture of friends who don’t really drink. Part of that was all of us “growing up” and taking more responsibilities, and creating a culture or life around these things. If I were single, I know it would be a lot harder for me to not drink.

There wasn’t really a culture of support around the idea of zero population for my mom, and maybe that’s because it’s just a silly idea that humans can control populations in that kind of way like celibacy or whatever. How did indigenous cultures do this? How does that apply to our current over-population/carrying capacity?

This is a funny conversation, because I suppose you could choose to have children as a narcissistic act, or you could choose to have children as a land-tending act.

I think underlying motivations are exactly the point.

I don’t think it’s about what you do, but about why you’re doing it.

I think any discussion about the act itself, taken out of context, is super pointless. Much like ZPG, or any overarching program, is an insane attempt to control what cannot be controlled. But one mother, choosing to abort her pregnancy, is probably making a deeply sane decision to control exactly what she can control (where circumstances allow).

I remember Sacred means Survival. My decision to have kids is the same as the decision as the coyote moms who, when poisoned, hunted, and persecuted, birth a population explosion. Only what was poisoned and hunted in me and my cultural group was our indigenous soul. So I’m going to be a father to as many children as possible who are as whole as possible. For now this means one biological child, one non-biological child. But if I could have dozens I totally would. This is what my connection to the land tells me; this is what the still small voice tells me.

I would only ever recognize rewilding ethics based on that which increases and enriches the greater life, as demonstrated by observation and experience.

So I'm going to be a father to as many children as possible who are as whole as possible.

The question I see then is, is there any call to “father” or reach out to the children already on this planet? To carry each other to greater “wholeness”? Obviously that’s easier said than done, and you have to operate within the boundaries of what you’re capable of… But nonetheless, I empathize with Peter’s thoughts on this matter. Maybe what would increase and enrich greater life would be if the life already on this planet was healthier. Definitely not countering any statements made here, just wanted to emphasize the sense of responsibility that many of us possess!

We need to both procreate and re-create!

What I like about this thread, and this forum, is the diverse ways of looking at rewilding, and the individual takes and decisions that people make. I really appreciate you sharing your perspectives, Willem, and being able to see the many aspects of where people are at and how they are looking at things. I like that our “ethics” are fluid and diverse and founded in anti-fundamentalism–being that we can both choose morally different actions but not judge each other, and still work toward a common goal.

…I’ve really missed this “place”.

How am I just now noticing this thread? I love everything about this entire conversation.

First things first, I want to reply to this statement from Peter: “Procreating children is not really something that is questioned…because of age-old taker entitlement.” I completely (and yes, I’m being very sarcastic here) agree. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with procreation being a pretty longstanding and fundamental part of being alive, like eating and pooping and sleeping. You know who really feels entitled? People who eat and poop. But you know what’s even worse than people who eat and poop? People who sleep. And don’t even get me started on those bastards who nap…

Peter: “I see it as more of a discussion about where our underlying motivations come from.”

I’ll speak for myself here, because if I try to speak for all parents I’ll be wrong. I don’t have much of a clue where my underlying motivations came from when I realized procreation was in the cards for me and Phil, but at the very least I can tell they came from a place beyond just myself.

I felt pretty ambivalent about “having children” all through my twenties, and I didn’t like it when my parents questioned me about whether or not I would ever do it. I wasn’t particularly comfortable with the idea of being anyone’s mother, and didn’t really think seriously about it much.

Then one night when I was 29 or so I found a lump in my breast. A friend my own age had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and I imagined the same thing happening to me. After panicking a while, and making a doctor’s appointment, I went to bed with intense sadness. Right in the depth of it a voice crept in my head and said, “Wait, I can’t die. I haven’t met my children yet.”

That sounds so corny, doesn’t it? I’m sure it does. But it completely stunned me. “My children”?? What the hell?!

I don’t know where that voice came from. The experiences of pregnancy and birth and parenting have given me some clues, but I still don’t know.

Peter, you said you were bothered by your mom’s explanation of changing her mind and deciding to have children. She said, “Things change.”

Things do change. Something for sure changed in me preceding the decision (made with clarity and joy) to procreate. It was a mysterious change but not so mysterious that I can’t tell it was a really, really GOOD thing. Like something turning in my heart, shifting everything back in place.

Willem said something about finding people with no relationships to children unnerving. I totally relate. Everyone needs close ties with children. Children bring something to the table that keeps us SANE, that returns us to wholeness, reminds us what’s actually happening, what actually matters, what needs to be done, where our responsibilities lie. They’re an essential part of the picture whether they’re “your” kids or not.

So, in conclusion…

Everyone should have children, especially Peter…

Unless they don’t want to, in which case they shouldn’t.

xoxo

Im the father of 3 kids , not kids anymore none of them were planned… out of all my young friends I was the only one who did not have to get married, but hat was a different time… my oldest is 53 years , the second one is 49, and the 3rd is 46. Having your own kids is not explainable but the personal joy is on going, with fits of frustration…
When my first grandkids were born it was a feeling I never experienced before, way different than having your kid…it is an extension of self, selfish perhaps but I can live with that. my twin grand daugthers are now 28 years old , one gave me a great grand son…

Im lucky in that all three are not stupid and have carved out nice lives… they all hunt and fish, two girls one son… they are balanced and very much into the wilderness.
One daughter lives in a 100% off grid place. Raises most of her own food , from meat to vegges…I like that. Watching your own kids grow is a wonderful thing… And you help guide them if you are not too goofed up yourself. Sometimes you dont know what you are doing is right or not. … hell I was still a kid myself. But years later when they come to you mentioning things you had forgot about, the end result is you did matter in their life. And enabled them to be capable, caring humans.

My oldest daughter on her face book noted, she had the best childhood ever, brought tears to my wife and I… thats only part of the reward… procreating is part of the natural beast in the order of things.

entitlement, never thought of as such.

Dude

Obviously, procreation is natural and normal just like eating and pooping. But you can eat and poop with entitlement. That’s what civilization does. It takes whatever it wants to eat from the land, without regard toward the land. You can poop in an entitled way: stealing fresh water from the wild and defecating in it. I think people within civilization do the same thing when it comes to the decision to have children or not. I’m just throwing out the idea that perhaps the decision to have children or not, or when to have children, or even how many children to have, can be a cultural practice and a deep awareness of what the land has to provide. When I read of indigenous people intentionally breast-feeding for long periods of time as a method of birth control, or of abortifacients being used as birth control, or even infanticide being seemingly normalized among certain hunter-gatherer groups, I wonder how much of these decisions are made on an individual basis or communal one, and if there are stories/myths/rituals that teach and inform people in those cultures to allow them to think differently than we do. To me the myth or commandment from God to “Go forth and multiply” is one of entitlement: the world was here for us to use as we see fit. A deeper connection to the land would be more like, “go forth and maintain the carrying capacity of the land.”

I feel like people may be relating this idea more to their own story and desire to have kids, than the theory that I’m talking about. I’m not saying, “You are acting entitled when you have children.” I’m on the fence about having children, and my decision will have nothing to do with this conversation. My question is, does having a child help our situation (population explosion, environmental destruction), or make it worse, or do nothing either way? Does it feed the community of life, more than just your own self (or culturally imposed) desires? Can the land provide for another human child? We are converting biomass into human mass. Is creating another human life worth more than the loss of biomass (biodiversity) that will be converted into that human? I honestly don’t know. It sort of rounds back to the “why don’t you just kill yourself question.” But I’m feeling something different with this one and trying to get to the bottom of that feeling.

I agree with Peter’s comment, in that you can have kid(s) with entitlement or you can have kid(s) responsibly. But it is complicated to sort out which scenarios are entitled and which scenarios are responsible.

Plus, in modern “civilized” society, you can also “not have kids” with entitlement, referring to those many folks who live out their lives in a state of extended adolescence, avoiding real responsibility and without any kind of meaningful contribution to others.

And then what about folks in areas torn apart by militant or corporate interests, without access to modern birth control (and no education about traditional birth control methods) who have kids without any sense of entitlement, but don’t have the option to be “responsible” according to OUR standards?

So I will only attempt to express my feelings about the topic in our own society. The folks with “entitlement” are having many, many kids. Their kids in turn will likely expect lives full of entitlement. The folks trying to be “responsible” are having few (or no) kids, and those few (or no) kids will hopefully grow up to continue living responsible lives. Follow the math.

Some of the kids who were born from entitlement will make a breakthrough at some point in their lives, and may then chose to live the rest of their lives responsibly–if they can figure out how. But UNLESS we have responsible people, right now, raising (a few) kids who will live responsible lives, and who will strive to pass that sense of responsibility on to their own (few) kids and so on, then we are forever trapped in a repeating loop of irresponsibility and entitlement. (I hope that isn’t to hard to follow what I am saying!)

Responsible parents can certainly also adopt, but there is a slightly higher risk I think, of their efforts to transmit responsibility being ultimately rejected. But I think that can be compensated for by raising kids within a like-minded community.

I think people bring in their own story because it is an experience they have lived… anything else is speculation , , conjecture and theory… Having really been a witness to having kids is a far cry from thinking about it and twisting ones self into knots … When WW2 was looming people had a lot of thoughts about not having kids until they saw the end of the war and who would win. After the war started many men got a vasectomy , it was pretty common. My dad was one of them he already had me and my sister and no one knew which way the war would go. So the idea of kids or no kids is nothing new to us … Through time you can list the reasons not to have a kid. Pick any period and the reasons are myriad. Contrary is the fact that in times of war the birth rate goes up. Witness the baby boomers… the small time between WW2 and the Korean war is but a short window as nobody , again, knew what was going to happen, and we had the atomic bomb to worry about and who really had it or not. Even then we knew about food shortages etc… Something is always looming in the dark.

Dude

Dude McLean, you nearly took the words out of my mouth with that first sentence. I was just about to quote Peter: “I feel like people may be relating this idea more to their own story and desire to have kids, than the theory that I’m talking about.”

Peter, I disagree with the implication that your question is a purely theoretical one. This topic is way too big, too deep, too mysterious (bewildering even) to be packaged up all neat and orderly for our wee human heads. Theories can’t even come close to trumping personal stories here.

I agree with you and Monica and others talking about how “you could choose to have children as a narcissistic act, or you could choose to have children as a land-tending act” (Willem). Fair enough.

Honestly though (and here comes the personal story) I didn’t have children as a land-tending act. My mind wasn’t in it quite that way. I groped my way around in the dark a lot as I made the transition from woman to mother. (And I still grope around in the dark! And find the little clues I knock into delightful, including the frustrating ones.)

The truth is I have been remembering things, finding my way back to the earth, primarily on account of having children. They’re the ones who brought ME here. (Oh, so many ironies involved in parenting…)

This topic is BIG. Supersized. Not a simple question, not black or white. Bigger than theories and ideas. We’re just dipping our toes in the ocean.

(Thanks for starting this thread, Peter, and thanks to Willem, Jesse, Monica, and Dude. I gain so much from your stories.)

“…I have been remembering things, finding my way back to the earth, primarily on account of having children. They’re the ones who brought ME here.”

YES. My experience exactly. Thank you for reminding me of that, Mindy!

And YES, thank you also everyone here, for this conversation

I think you can try and plan your life but then life happens, and we are not really in that much control…

groping around in the dark is a good way to put it… It come down to we are all just feeling our way around and it is mostly in the dark…

we might have high and mighty plans but the old saying what is your plan B and C, most barely have a plan A … The thought that I would end up with a career in the music biz was never in my plans… Life happened… it turned out it gave me time to be in the wild that no other career would have allowed for.

Dude

Gah! I just wrote a long reply to this and then my browser restarted! >_< I’ll try again -

A PP was getting at part of what I was going to say. Yes, we are overpopulated, but the one’s who repopulate get the vote. Raising well informed, smart individuals helps contribute to the welfare of future generations.

To get back the population balance, I see two issues that need to be solved. First, is that humans really no longer have a natural predator, besides maybe ourselves occasionally.

As for communities who self regulate, it reminds me of how hamsters will eat their young if their environment becomes too threatening. It seems only natural that animals would choose to not raise children in an environment where they need that energy simply to survive themselves. Spreading themselves too thin would mean that nobody survives, their offspring nor them.

This brings me to the second issue I see, which is that we create artificially sustainable environments for worse off communities. Say you have a group of people with not enough food. In nature, that population, if they were unable to find a way to thrive themselves, would either die out or repopulate less until the situation was sustainable. We as a civilization, however, have gotten into the habit of sending food to these communities instead. This means that they are now in a situation where there is less desperation and children can be considered an option. If these people then have more children then their own numbers, it now means the problem is worse: more hungry mouths to feed.

(I do have sympathy for those who are hungry, but I believe the only true way we can help them, if we must interfere, is to try to teach them to sustain themselves. Nature must do the rest to balance the situation.)

Of course most of us are instinctively led to reproduce whenever the option is available, considering natural selection. Those who do not have the genetic calling to reproduce are quickly removed from the gene pool as a result of that choice.

Do we feel entitled? Having children could be considered self love in some ways. It involves continuing ourselves on in a sense into future generations. So, asking someone if they feel entitled to do that, I think most would say yes, as few would consider themselves to be disposable, now, or in the future.

Hmm… This seems really interesting! As someone who isn’t really in a place or time to have children yet, (I’m single, finishing high school, and planning on leaving as soon as possible!) I think this question may be a paradox. On the one hand, it could be very harmful to have children now, because most of us don’t live sustainably and so our children would use up a lot of resources. As well, there are certainly too many people alive righ now, and our children would just add to the massive amount of people on earth. A solution could be to adopt, but I have heard mixed messages about adoption, both from close friends and folks on here.

However, the act of raising a child, regardless of whether you conceive the child yourself or not, is part of the essence of culture. Hunter-gatherer children learned stories and taboos, plants and fungi, from a very young age and so their sustainable cultures shaped them more easily than for someone who came from a vastly different culture. I’m having a tough enough time rewilding myself mentally, and I’m a lot younger then most of the folks on here! Raising a child presents an oppurtunity for us to pass on our values, and children have an easier time learning. It’s easier to fill up an empty cup than one with muddy water. So with our values and skill levels, our children could progress farther than we could in developing a sustainable culture, and for those of us who might not live to see the culmination of the collapse, let alone surviving it, raising children would seem like a win-win solution. We can teach them what we know and learn from them as well, regardless of how old they are (I learn so much from the children at the camp I work at!)

I’ve noticed that thinking about morally heavy topics is much easier now that I’m not depressed… The whole question of “do I deserve to have children in this world” seems to stem from the dilemma of a rewilder, especially the one living within civilization: why do I deserve to live if I live in an overpopulated world? When I was depressed, this question used to cause me to feel worse because of the answer: I don’t. Morally, my life has the same worth as the life of any other human. But the question doesn’t stop there. If I have the knowledge and potential to heal the earth, to heal my community, then I shouldnt give up my life to depression. My life in of itself isn’t worth more than another’s because of that, but I simply have the capability, the power, to help the world, so I should simply live and make my changes. With children, it seems very similar. I cannot say that I deserve to have children more than anybody else, but (and hopefully I don’t have children anytime soon!) I could help teach my children to live a healthier lifestyle. Around where I live, there are a lot of homesteaders and sustainable communities, and I’ve noticed that the children from these places are taught to help.

As well, it seems that the desire to have children may not only come from our sex hormones, but from something deeper within. Anyone who feels compelled to have children may as well do so!

Finally, there’s the whole biological point of having children: passing on genetics. Those of us who live healthily (No smoking, no excessive drinking, good diet, etc) can pass on healthy genes to their children. (I’m trying to tread lightly because of the whole “survival of the fittest” issue…) While your genetics do come from your ancestors, you still have a hand in your genetic health: smoking, drinking, and eating poor foods cause damage to your cells, especially in the genetic department. A person who is in better health than another doesn’t “deserve” to pass on their genes more than the other person, but these are still important factors. Also, the person in better health may have an easier time having children, male or female.

Personal story: I was almost aborted. (cue sound effects to trigger shock and excitement!) Both of my parents are of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage (meaning that they come from Eastern Europe) and one genetic disease with some prevalence among these communities is called Tay-Sachs, in which the cells of a person with it cant clean themselves/rid the,selves of waste properly, and so people who have Tay-Sachs usually die quite young. The gene for Tay-Sachs is a recessive gene, meaning that there is only a chance of a child having the disease if both parents have the gene, and even then, it is a slim chance (1 in 25). Oh and it’s I curable as far as modern science can tell.

When my Parents thought about having a child, they talked to their doctors and asked if there were any issues. The doctors must not have though about it, so the doctor simply said no. Fast forward some time, and I was conceived. So my pregnant mom goes to the doctor for a check up (this was early in the pregnavncy) and they tell her “oh wonderful! By the way your future child is at risk of developing this deadly genetic disease called Tay-Sachs!” Of course my parents were angry and sad, and so they had some tests done while I was in utero t figure out if I had it or not. My parents had decided that they wouldn’t be willing to live with a child with an uncurable disease that would probably die young, both because treatments for such a child are expensive and because they didn’t want to deal with the whole heartache risk thing. It must be horrible to lose your child like that.

Well obviously I wasn’t aborted, because I didn’t test positive for the disease (also I’m not a carrier of the gene so theres no risk of my posse future children having it). My mother and father had also had some reassuring unexplainable experiences while this went on, and so when I finally entered the world, they chose to name me Samuel from the Hebrew Shmuel (sorry, no Hebrew keypad) meaning “god has heard”.

So yeah… I’m not sure of the relevant message of that story, but I just thought of it.

Anyways, with the whole biological child thing, I think that if you and your partner are willing to have children, to pass on your genes, and deal with the entire thing, then go for it! Especially if you can rewild the process. (like the conception: you could make your partner a romantic dinner of venison filet mignon with some wild grape or elderberry wine, and native aphrodisiacs, and enjoy this dinner… And each others bodies… Late at night in a firelight shelter on top of some finely tanned hides. Just a thought :wink: )

Sorry for the long post, enjoy!

Does having children help or hurt us, or neither? I can see ways in which it could possibly help (more children can bring a community closer, children can grow up leading very responsible lives, and growing the rewilding movement in general)…but obviously there can be a downside to adding to our already booming human population, because children (like all organisms) are going to use yet more resources. I’ve had a very similar conversation with a therian I know who has sworn off having children due to overpopulation.

Either way though, the majority of parents I know DO in fact have children out of entitlement (I recall a thrice pregnant 18-year-old saying literally that having kids is “her right” and that “no one can stop her!” as though it was some sort of rebellious pride.) And she is just one of many, usually young, mothers who have children just because they physically can. The other half of children I know, were completely accidental…so I can’t say there even WAS a motivation for children there to begin with.

And yes, narcissism can be a motivation for children. My father has actually been diagnosed with NPD or having “destructive narcissistic tendancies.” And his entire family was created just out of his sole desire to control and manipulate people into serving him, whether by kissing his ass, or by living your life literally by his handbook, so you can bring him pride/money/etc. Even all of his children (except myself and my only full sibling) were named after him, first and middle names. I don’t think that’s exactly what this thread was discussing though, as there can be an overall community narsissism as opposed to individual, abusive, narcsissitic parents. But both ways, it certainly can be a motivation.

Also, I guess I can see how you could relate having children to defecating or sleeping as they both ARE natural, however, everyone HAS to sleep and defecate, but no one technically HAS to have children (especially at the rate we’re at). And the motivation behind them are entirely different, there can be reasons you want to have a child, but when someone wants to poop, its because they have to poop. Hahaha

I think anything done within an monstrous story is monstrous; and anything done within a story that heals life is healing.

I think a person could do the exact same action - i.e., make babies - and in either story would generate more of that story’s fruits.

For me, it all comes down to the story you are living - ever deeper down to your bones, it’s okay if it takes a while to get down there.

I just came across this related post from our family friend Tracy. It’s called “On Having Children – Or Not?”:

http://tj.collagecreative.net/on-having-children-or-not/

Says authentication required. :confused:

Oops! Can you get to it now?