Why might some people believe that the meaning of life is to reproduce?

Question

Can you give evidence supporting or refuting the meaning
of reproduction. If the meaning of life is to reproduce then
does life have a transient meaning. In other words, what
does to produce mean in the context of reproduce.
If we don't know what is being produced then doesn't
that imply that the production lacks meaning.
Which is the correct context(or combination): I reproduce, we
reproduce, it reproduces. Why?
Does the action of reproduction end after pregnancy? In
other words, is it practical to state that the raising of the
living child is a continuation of the reproducing of the
child, and in that case when does the reproduction
cycle end, or does it continue until death. If it does continue
until death then when does the reproduction become
production?
Are people aware of the gravity involved in the intent
of reproduction, or do people reproduce due to an
unexplainable physical urge and hope it will turn out
for the best?
Serious answers only please.

Soul Shine:
"I now am convinced that children do
more to teach unconditional love to
those who want to learn it than
anything."

True, good point. Knowing
unconditional love is provided
through the parent-child relationship.
As the parent is responsible for
the child's coming into being,
it is the parent who must provide
the productive resources to aid
the child in becoming sufficient.
Therefore, the parent must know
meaning in order to pass that
meaning to the productive
child.

Ruby Tuesday:
"It's never said that the MEANING of
life is to reproduce - or in other words,
to ensure that your gene pool will
survive throughout the ages - but
surely the purpose of life is just that."

If the meaning of life is to ensure that
your gene pool will survive throughout
the ages then shouldn't I be as justified
in avoiding reproduction. Consider
that reproduction reproduces the
physical example, and the extent
of my physical influence seems to
be limited by my life span. Therefore,
survival of the physical might persist
through reproduction, but there is
insufficient evidence to support
that I can influence that physical
lineage throughout the ages.
Perhaps the best way to preserve
my metaphysical lineage is to keep
the representation of myself based
on a pure example of myself,
that example being myself.

Donna L:
"First this is a philosophy question not
a pregnancy and parenting question."

The question is related to philosophy,
but considering the serious nature
of conceiving a child I think it is
reasonable to assume that parents
should have rational consideration
for the decision to give birth to a
child.

Answer 1

Because we are spiritual beings having a physical experience, reproduction is always related to one's soul journey or even purpose. Even if it is done thoughtlessly or badly, it could be said to be purposeful in some respect.

Society tends to promulgate having children - across cultures - and most people seem to reproduce because it is expected and even tend to feel deprived if it doesn't occur. I've noticed that sometimes it is a substitute for creation in another form that is unclear or conflicted.

Our biological system, of course, is geared for reproduction of the species, but for most people, responsibility appears to end with birth - aside from providing sustenance, the soul is seldom taken into account, the child more often being treated as a blank slate or means of vicariously experiencing what the parents missed out on - which rarely seems to match the needs of the child. Karma is my only explanation for why child connects to parent and vice versa.

I remember choosing as a small girl to never have children because life was too short, and my husband had a similar realization as a boy. We've never regretted it and both know the decision was made before we came here.

Answer 2

First this is a philosophy question not a pregnancy and parenting question.
It is nature that causes animals to reproduce without reproduction you cannot continue your species. I would not say it is the meaning of life, but it is part the purpose in life.
For the human species We reproduce is the correct context seeing as it takes 2 and we are defined by our own language as something and not it.
The action of reproduction does not end until the new being is capable of sustaining life on it's own. For the human species with our current judiciary system (at least in America) that age is 18. The reproduction is in effect until you get your product, which in the case of sustaining human life is when the child can sustain themselves.
I do believe that people who choose to reproduce are aware of the gravity. However the initial act of reproduction is one that our society has turned into a social activity and therefore the gravity of that act which leads to reproduction has been lessened.

Answer 3

Why exactly would monozygotic twins splitting a week after conception demolish the argument that the zygote was alive at conception? That's like saying the fact we can cut a planaria in half and have it regenerate into two completely new planaria proves the original wasn't alive to begin with. I'm sorry, but that's among the more foolish arguments I've heard. To answer your question, though, I do not believe life begins at conception. I believe life began several billion years ago, and has not stopped living since. In order for there to be a moment when your life "began", there would have to be a point at which the constituent parts of you were not living things, and then miraculously became so. This isn't the case. The constituent parts of you were once living parts of your parents, and continued being living cells when they merged to create you. The resulting cell continued to be a living cell as it began to multiply. So, while you may rest assured your life will have an end, it did not have a "beginning". Rather, I would say it had a moment of individualization, and that really came at the moment of conception, when your genetic code became unique to you, and no longer simply an isolated reflection of the genetic code of each of your parents. However, I'm willing to grant that it doesn't really matter that you've individualized until after the onset of neural activity, but that comes fairly early on in the process. After that, you're terminating a human being with brain function. We happen to define the moment of death for a living human as the moment brain functions cease, so neither scientifically nor medically do you have an "out" for the fact you're essentially killing a human being at that point. The question at that point (at least for me) becomes "is there a justifiable reason for terminating this life?" Addendum: Which one's the second planaria? They were both parts of a living thing. They continued to be living things after they were separated from one another.

Answer 4

If we (life in general) seized to reproduce, life would seize to exist. Reproduction is life's way of defeating the hostile environment we live in (solar radiation, toxic gases like oxygen etc). Reproduction allowes for mutations to happen. Produce enough of those mutations you will find that some of them are better able to cope with the environment. There is a good book on the subject by a fellow called Steve Jones called "God, Genes and Destiny"

Answer 5

From reading the answers to your last two questions, it seems that there is a reluctance for some to consider your questions as related to 'meaning'. To do so, one must let go of their ideologies and accept these questions in terms of defining 'meaning'.

There are answers which speak of reproduction as a duty, spiritual fulfillment, but do not consider that it could be considered by some as being the 'meaning'.

To accept life as being solely for the purpose of reproducing could stem from a more cold and clinical view of the universe, possibly lacking in spirituality. But who is to say this is wrong?

People may ask, 'why reproduce?', searching for a higher meaning when it may not have one. Why should atoms be able to bind to another? We don't know why they are built to do this, but they do, without requiring any sentient intervention.
Could reproduction be just another aspect of existence that occurs for no reason but to be?

Answer 6

What meaning does your interpretation for the following reproduction produce.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erick_Erickson

Stage One Oral-Sensory: from birth to one, trust vs. mistrust, feeding;
Stage Two Muscular-Anal: 1-3 years, autonomy vs. shame, toilet training;
Stage Three Locomotor: 3-6 years, initiative vs. inadequacy, independence;
Stage Four Latency: 6-12 years, industry vs. inferiority, school;
Stage Five Adolescence: 12-18 years, identity vs. confusion, peer relationships;
Stage Six Young Adulthood: 18-40 years, intimacy vs. isolation, love relationships;
Stage Seven Middle Adulthood: 40-65 years, generativity vs. stagnation, parenting;
Stage Eight Maturity: 65 years until death, integrity vs. despair, acceptance of one's life.

The Erikson life-stage virtues, in the order of the stages in which they may be acquired, are:

hope
will
purpose
competence
fidelity
love (in intimate relationships, work and family)
caring
wisdom

Answer 7

Ok, would "divide and copy genetic information and cells" be more appropriate?

It's never said that the MEANING of life is to reproduce - or in other words, to ensure that your gene pool will survive throughout the ages - but surely the purpose of life is just that. Have children, nurture them to adulthood and then they will take it on from there. And you will just grow old and die.

Answer 8

There is a difference between knowing what is going to happen and things happening without you knowing.
Lots of things happen without your knowing what they mean, which in effect makes you worthless to those things and makes them worthless to you. That does not negate their meaning to another person. Life itself is disconnected because it can be randomly augmented or purposely done. Therefore I will concede to you that reproduction lacks meaning individually when it is not occuring with your involvement but as a systematic operation it is quite meaningful.
Humans themselves are quite devoid of intellect which prevents them from grasping the enormity of their actions but that does not diminish the meaning of Life. Life does not have to mean anything to anyone but that does not make it any less meaningful to itself or others who may find its intent tremendous.

Answer 9

I was in my early 20's when I had children. I look at it as a spiritual need to have a do-over of my childhood...not for immortality but to investigate the potential in correcting the hurt I felt and creating a more ideal science project environment.

Now that I have met my children and realized that my immature drive to feel worthy of love may have been a strong motavator to have kids.....I look at them as much more.

I now am convinced that children do more to teach unconditional love to those who want to learn it than anything, except perhaps a life mate, or a life of solitary meditation and relationship with the Divine.

I look at my life as a spiritual journey and because of it I see life as sacred, and a blessing....children (and having the gift of life ie...being someone's child) is itself sacred.

I don't believe that it is a biological drive point blank.......but more diverse and potentially more complex ways in which to experience LOVE metaphors here on earth.....SPIRITUALLY

Answer 10

Pro creation is to fulfill our duties in life. We are to carry on generation after generation. God created each woman's body so they can reproduce or not up until a certain age. It seems that more and more woman are having babies later in life (40 and up). Some people do the act of intercourse and the woman gets pregnant. Others do it to have a good time and not to get pregnant. Personally, I believe that everyone should have at least one child.