“Made” for procreation?

There is a common bromide, uttered by people in many different ideological positions, that says that we were “made” for procreation, and that therefore not having children goes against human nature.

Well, first of all, I don’t believe we were designed, so we were not “made” for anything. Even if we classify this as an unfortunate use of words (which, in some cases, it is, as I don’t think the secular proponents of this bromide actually mean it), it is also mysterious as to how 20% of the population somehow managed to defeat their own human nature by not having children. If 20% of the population can just not do something, then it is most likely not part of human nature. It may be widespread, but it is not “natural” in that sense. And if that’s the case, then the power of the argument is gone.

Clearly our human bodies make procreation possible, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. But there is a huge step from there to “we’re ‘made’ for procreation.” The latter implies not only a careful design, but also a clear orientation in the design, in that any other purpose in the design would disprove the claim. So the question becomes, do our sexual organs appear to have been designed solely for the intent of procreation? The answer to that question is a resounding no. Everything about how we get sexual pleasure (prostate orgasms, the efficacy of masturbation, the clitoris as center of female sexual pleasure, the fact that most women don’t orgasm from PIV) clearly points in one direction: we were made for sex, but not for procreation.

For most of Western history, sex and procreation were inextricably linked, since heterosexuality was the only accepted norm for marriages (which exist for the purpose of procreation, specifically to transform a woman and her future children into male property), and the technology to prevent pregnancies was not as developed as it is today. So if anyone had said that “we were made for procreation,” at any other time in history, they would have been at least credible. But saying this nowadays is just not credible. A human being can spend their entire life having sex without ever having children.

In fact, the more we have access to medical technology, the fewer children we have. Clearly another part of the human organism was not “made” for procreation, that part being the brain. Despite the fact that we could have many more children and have them live healthy lives (like Quiverfull families), we do the exact opposite. Whatever the reason for this, it clearly indicates that the more reproductive control we have, the fewer children we have.

Given how improbable this belief is, why do so many people believe it so firmly? The belief that we’re “made” for procreation goes hand in hand with natalist propaganda. It is always easier to get people to accept a belief system if you convince them that the belief system is the consequence of natural facts about humans. People accept gender and race more readily if they honestly believe that gender and race are consequences of human biology. After all, who can fight against biology?

One argument they give us is that procreation has been going on forever. That is certainly true, but procreation has not been going on forever because we’re “made” for it. Procreation has been going on forever because, as I already pointed out, sex and procreation were inextricably linked. This is no longer the case. We know now why children are born. We do not live in the ignorance of our ancestors.

Another reason, I think, why the belief persists is because of heteronormativity and the belief in marriage. We are all raised to believe that heterosexual relationships and marriage are a natural part of life, and that the purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to make and raise children. This may be the case, but either way, it is not a natural or necessary part of life. Many people are not heterosexuals and many people are unmarried. This does not mean that people who are heterosexuals and married must have children. As an antinatalist, I don’t believe anyone should have children. But whatever your belief is on the natalist issue, having children is not an innate part of human nature.

6 thoughts on ““Made” for procreation?

  1. sbt42 October 10, 2017 at 05:41 Reply

    How would you respond to the argument that reproduction is activity engaged in by generally all living organisms? There may not be societies of wheat, or mosquitoes, or wild horses, or other animals or plants. But much of what they do when left to their own devices is create more of the same.

    I guess my bigger question might be: Is the urge to -not- procreate a social construct?

    • Francois Tremblay October 10, 2017 at 14:09 Reply

      “How would you respond to the argument that reproduction is activity engaged in by generally all living organisms?”

      Yes, clearly. Otherwise they would not subsist. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. No other species can clearly distinguish between sex and reproduction (although other primate species do have some distinction as well).

      “There may not be societies of wheat, or mosquitoes, or wild horses, or other animals or plants. But much of what they do when left to their own devices is create more of the same.”

      I agree…

      “I guess my bigger question might be: Is the urge to -not- procreate a social construct?”

      Yes, of course. I don’t see how that’s even controversial…

    • “I guess my bigger question might be: Is the urge to -not- procreate a social construct?”
      Firstly the is no “urge” tonotprocreate. Even if there was one, Antinatalism does not reply on urges, but rather on a rational thought process.

      As an analogy – Opening a bank account is very popular. There is no urge to do that, just a thought out process to manage your money better.

  2. Maxwell Billingsley IX October 10, 2017 at 15:44 Reply

    Even if we were made to procreate (which is absurd), that doesn’t mean that we should therefore choose to procreate. Why should we do without question whatever our ‘maker’ ‘wants’ us to do? Furthermore, what kind of purpose is that? God made life so that people would continue to perpetuate it? We should have children so that they have children so that they have children etc ad infinitum? That’s more dreadful than meaninglessness, if you ask me.

  3. Brad Reddekopp October 10, 2017 at 16:52 Reply

    It’s the old problem of “is” and “ought” again, eh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: