Doesn't adoption make much more sense for the majority of people?

I think people simplify adoption as the "answer". Adoption isn't just like picking a child like a toy off a shelf. It takes a very special person/family to adopt a child because they may have special socio-emotional needs. Children who are given up or orphaned often struggle with self-identity and/or feelings of abandonment. Some parents may not be prepared to deal with these challenges even if they have a world full of love in their arms. It's not a character flaw, but it is important to be aware of the reality of adoption. It can be a beautiful choice, but not for everyone.

Older children who are put up for adoption often have been neglected and/or physically or sexually abused. Parents who adopt have be emotionally and educationally prepared. Parents sometimes have this Hollywood love portrait painted in their heads, thinking that they are going to rescue the child, and that they child will fall into their arms and love them. The research on the effects of neglect and abuse on children, especially foster children who have jumped from home to home can paint a depressing picture. These children need a lot of love and patience and is someone hasn't had the training, the time, or the social support, it can be a difficult journey.

Watch the documentary "Wo Ai Ni" (I love you, Mommy). In this, a Jewish-American couple adopt two Chinese girls. The older daughter who was brought over at age 8 (for the purpose of being company for their other daughter), cried for weeks. There was so much anger and sorrow in her sobs. She knew no English, missed her home in China and all her friends. Her parents were so frustrated with her. They wondered why she was so sad when she had it "so good" in America with lots of toys. It made me ache so much for the little girl. A house is not a home, especially when you are stripped way from everything you know and placed in a foreign land, expecting to show love to strangers. Her parents kept telling her that they loved her early on, but for a little lonely child who saw them as strangers, it doesn't mean much. About a year or so later, the girl caught up with her English, BUT since her parents made no attempt at trying to keep her connected with her heritage, she lost almost all of her Chinese. She used to Skype with a friend of her's (I think she was another adoptee) in China, but at the end of the documentary, she could no longer talk to her friend! She needed a translator. Often, families of internationally adopted children keep life books, keep them involved in their culture, etc. Adoption is often very complicated, and people who take that route need to be prepared. It's not as simple as, "let's just adopt a child".

Anyway, we don't just have children for the purpose of passing down genes. We're more advanced than that. We do it for a sense of love, closeness and a sense of "family" and connectedness. I think we're driven to have a sense of family, and having children is a part of that. The environmental reasons and other problems may be a concern, but it doesn't water down our inner need for a family.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/american-torryann-hansen-_n_531477.html

I remember reading this when it first came out in 2010, and the sadness I first felt still lingers. The lying and covering up by the agencies about emotional problems and the horrible acts of US parents (murdering/abandoning their adopted children) breaks my heart. Most cases do not end this severely, but it doesn't take away the point that you must be informed/educated/prepared when you adopt (especially if they are not infants).

As far as evolution is concerned, yes. It is THE most Paleo thing you could ever do.

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, there is no merit to moralizing or shoulds. I'm actually really curious what it is that's acting against evolution and making people reject having children or being squeamish about it when it was once considered a natural part of life. Sure, sure, people don't want to bring children into this horrible world yadda yadda yadda, but I can promise you there have been times in history far worse than this for bringing children into.

Also, the idea that we're overpopulated doesn't hold water either because it's a similar argument to not driving a car for environmental reasons. Both having a child and driving a car are similar "problems" from an environmental standpoint, but one individual's decision to either not have a child or drive a car is the most microscopic drop in a gargantuan vat of a bucket.

While I suppose it could've been possible, I just can't imagine any of our ancestors consciously choosing not to have children.

I can't think of anything more Paleo than to procreate! And having children is not selfish. To be a good parent you have to give up so much of your own personal time and freedom in order to nurture another person's body and soul. When done well, it's the least selfish job I can think of.

I'm really surprised to see people saying that bearing a child is the most paleo thing you could do. It strikes me as incredibly moralistic. To me, paleo does not encompass whether or not to have children. It's a lens through which to view diet and exercise, but it is not my moral compass. Since when did not eating grains and legumes become a prescription for procreation? I do think our life-philosophies can be informed by paleo. I am all for seeking out ways to live an ancestral life in the context of the modern world. However, we have to be careful.

In the past, when evolutionary theory mixed with morality/social theory, you got eugenics, which justified the sterilization of women with mental illness and other disabilities, people who weren't white, and poor people. I am scared that someone is going to answer this question with, "it's only paleo to procreate if you, yourself, are paleo, because otherwise you are furthering a 'non-optimal' iteration of our species."

Of course our ancestors might have "chosen" not to reproduce. For example, homosexuality is not new to our species (see Evolution's Rainbow: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Rainbow-Diversity-Gender-Sexuality/dp/0520240731). And I can definitely think of something "more paleo" than having children: eating paleo. Having children is an incredible thing and I am not, in any way, criticizing that choice. I am just wary of why anyone would ask "is it paleo" to have kids?

Beware, I say, beware.

To the question "Is it 'Paleo' to have children", the answer is unquestionably yes.

However, there is substantial evidence suggesting that the decision to not have children (by coitus interuptis or other means) as well as abortion/infanticide was commonplace among our ancestors just as it was with modern hunter-gatherer tribes.

From "Why They Kill Their Newborns By Steven Pinker":

"Until very recently in human evolutionary history, mothers nursed their children for two to four years before becoming fertile again. Many children died, especially in the perilous first year. Most women saw no more than two or three of their children survive to adulthood, and many did not see any survive. To become a grandmother, a woman had to make hard choices. In most societies documented by anthropologists, including those of hunter-gatherers (our best glimpse into our ancestors' way of life), a woman lets a newborn die when its prospects for survival to adulthood are poor. The forecast might be based on abnormal signs in the infant, or on bad circumstances for successful motherhood at the time -- she might be burdened with older children, beset by war or famine or without a husband or social support. Moreover, she might be young enough to try again. "

I am going to step away from the moral/social aspect of this question. When I think of paleo I think of physical health. So I guess what I am wondering is does having children do something to a womans body that is beneficial? Are we not fully going through our intended life cycle if we do not? I have made the choice to be child free (why is not relevant) and I often wonder if I will suffer some sort of physical consequence later.

If there is no difference than no I dont think it matters to paleo. If there is a difference then its probably very paleo to reproduce.

Continuing the species is not the singular purpose of reproducing. As a social species, having children brings innumerable social benefits, and psychological benefits with those.

Connecting to a surrounding community is vital to our mental well being. What better way to develop a welcoming community than to "grow your own"!

Seriously!

Yeah you can connect to others without having a family. But families are one of the surest ways to have your own cheerleaders, your own soft place to land, your own safe critics, your own hubris popping needles, and best huggers.

If you you agree with the premise that the world is near over population and that introducing more people will effect the overall survival of the human race, then yes; not having children would be following the example of our paleolithic ancestors.

Hunter/gatherer societies without agriculture or animal husbandry (only mode of transportation would be foot) would be severely limited as to the population they could sustain. Since human beings are fertile year round and paleolithic peoples lacked birth control, culling newborns was the only feasible option if they could not care for them. Estimates range between 15-50% of all newborns were killed within 24 hours before the development of agriculture. Yes, it's infanticide but let us not judge our ancestors too harshly who lived in a much more unforgiving world.

For reference to the above statement, check Wikipedia references 7-9 on infanticide. As a side note; I read Diamond, Jared (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed in my masters level environmental sustainability course. It was a bit dry but a good read for those interested in the subject.

It'd be a disservice to the human race for me not to reproduce. Not to brag, but I have some really good genes. ;)

I think its more Paleo to be Earth-conscious and respectful of our environment. I also think it's Paleo to look out for our future generations and be more aware of the consequences of our actions.

Over population is an inevitability that most people ignore. Resource allocation is a very pressing issue right now and there is no easy solution, it gets far too political. I think it makes more sense to be child-free or to adopt children, rather than procreating. Sexual education programs and proper health care can deter unwanted pregnancies.

I, for one, support adoption and people's choice to not have children. It means less competition for my superior genes and offspring.

Trying to think of a way to phrase my answer without getting mouldy bread thrown at me....

Perhaps some background. There are two sisters: me the older and my sister...the younger. I've been sickly most my life. My sister has not. I never had a desire for children. My sister always wanted a house-full.

I married a man who already has two adult children, with no real desire for more (although he said if I was interested, he was willing). My sister married a man who we grew up with, very nice guy, great with kids, who wants a house-full himself.

My sister gave birth to my nephew almost 12 years ago, after several weeks of bed rest because of almost miscarrying him. Eight miscarriages later, she has finally decided more children were not meant to be. Those failed pregnancies have taken a toll: whereas I have never had a gray hair, my sister is now dyeing hers. She looks old and tired most of the time.

Now, going back to me always being sickly. Turns out, I have celiac disease. As many of you here know, sometimes you can have celiac disease without any real symptoms. Also, celiac disease runs in families. The symptoms are rampant on both sides of my parents' families. My sister refuses to be tested or give up gluten...she loves bread too much (I can sympathize...to a point).

So there's my sister...with celiac disease. Her husband was diagnosed as a teen with Crohn's.
My nephew has Turrets.

They all eat SAD -- though I am working on them.

When my sister was pregnant with my nephew, her staple was Snickers ice cream bars. He was very colicky as a baby. He was not breast-fed (never took to it, and the hospital never really gave my sister support -- after a couple hours of trying, they took my nephew and gave him a bottle).

Back to me. Although I do not have any desire to have children, I am fairly certain I would not be able to take a baby to term due to the damage to my insides from the celiac disease.

So here are my thoughts: Is it "paleo" to have children? Yes -- But only if you are otherwise healthy and are eating paleo. Otherwise, should we as a species be propagating weak genes down to the next generation just because we have the science and knowledge to create and sustain babies that would have perished in less "civilized" times?

The more kids the more hunting gathering that can be done for the tribe. The weak kids will get eaten by the tigers. Survival of the fittest. Gooooo Paleo!!!!