"Socially Neutral" decisions (WAS: on not having children)

[ssk7882]

David wrote:

> Put at its most general, the decision to have 
> children is clearly not a socially neutral one.

Well, very few personal decisions ever *are* considered "socially 
neutral," are they? Whom we live with, whom we love, whom we have sex 
with (and how, and when, and why, and how often), how we dress, how 
we wear our hair, whether we breed, what gods we believe in, how much 
money we earn...even how we choose to keep our lawns.  None of these 
decisions is socially neutral.

I think that often, though, people are not being quite honest with 
themselves when they cite social concerns as their reasons for 
wanting to exercise control over others in these arena.  Because we 
are social animals, we do indeed have much "riding on" others' 
decisions in these spheres, but the largest part of *what* we have 
riding on them is often nothing more than our own sense of comfort, 
the sense of assured personal validation that derives from 
conformity.  Difference is scary precisely because it denies assured 
validation, instead offering up the spectre of a potentially 
unlimited array of possible acceptable options.  And that's 
threatening.  After all, if one can choose, then the possibility 
exists that one might choose *incorrectly.*

I think it's that fear, rather than any genuine pragmatic social 
consideration, that drives people's tendency to want to interfere in 
others' decisions in this arena, to tell you the truth.  What you 
have riding on my decision to reproduce is mainly your own sense of 
validation. 

But of course, that is much.


Elkins