[JofArnold]

I suspect you're right. But I've just last night finished Brave New World and what strikes me is production of children in that book almost entirely for the purpose of labour.

So, I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work and humans live for a very long time. I don't have children nor intend to - so likely this is a very cold take that doesn't apply to most - but the cynic in me says we've so far focussed on reproduction as individuals and at a country level to maintain productivity and extend the health and wealth of their elders. Without that pressure, would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before?

[gnfargbl]

I don't think much of the other proposed societal changes in BNW. They're a backdrop which Huxley uses to illustrate some aspects of human nature and to tell the rest of his story, but that's about it. We've had plenty of opportunity to move to the transient sexual model he outlines, for instance, and yet long-term relationships are still overwhelmingly the most popular choice.

I also don't believe people generally have children to fulfil a wider societal responsibility. As a parent myself, we had children mostly because we thought it would be nice to have children around. It has been much more than "nice," in a way that I could never really put into words. However, I can honestly say that the maintenance of my own health and wealth into old age has never been remotely a concern; if anything, I spend my time trying to find ways to insulate them from the consequences of an ageing society. I don't see those aspects of parenthood changing.

[squigz]

Societal pressures/responsibilities don't need to be consciously acknowledged by an individual for them to have an effect on that individuals' decision-making.

[ZiiS]

Once society has accepted robot labour without rights and children without parents, the question quickly becomes is flesh or steel cheaper.

[Dalewyn]

>I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future

Leaving behind and continuing your legacy and heritage.

Personally I have no interest in pushing my blood, interests, and achievements and their endurement upon my hypothetical children, among many other reasons I have no interest in having children, but if someone wants to be that person then more power to them since it's none of my business.

[qgin]

It's already happened to a degree. People used to need to birth their own personal/family workforce (to work their land, for example). That was the main purpose of children. The idea that children are for some kind of top-of-the-pyramid self-actualization experience is really, really recent.

[nico]

> I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work

If robots are doing all the work, my bet is humans won’t be dominating for too long

Then if robots take over, and they spare us, the driver for human reproduction (for them to reproduce us) might just be to have pets

[horrible-hilde]

yes, and we’ll love it.

[scotty79]

People still make a lot of clothes even though huge percentage of the ends up in landfills after barely any use.

Future purpose of childbirth is fashion.

[trhway]

>what the driver for reproduction will be

the people without such driver are naturally weeded out, so due to such weeding out the majority of the population always naturally consist of the people who have such a driver, it may be some crazy one in any given particular case, yet it is there.

>in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work and humans live for a very long time.

and with artificial uterine it would mean that some people, the wealthy ones, would be able to have a hundred, or a thousand of children. Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here.

>would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before?

the people who wouldn't be able to afford it as having children would be less beneficial for society as you correctly noted and it will be more like a personal luxury/indulgence and thus would be treated accordingly - taxed, no child support help from government, etc

[teeray]

> Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here.

Time could be the great equalizer here. Spending time with your children is pretty universally accepted as beneficial, so we could make it mandatory for extrauterine births over some threshold. It could be structured such that the more extrauterine children you have, the more of your 24 hours per day must be spent with them. I’m intentionally hand-waving over specifics of what that would look like and enforcement, but I’m sure you can come up with ideas. The goal is: if you want to artificially have hundreds of extrauterine children, society will take from you all the time you could have spent building rockets and running companies.

[gnfargbl]

> Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here.

I agree that is a very likely outcome. We've seen that behaviour before in history, e.g. the Ottoman Imperial Harem contained a minimum of several hundred women at its peak. We would almost certainly see it again. Remember, though, that those children still need to be cared for after birth, and that requires humans.

[scotty79]

> Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here.

Something is stopping Elon from founding fertility clinic and sperm bank with just his sperm.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If you think humanity is a good thing, and you want it to continue indefinitely into the future, then reproduction is essential. If you do not think this, then you want Earth to be a dull rock, with no civilization and no intelligent species. It really is just that binary.

>Without that pressure, would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before?

They already made that choice, decades ago, and there's no evidence anyone is rethinking it. Fertility levels are sub-replacement.