You want someone to grow old with? You want someone to be a mother for your children, assuming you want children?
And if you don't want children, well, you probably will and if you don't you're either
deluded or immature.
And you might say, "well no, the planet has too many people on it," it's like, yeah, whatever.
Good luck with that. Every single one of your ancestors reproduced
in an unending procession lasting 3.5 billion years.
and they're all wrong and you're right. I don't think so.
You just listened to a soundbite of Dr. Jordan Peterson sharing his opinion about people
who choose not to have kids.
Aside from the fact that I find the judgemental undertone of his rant a bit repulsive, I can’t
help but think… he is basing this on what?
Peterson argues that all of our ancestors reproduced for billions of years.
Along with his claim that if you don’t want children, you are deluded or immature, he
uses the actions of our ancestors as an argument to support his view that having children is
the right course of action.
This argument totally ignores the fact that many people who lived before us did not reproduce.
Were all these people wrong?
Were people like Isaac Newton, Ludwig von Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, and Jane Austen
all wrong, deluded, and immature while, at the same time, my former pot-smoking downstairs
neighbor on welfare with four kids and a fifth one on the way, throwing diapers and cigarettes
over the balcony, is, quote-unquote “right?”
Let’s clarify something: I’m not against having kids, and I’m not against marriage.
Not at all!
What I’m rebelling against is the phenomenon of “should haves,” “should be’s, ”and
“should dos” (often based on questionable arguments).
I’m questioning those people speaking from a position of authority, telling other people
what to do and how to live (and that if you don’t do as they say, you’re deluded,
immature, wrong, evil, toxic, weird, whatever).
But when society believes something is good, does it necessarily mean it’s true?
Is it wrong to live life differently?
And what is life like when we go against the grain?
Let’s explore life without marriage, children, and other stuff we’re supposed to have,
the nature of social norms, and some existentialism.
Social norms greatly influence human behavior.
It’s like a set of software society installs on our systems collectively, largely during
our formative years but also throughout the rest of our lives.
It's the program that says: “We should not slap strangers in the face,” or “We should
say thank you when we get a present,” or “We should marry and have children.”
So, these social norms and conventions (which are mostly ingrained in the cultures and societies
we live in) tell us what we’re supposed to have, be, and do.
We often see that if a person doesn’t comply with these norms, at least for a significant
part, then he’s seen as a weirdo, an outsider, and sometimes even a threat.
But just because something is the norm, does that automatically make it a good idea to
follow it?
Let’s explore the notion that one should have children, for example.
Again, aside from having children being a natural occurrence (and I’d say that it’s
also a natural occurrence not to have them), it’s also a norm in most societies.
It has been for a long time.
Although times are changing, most people generally consider it a step we eventually take during
our lives.
It’s also a norm to do this within the framework of a family.
So, people across the board consider finding a partner, getting married, and having children
the right course of action.
Of course, this differs per country, religious group, etc.
In the Netherlands, for example, marriage is less common these days than in, let’s
say, Indonesia.
And I’d guess that atheists generally marry less frequently than Muslims.
But still, having children is ‘normal.’
It’s an expected step in one’s life.
But does that mean having children is better than remaining child-free?
Let’s go back into the past, to the period just after the Second World War, the time
my grandparents were about to start a family.
At that time, having children was so routine that the local pastor would visit their house
every year to see if new babies were coming.
He was kind of the local Jordan Peterson of that time, shaming people into having children,
not by calling them deluded and immature if they didn't, but bad Christians, which, especially
for my very religious grandmother, was an effective shaming tactic: she eventually gave
birth to eleven children, which resulted in countless grandchildren, including yours truly.
In terms of expanding the population (an understandable goal just after the war), eleven children,
is a great accomplishment.
However, economic reasons also played a role; the more children there were, the more hands
could contribute to the family income.
For example, my grandparents sent my uncles to the factories at a young age.
Although in the West, this practice is luckily something of the past, there’s a ‘functionality
aspect’ of having children that still lingers, which is that they serve to provide companionship
for the parents.
Hence, we hear comments like “You’ll end up alone and miserable” or “What are you
going to do when you’re 60 and have no children to visit you?”
So, in many ways, we see the projected benefits of having children: they can take care of
us, keep us company, help to maintain the family, etc.
But what about the downsides?
One downside people don’t like talking about is the suffering that comes with bringing
people into existence.
A child didn’t ask to be here.
He partakes in a contract he never got to sign: he just got part of the deal, whether
he likes it or not.
Your child may actually live a miserable life, perhaps a life full of depression and addiction
as a result of the many bad things happening to him–all that to accommodate the parent’s
happiness and well-being.
Isn’t that a bit selfish?
Furthermore, having children doesn’t even guarantee the benefits parents imagine: What
if you’re 60 and you have children, but they hardly ever visit you?
In that case, you not only lack the visits of children (just like those who never had
them), but you also grieve about the fact you have children, but they never visit you.
The antinatalists go even further, saying that bringing children into this world leads
to undeniable, inevitable suffering for these children, and, thus, the best, most empathetic
thing to do would be not to have children in the first place; not having children prevents
these unborn sentient beings from suffering (if you’re interested, I’ve made an in-depth
video on antinatalism).
But not just for the children; also for the supposed parents, having children could not
always be the best idea.
What if one (or both) of the parents deals with mental illness or addiction problems,
and having children is just too much of a responsibility?
What if the parent has ambitions that don’t mix well with having children?
For example, what if my grandmother actually wanted to be a war correspondent?
In that case, having eleven children would have prevented her from fulfilling her dreams.
And what if you just don’t like children?
“But you’ll end up alone and miserable.”
There is scientific evidence that shows that people without children are generally happier
than people who are parents.
Other research suggests that single people can be as satisfied as those in relationships.
I quote:
In one study published in 2022, hundreds of men and women were surveyed about what makes
single life attractive, and they rated the top benefits as having more time for themselves,
being able to focus on their goals, and not having anyone else dictate their actions.
End quote.
There’s enough reason for me to question the value of our social and cultural norms.
I don't buy the idea that when everyone does something, it must be good.
Take, for example, today’s rampant search for status and so-called “relevance” on
social media platforms.
What’s that actually good for?
Or about the necessity to have a large house or expensive car?
And if showing videos of yourself dancing in your sister’s bra on TikTok becomes the
social norm, does that mean it benefits one’s well-being?
My answer: not necessarily.
‘Norm’ doesn’t equal ‘beneficial.’
What society generally thinks we are supposed to have isn’t always in the individual’s
best interest.
But even if something works for the majority, does that mean it works for everyone, always,
everywhere?
And, on top of that, does that mean that people who don’t comply with these norms deserve
to be shamed, blamed, and ridiculed?
Some people might be better off walking a different path.
Some people, rather, don’t let social norms and conventions define how they live.
Call to mind any statement along the lines of: you’re supposed to get married and start
a family; it’s your responsibility to have children; if you don’t want kids, you’re
immature and deluded.
What do these statements have in common?
They all come from an idea of how we’re supposed to live, as if our lives have these
specific purposes, as if someone or something designed us to do something, as humans designed
a fork for eating.
Indeed, we created a fork for the specific purpose of eating, just as we designed a house
for the purpose of providing us shelter.
Humanity designed tons of such things, things that perform the function we intended for
them, which is great , but should we treat our lives that way, too?
Do our lives serve an innate purpose, such as getting married and having children?
When people say things like: “Listen, we humans are here to do this… and to do that…”
“The reason we’re here is to reproduce,” “We’re here to be happy,” or “We’re
supposed to live well and be good to our fellow humans,” I usually cringe.
I mean, how do you know that?
Who told you the purpose of human existence?
It’s great that you’re so confident about this.
People have been asking themselves for thousands of years, and you just singlehandedly solved
one of the most profound philosophical questions.
Bravo!
Sarcasm aside, it’s pretty common for people to make such statements.
And in regards to the purpose of life, religion also offers its two cents.
Beliefs such as “We’re here to serve God,” “We’re here to honor and worship God and
follow his commands,” or “We’re here to escape the cycle of rebirth” are prominent
in the religious camp, and many ascribe to these ideas.
Such claims imply that we have this innate purpose, a divine mission to which we should
dedicate our lives.
But French existentialist philosopher Sartre believed we don’t have this innate purpose.
According to him, humans don’t come into this world with specific predetermined goals
in a way that forks serve specifically as tools for eating.
He believed that existence precedes essence, meaning that we exist first, and then the
essence of our existence follows, meaning we’re like empty canvasses, and it’s up
to us how we fill them.
So, we’re not designed for something; we come into existence, and something comes afterward.
If we follow Sartre’s lead, we immediately encounter a conflict with any claim that tells
us what we “should be,” “should have,” or “are supposed to do.”
You’re supposed to marry.
Oh really?
Says who?
Some guy on YouTube?
Instead, from Sartre’s viewpoint, you marry because that’s how you want to give substance
to your life.
It’s optional, not required.
And so, from an existential view, it’s perfectly fine not to follow conventions.
So, let’s completely ignore all social norms.
Let’s indeed see our lives as empty canvasses that are ours to be filled.
How would your life be?
Would you still follow conventions such as marriage?
Would you still have children?
To answer the latter question, I think many people remain faithful to conventions such
as marriage and children, perhaps not because they feel obligated but because that’s how
they want to fill their canvasses.
They want the bond between two people until death parts them; they want that family life,
going on holidays together, throwing children’s birthday parties, and yelling at the sidelines
of the soccer field.
There’s nothing wrong with staying true to conventions if that’s what you really
want to do.
Not all conventions are necessarily good, but not all conventions are necessarily bad.
And what’s best also depends on the individual’s situation.
For some, walking the conventional route may be the most fulfilling way.
But there are those, call them the ‘unfitted,’ who don’t want to go that route.
I guess I’m one of them.
And it’s not just a deliberate choice; I really don’t fit in even if I wanted to.
Another example of such an unfitted individual is Ralph Waldo Emerson; an American philosopher.
In fact, his whole philosophy revolves around non-conformity and going against what society
tells us we should be or do.
He believed that society’s rules and conventions often restrict individual freedom and don’t
necessarily benefit the individual.
Therefore, when making decisions, humans should always use their own intuition instead of
following the herd.
And so, if people’s intuition leads them down a road outside of the traditional family
structure, so be it; it’s probably the path that’s most beneficial in terms of personal
development and fulfillment for that individual and could also be the best way of contributing
to society.
Take, for example, the lone scientist who never married and never had kids, but by dedicating
his whole being to his work, he made significant contributions to humanity.
When the emissaries of the kingdom offered the Taoist sage the throne, he declined.
He instead sat by the riverside with his fishing rod.
Whereas many would have seized the opportunity of great power and all the benefits that follow,
the sage abstained in exchange for peace.
We could see the sage as a guiding light regarding other life choices, including those that society
pressures on us.
Yes, we could choose that high-paying career with many responsibilities, not leaving the
office before 10 P.M.
We’ll be in a position of high esteem, status, and financial wealth, the great perks of being
conventionally successful.
But we could also not do that.
We won’t have all the perks, but we don’t have all the stresses, either.
Similarly, we may decide not to have kids and enjoy the freedom and peace of being child-free:
we could indeed spend our time sitting at the riverside with a fishing rod.
Ultimately, it’s really up to us how we live our lives.
Whether we marry, have kids, or follow society’s ‘shoulds’ is our choice.
Plenty of research suggests that the alternative, non-conventional path can be just as fulfilling,
sometimes even more so, than following the norms.
So, what do you think?
What do you prefer?
Following conventions or walking an authentic, individual path?
Thank you for watching.