That's a very interesting question. The thing is, I believe, when you live in certain conditions, and you have always lived in them, they are the best you have experienced and truly know. And if you were to wait for the perfect conditions to arrive, you would probably never be able to have a family. Yet when you live in poverty, that's when family and community become your best source of joy, of support, of purpose...
Then there is the case of changing circumstances. When my mother gave birth to me, times were OK. Then there was a majour financial crisis in the mid to late 90's and life was very hard, until we emigrated to a more developed country, and life improved for us. You can also take Gaza as an example. Just 3 years ago, nobody there would have guessed what the enclave would turn into just a year or two later. You are in your 7 or 8 month pregnant, Gaza is reduced to rubble, but you still have to give birth and hope for a better tomorrow for your child - maybe that is what is likely to motivate you to survive.
I think they are all fair points. I guess I just have my own (anti-natilist) bias. I tend to think the risk of exposing a sentient being to this world- even in a first world country, is too great. I suppose I've been unhappy for a very long time so, the thought of my child experiencing something similar has always felt abhorrent. I love my unborn children. Why would I want to risk seeing them hurt? I don't think I could spare them that fate either. I don't actually think anyone can. There are so many dangers in this world we can't prepare or protect a child from.
Besides, I think a lot of people do have children when they know full well how hard their lives are likely to be. People starving, in poverty, unwell themselves with heriditary prone illnesses still choose to procreate.
Unless the parents are stinking rich, they will be assuming their child will pay its way for 50- 60+ years. So- all people are effectively born into wage slavery for starters- whether that be in a poor or rich country. It's making a (huge) assumption that the child will be happy to comply with all the expectations that will be placed on it, from the get go. I just think that's unfair for a start.
I tend to see having children as a primarily selfish act to be honest. I think couples want to experience parenthood. They want to replicate themselves and their partners. They may feel pressured by society or cultural norms. They may even do it to create carers for themselves in old age. If it truly were about supporting an individual child into adulthood, more people would adopt- surely? I think it's more about what they'll get from it.
They may hope the child will do well but, they have no idea really. Plus, some can likely predict what could go wrong. If they don't have good genes, their child will suffer. If they struggle financially, it will impact their child. If they live somewhere where violence is common, their child will be at more risk.
It's surely common sense that if you bring a sentient being into a situation full of risks, it will become prone to very bad things happening. Good too of course. But it simply baffles me. So many people complain about their lives so- it's not like they can't see the bad or, know it's there. I don't know. I suppose I'm just grateful that I never fell prey to very strong maternal instincts. Plus, that I was too ugly to attract anyone.
I can speak very little about this since the country my parents are from is considered 3rd world but their families had decent 'wealth'(not extravagant but much better than the average person) over there and did not really have the same troubles as others, but they witnessed this a lot and this is what I can recall.
In that country one reason they have children is that more family means more support/workers contributing to each other. It sounds contradictory because it takes resources to raise children and whatnot; but it is like having a built in team of some sorts. The government there is also horrendous and the people there usually help each other as a community and look out for each other in that way, so the more the merrier sometimes is the logic. Of course, they are also a heavily religious country and promote birth like no tomorrow.
I was not born or raised there, so it confused me too when I was a kid.
I think this indeed is a reason and, a cultural norm in some places. To a different extent, it still exists in first world countries. A friend outright said they liked the thought of a part of their partner being replicated. Effectively so that- if their partner dies before them, a part of them will still remain. That's my function to a large extent. My Mum died when I was 3. I exist in part as a keepsake reminder to my Dad.
Again though, it just aggrevates me how selfish that is. It's not really about love. Certainly not if the person ends up suffering and wanting out of this world. It's being born to fulfil their needs. Children shouldn't be a commodity or emotional crutch- to my mind. The 'cost' on them is too great. They are being expected to sustain a lifetime- sometimes entirely for the sake of others. That's such a burden to put on someone. (To my mind.) Granted, it won't alwaysbe the case. They may well cheerfully accept their lot but, there's always the risk they'll struggle terribly.
.
), the caretakers there used to mistreat us and relay things along the lines of "it could be worse" in order to downplay our situations lol. The stuff about people in less privileged countries just compounded it, so this sort of thinking needs to be unlearned on my end for sure.
