Biology and Family

Is there a biological need to start a family? I will not call it a biological or evolutionary need but rather a need that is so entwined with society that it becomes more cultural than it is a survival necessity.

The biological or evolutionary argument is rather straightforward, due to evolutional tendencies, animals, mammals- and human- procreate in order to pass on their genes and to form the next generation which is expected to better rather than worse than the previous generation. This means that evolutionary inclinations in all of us seek out the best mate in order to pass on our biological and genetic qualities to form a more "evolved" or "superior" species.

Hence, studies have shown that, young virile and nubile women are most attractive to men because they bear the highest chance of reproducing healthy children- hence they have even go on to define that curvy women of certain proportions appeals to certain segment of men. Women on their hand, due to biological needs to provide a shelter to children as opposed to producing "superior" children tends to find men with the ability to provide this or even give the appearance of stability. Hence with the two combine, we would expect to form families whom are expected to give the kid the best shot at succeeding in life. That is evolutionary theory or biological- you can call it- ascription theory to the need for men and women to conform to the above standards.

Hence conversely, healthy men and women of the above characteristics are then "expected" or even supposed to be "biologically inclined" to be attracted to each other and hence to form a family unit which in a larger picture ensure the survival of the species- in this case, homo sapiens- which once again assumes that all of us act according to this primordial instinct to procreate to advance mankind.

Even if such a phenomenon do exist, I do not think that anyone in their right mind who think I should get married or have children because I would be doing mankind a whole lot good- I think that is just absolute bullocks. Since we do not act like "homo sapiens", why then does anyone assume that having a family with a partner is a must for all healthy adults.

Since we do not identify ourselves as "homo sapiens" we then see ourselves beyond the actors fulfilling the functions of a biological and evolutionary mechanisms, how then can one say that a perfectly healthy human is liable to start a family.

If lets say that I am an amoral person- this means that I act in an utilitarian manner- but not in immoral way, this means that starting family must then fulfil a need by which I deemed which would give me the most satisfaction as opposed to fulfilling an instinctive biological need.

And hence then, how does justify one starting a family at 18 or starting a family with a stranger goes into even satisfying or even making one happy in a familial relationship. Since there is no rational explanation for such a "supposed" biological behaviour, there must be a larger explanation for all these. This means that we do not act to satisfy ourselves, we then must be acting beyond our conscious selves and dictated by something bigger and our social selves.

It is really strange sometimes to see people insisting to push a square peg into round hole. This means that at the back of their mind, they know they are doing something that they cannot justify but yet they insist on doing it- and mobilizing all forms of rationalization to justify their behaviour. This means that their social self are not convinced by their rational self. They want it but they know they should not have it.

It is in their "belief" that engaging in a behaviour they deemed to make them happy will make them happy simply because it fulfils a vaguely biological rationale. The "primordial" inclination I described above can be easily as used to justify behaviour which they themselves are not convinced of the success.

The argument is such that everyone wants to start a family, hence I should start a family therefore that should make me happy. "Happy" in this sense is defined simply as a biological need to start a family in order to pass down a legacy. In reality, you do not need to start a family to pass down a legacy. In fact, you can start right now. Confucius, Socrates, and even perfectly non-familial and non famous persons have passed down their money to start foundations to start a legacy hence this idea of passing down a biological or even cultural legacy does not even makes any sense.

Why then does anyone start a family- well, I believe it is because they are scared. They are scared to be alone, they are scared to be labelled as spinsters and "left on the shelf" and "unwanted". This means that they only wish to avoid being labelled as something of being uncared for by society. But the society does not care whether you start a family. The society will function even with or without you having a family hence your this idea of being labelled as "unwanted" by society is really over done.

I do not think anyone would be too upset if one does not have babies- the only person or organization that worries is the state- simply because they are worried no one would take care of the old and they will have to do this job.

Hence when on Chinese New Year or friend's weddings and you see one by one all your peers getting married and you suddenly suffer a panic attack- you just need to ask yourself this very simple question: are you a homo sapien- or at least be wish to labelled as one? This is a rhetorical question.