Basically, as we move from 100,000 years ago to 1000 years from now we'll have gone from needing to have children to survive to essentially living forever. All the way back there was zero individuality, and we have more now, and we'll have more in the future.
Individuality is the opposite of parenting. That's why women are still behind. To a larger extent than men they live their lives for their children. And when you pour your entire life force into another human, you simply cannot achieve the same as someone who does that to create art or music or literature.
Men started being individuals before women did, and they are ahead as a result. Women are catching up, though, and that's a good thing. The important thing is that in the distant future we won't have the requirement.
When we are creative life forces with arbitrary bodies that live (effectively) forever, what will be the need for reproduction? At that point we'll be enlightened entities providing services for each other.
In short, reproduction is a vestigial requirement that we sill possess. And because it's evolutionary it provides us pleasure, but it will give out to advanced happiness in the future, and that happiness is the happiness of creating art, music, literature, etc.
There will still be children for a long time, and they should be celebrated and loved enjoyed when they do happen. But we've long since past the time where everyone needs to make them. In fact, it's nearly becoming criminal to keep making them when so many exist that have no loving parents.
As for the article's direct point of whether one can be happy without them, I think the answer lies in how much happiness one can gain from being an individual. If you are an author or a painter or a musician, and you truly love what you do because it helps other people then you likely are tapping into the same sensation that parents get--and likely something more as well. For people like that, having children is not a requirement.
As for those who simply feel elation from raising children, there should be no shame in that either. Opposing nature in the name of a distant, future type of happiness that may not be possible for that person is not likely to be fulfilling.
It's not time to abandon parenthood. But it is time to adopt adoption, and to look forward to a time when creation of art and beauty should become the goal of everyone living rather than a default action of creating new humans who will participate in a mostly meaningless means of making money so that their offspring can do the same.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I think a lot about this.
Basically, as we move from 100,000 years ago to 1000 years from now we'll have gone from needing to have children to survive to essentially living forever. All the way back there was zero individuality, and we have more now, and we'll have more in the future.
Individuality is the opposite of parenting. That's why women are still behind. To a larger extent than men they live their lives for their children. And when you pour your entire life force into another human, you simply cannot achieve the same as someone who does that to create art or music or literature.
Men started being individuals before women did, and they are ahead as a result. Women are catching up, though, and that's a good thing. The important thing is that in the distant future we won't have the requirement.
When we are creative life forces with arbitrary bodies that live (effectively) forever, what will be the need for reproduction? At that point we'll be enlightened entities providing services for each other.
In short, reproduction is a vestigial requirement that we sill possess. And because it's evolutionary it provides us pleasure, but it will give out to advanced happiness in the future, and that happiness is the happiness of creating art, music, literature, etc.
There will still be children for a long time, and they should be celebrated and loved enjoyed when they do happen. But we've long since past the time where everyone needs to make them. In fact, it's nearly becoming criminal to keep making them when so many exist that have no loving parents.
As for the article's direct point of whether one can be happy without them, I think the answer lies in how much happiness one can gain from being an individual. If you are an author or a painter or a musician, and you truly love what you do because it helps other people then you likely are tapping into the same sensation that parents get--and likely something more as well. For people like that, having children is not a requirement.
And since this should be the goal anyway, i.e. people CREATING things for others to enjoy (as opposed to http://danielmiessler.com/blog/parent-to-child-propagation-o...) then those who can do so should pursue this course without fear.
As for those who simply feel elation from raising children, there should be no shame in that either. Opposing nature in the name of a distant, future type of happiness that may not be possible for that person is not likely to be fulfilling.
It's not time to abandon parenthood. But it is time to adopt adoption, and to look forward to a time when creation of art and beauty should become the goal of everyone living rather than a default action of creating new humans who will participate in a mostly meaningless means of making money so that their offspring can do the same.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I think a lot about this.