There are no children in Atlas Shrugged. Or more precisely, children are mentioned one or two times, but their status is not discussed or made a part of the plot. It seems to me that a child cannot but violate every principle Ayn Rand is preaching in this book. Their parents give them being, care for them, support them, and provide for them, as a matter of pure gift, before they can know of their child’s virtue or absence of virtue. Every single human being starts their life utterly dependent on others, without the capacity to give anything in return. Should the parents keep a careful log of all they have done for their child, and bill them when they are old enough to pay it back? If not, why not?
There are no children. I think this is for other reasons which I will try to get to when I finish with this first set. I think Rand has not squared with another set of truths which are inconvenient for her and quite troublesome to fit in the story, especially with Dagny.
Children are a bit of a different case. Suppose a parent decides it is no longer worth it. Should they cease supporting their child? Would that be virtuous compared to begrudgingly continuing on? I am conflicted on this one. On the one hand some parents do leave their children, sometimes we take children away from the parents for their own benefit, and the children seldom die from this. So this scenario is somewhat tempered than at first blush (this does happen often, and the children survive). If the parent begrudgingly caries on and raises the child resenting their existence, it might actually have been better for the child to be raised elsewhere. But in any case, I don’t think it is virtuous to abandon your child even if you resent them. I don’t have clear thoughts on this, though. It’s something like, you have implicitly agreed to take care of them. They didn’t ask to be. You made them. And you knew before-hand that they would depend upon you. In this sense they do have a claim on you.
What is the financial value of raising children? Ayn Rand might say, “None, but if people want to raise children and can afford it, then let them.” But what if, in the race to acquire wealth, nobody wants to raise children because it costs too much and sets them at a disadvantage financially? Society would end in ca. 40 years. Yet raising children is not treated as a good, does not contribute to the GDP. Anyone who raises children does so at enormous personal expense, even though society desperately needs them to do it for its own survival.
In the past it was a financial asset to have children. Their labor on the farm with chores apparently outweighed the financial burden. It is no longer true when we no longer farm and the contribution of a child to the household would now be considered theft (I’m imaging, say, the child working from 15-20 years old at their first job and paying into the household pool before striking off on their own). In any case, we in the West have responded as expected. We have far fewer children. But you boil it all down to finances too quickly, I think. When you judge what is good and right and meaningful, trying to decide what you want from life, you are not so one-dimensional. It is true you want to acquire wealth, but when you have enough you usually decide added work on that front is not what you want. Other things have value too and wealth was never really the goal anyway. Wealth is just the agreement with the wider community of what value you have put in. They will then help you with things you are not willing or able to do. Once you are able to contribute enough value that what you want is satisfied, you can decide what else you want. Most people decide they want a mate, and children. For a man this usually means you had better be putting lots of value in because otherwise you will not have your pick of mates. I could go on but I think the point is made: wealth is very seldom the goal in itself, or if it is the person has not thought things through to the end. So I don’t think there really is a race to acquire wealth. Very wealthy people tend to be those for whom the other things they want in life align directly with what other people want from them. In other words they can continue doing what they want and they just continue getting more wealthy because everyone finds it very valuable. (There are many other factors as well but I think this is a significant one)
Yet raising children is not treated as a good
It is in the more conservative circles. And they also have more children. It is the pop culture that looks down on women for serving in traditional roles. The only time mothers are praised is if they are SINGLE mothers. Then they are so strong and brave.
society desperately needs them to do it for its own survival.
Really, why? I mean I know technically if everyone stops having children then we will all grow old and die. But not everyone is going to stop having children. So, the population contracts a bit because of lower birth rates. What happens then?
