Why are children only an 'optional value'?

Higher populations are a supreme value for all of us. The more people there are, the better division of labor, the higher everyone's incomes, the more range of stuff we can buy. Everything (except traffic!) is better for everyone when there are more human beings in your town, city, country and the world. Imagine a world with declining population! Starnesville in spades on a global scale! Some countries in Europe are completely depopulating and will essentially be empty (or Muslim) in 2050, compared to today.

It is the height of irrationality to be in favor of the effect (growing population) without being in favor of the cause (more children, and having children if you are able). Therefore I assert that children are *not* an optional value. Please refute.

I am in favor of the effect and in favor of the cause. But, just like I am in favor of businessmen, it does not logically follow that I should want to, or am in any way obligated to be, a businessman (obligated to what?! The "greater good"?!), or any other profession or personal actions whatever taken by others that I inevitably benefit from.
There are numerous careers and lifestyle choices that could fall within a person's rational self interest that would be negatively affected by the burden (as it would be seen by such individuals) of raising children. It would not and could not be of a "supreme value" to those individuals as it would not be in their self interest. To assert that such a value is not optional is tantamount to advocating slavery and sacrifice. It is a weak justification for (a poorly disguised) altruism. Those in favor of taxation argue on the same grounds; that it would be better for everyone. Any argument of that nature is specious, whether in politics or morality.
Also, imagine the nature of a child that was raised by parents that did not want him; who bore him to fulfill their (perceived) moral obligation to society. Such a child would be a parasite on his parents. If this amoral policy were put into practice, society would not be raising individuals, but tools to be disposed of by the collective, afterall, that was the chief concern in making them. At least the pro-life movement waits until a fetus is conceived to advocate such nonsense.
Even when I adopt the altruist-collectivist view, and only for the sake of argument, it is still nakedly clear that no one can assert that society would (or even could!) benefit from having any of its individuals raised, not by choice, but by duty, moral or otherwise, and call it rational.

And in answer to the question itself, children ARE an optional value. "Value presupposes the question", Ayn Rand said,(who chose not to have children by the way) "Of value to whom and for what?" Having a child is not a fundamental requirement of one's life and/or wellbeing. It is optional in the same sense that choosing whether or not to eat walnuts is optional; if it pleases you, do it, if not, don't. It is the responsibility of each individual to decide for his/herself what his/her optional values are as they see fit. Though your life is contingent upon your parents having made you, you are not born in debt to the rest of mankind just for existing.

Ethics as a science is supposed to provide principles on which individuals base their decsions and actions. Ethics are supposed to help you resolve questions in your real life, everything from , "what to have for dinner tonight," to more complicated questions, such as, "should I have children?" This concept of "optional values" has taken over in the Objectivist world lately, due to some lectures by Dr. Peikoff. I have serious concerns about this entire concept.

If a value is "optional," what does that really mean? You still have to make some decision. Without ethical principles, how do you make the decision? Your emotions? (Peikoff seems to indicate so in one of his lectures). By whim? Flipping a coin? Values, like all principles, can be contextual. If you've eaten fish last night, it is completely rational to have chicken tonight, even though fish is arguably better for you than chicken, because dietary variety isin itself and important value based on how to best live one's life. That doesn't mean that either fish or chicken are "optional." The principle is a healthy, varied, enjoyable diet.

If having children is an "optional value," on what basis is anyone supposed to use to decide this question, which may be the most important decision ever made by any human being. Objectivist ethics, as a philosophy for living on Earrth, must be able to provide a principle on which to provide guidance on this crucial question. Saying, "have kids if you want them, if you feel like it," is not an answer. No principle can be contrary to the facts of reality, such as an inability to have children, or an inability to support them. But such a principle could be, "children are of significant value, have them if you can."

Please discuss what "optional value" means in a reality-oriented ethics, where decisions *must* be made, on a daily basis, usually on the basis of incomplete information, before taking on the question of children.

Hi Ed,

You should submit your general question about optional values as a separate question! It will be difficult for me to remember to do anything with it just posted as a comment here.