Thread: Motherly Instinct: Fact, fiction, or somewhere in between?

Reproduction is obviously an instinct for both sexes.

Don't assume that just because you don't want to have kids now you never will.

Yeah I want to travel the world and have as many childeren with as many different women as I can... not likely that I will, or that I will be at all popular for it lol.

I think its true and I think its the same for men too. Some people are always different and some might not want to have kids at the same time, but I think at some point in your life everyone wants to have kids.

I feel that it's a bit of both options. We are socially conditioned to care for our children, and this conditioning has had a semi-permanent effect on the human species over time.
We both are taught and naturally want to care for our young.
How many times do you see young girls playing with their dolls. They're mentally testing the waters. I've spoken with my wife about this too, and she had moments where she felt freaked out by it. Whenever she did something unkind to her dolls, she ended up feeling horrible for days.

That said, there are always exceptions, and the occasional news of a parent murdering their children does pop into the news. I see this in a similar light to a disease - their natural conditioning either didn't work or went too far (sometimes they convince themselves they're doing the children a favour )

Instinct is something that all animals have, which is sort of a connection that some humans have lost touch with. Animals follow instinct and they do things. But they don't understand why they follow it. They just do. Same goes for humans with instinct.

Instinct is like a lower form of intuitive or physic knowing. Where you are in tune with what you are to do, it's different to intuition or soul contact, which I consider more to do with knowing and understanding about what you should do and the reason you are following that.

The lower nature is something that you must aspire not to let take over you completely and rule you. Roller was suggesting he would have children with every woman around the world cause of his instinct or lower nature which pulls him towards the desire to do so. It does not mean it is best to submit yourself to this lower nature. It is the lower nature that must submit to the spirit in order for it to be truly useful.

Originally posted by placebo
We are socially conditioned to care for our children, and this conditioning has had a semi-permanent effect on the human species over time.
We both are taught and naturally want to care for our young.

We are not so much socially conditioned or taught which created the instinct. As it is pretty much an instinct to start with. We have instincts in us that make us naturally care like animals have instincts in them to naturally care for their young. The animals did not teach themself to care for their young as they were living together anymore than we did. But instinct was present.

A few of humanity however understands more fully about what instincts are, and why they are following them, then animals do. Because the capacity of their consiousness is higher so they are understanding more about it.

That is why in the process we try and teach those as they are growing up to respect and be kind to others. And to make them see the value in this. Not just because we are teaching and follwing an instinct. But because of our higher understanding about why we want to do this. That seperates us from the animals understanding.

Wow. I've liked reading what others have to say. To keep the conversation going, though, let me throw this question out there:

What about women that abuse their children? Is their instinct to "nurture" somehow damaged or absent? What do you guys think?

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
What about women that abuse their children? Is their instinct to \"nurture\" somehow damaged or absent? What do you guys think?

Definitely damaged, this would indicate some sort of mental instability.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
What about women that abuse their children? Is their instinct to \"nurture\" somehow damaged or absent? What do you guys think?

When someone does something like this, it can be for several reasons. But not always because they have blocked or lost touch with instinct totally. Instinctive guilt may result from what they do, sending a message they made a mistake. But instinct does not have full control of us to start with, because we are beyond animals consiousness, so its a little different.

If guilt is not present and they are doing this, it is because the entity has shut the conscience out and no longer is in touch with this feeling. In the bible it is refered to as something like burning the conscience with a hot iron, so its basically fried, and no longer exists. This is how dark entitys conquer guilt. While they don't suffer the guilt, They live in a kingdom of shadows. Entitys of light conquer guilt by understanding the love of god, and this solution is permenant.

Guilt can oftern helps one to understand (instinctively) what they are doing is not right. Thats where we get to instinct again, and while present, influences us to different degrees depending on our level. But it will not stop us from making mistakes such as this.

So if a mother abuses their children. It is mainly for the same reason that anything damaging is done by any entity. That is a lack of connection to not only lower instinct, but to the soul within them in general. The 7 charkas are not activated or in tune, If they were soul infused they would come to the understanding of what is right and have control over what they do. hence the lower emotional nature (solar plexis chakra) being in alignment with this, as well as the other 7 chakras. When in tune, you get what is known as christ consiousness. That is the ability to tune into the spirit and maintain it. Just as we are a step up from the animals consiousness, so is this christ consiousness astep up from humanity.

What has this got to do with it? It is showing the levels, and what they result in. Animals are more controlled by instinct and do not have full awareness of themself to the extent Humanity does, humanity is not so much controlled by it, but sometimes follows it, having a stronger sense of self. "Christ consiousness" understands it completely and is tuned into it while having a greater understanding of self and will again, percieves this will of the soul, with a much fuller clarity.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

We are not so much socially conditioned or taught which created the instinct. As it is pretty much an instinct to start with. We have instincts in us that make us naturally care like animals have instincts in them to naturally care for their young. The animals did not teach themself to care for their young as they were living together anymore than we did. But instinct was present.

If you follow with evolution, this is simply because those who did NOT care for their young simply never managed to successfully raise their young and thus keep their genetic heritage.
I still believe it made it as a socially induced 'feature', because those that did not do it simply faded from the picture.

Originally posted by placebo
I still believe it made it as a socially induced 'feature', because those that did not do it simply faded from the picture.

There is still alot of abusive parents and people out there. But it's true that evolution is naturally geared towards empowering those who have the most understanding. As they are closer to truth. As evident in your example. Ultimately the wisest are always the ones who are most empowered.

No, reproduction is no longer a salient human instinct. Our species evolved to diminish the reproductive instinct and ultimately separate it into other instincts.

There are two favored instincts left that had to directly to do with reproduction, but have since become independent. They are 1) Sex and 2) Caring for cute things.

The cuteness instinct appears stronger in women. But combine these with bigger instincts, including but not limited to avoidance of loneliness, social approval, leading a "meaningful" life, etc., and then you have the cocktail for the "motherly instinct," in my humble opinion. It's not a unified instinct, not in humans at least. It's a complex aggregation of many. For example, it's connected to the desire to be with another human being and to be recognized by another human being - even if that human being ends up being a baby.

That line of reasoning means there is no longer an independent ingredient in that cocktail that can be called the "reproductive instinct." It's an aggregation of instincts that are not dependent on an individual's genetic reproduction.

"How can that be so?" you say, "All animals have a reproductive instinct." Well, humans are a special animal and we do not give them proper credit. They've used intellect to master the art of resource allocation, and of using cold abstract numbers to recognize the changing of the seasons and to analyze the availability of food, land, raw materials, and even labor. This has helped them tremendously in their ability to survive, and that ability has been an important one to pass on. Information distinguishes them and they've used it to dominate the planet.

But what has it done to reproduction? Having a baby means having another mouth to feed. A human's intellect knows this means more resource addition or diversion. Humans have evolved to learn that reproduction is useless unless the resources are there to secure the successful growth of that newborn.

This is especially true in hunter-gatherer societies, where it is not unheard of to kill a newborn if it would have slowed down their migration and resulted in an excess burden. For the survival of the group it is necessary to cut back on reproduction by whatever means.

Agricultural civilization significantly expanded our resources and our diminished reproductive instinct was allowed to flourish - but still under an intellectual constraint. Reproduction still meant problems for people who weren't wealthy. Religions cropped up all over the place to practice abstinence and sexual discipline. The Goddess of Fertility was the same goddess for both sexual fertility and agricultural fertility. They didn't just go together symbolically. They went together in practice.

I think this is also connected to why women were eventually treated as objects and why monogamy developed. The eventuality of numbers caught up to us and reproduction had to be regulated by all sorts of cold-blooded means. The apparent "carriers of reproduction" for the lack of a better description, women, had to be controlled.

I don't want to know where child sacrifices come in. I just don't want to know. What bizarre connection there could have been to killing entire groups of children at once, who were between 3 and 16 years, for the purposes of satisfying the gods. Just. No.

[Edit: I have very strong opinions about how human adults persistently appear to have a pathological view of human children. They simultaneously see them with almost divine potential and yet as weak and helpless. Yeah, babies aren't exactly self-sufficient, but "babying" goes much farther than it should. The Incas are just one extreme example. They saw their children as emissaries to the gods, but at the same time they thought they knew better - what purposes the children's lives served, when they should die, how they should die, how much rain they should ask the gods for, etc. Try to find an example in modern civilization, where an adult thinks the world of a child but simultaneously claims to know the world better, stealing control over that child's life and sending him or her into forced labor. Yeah. We call it "schooling." And sometimes it ends in death. Some kids just have to be sacrificed, I guess, in order to have a school system that works for the adult voting democratic majority and teacher's unions. And their false gods.]

In any case, the introduction of intellect functioned to gradually nullify reproduction as a salient instinct. Right now the people who reproduce the most are in the poorest conditions, correlated with their very low opportunity for intellectual development. The people and societies who have the most children, in other words, are not exceptionally sapient.

So I don't come off like a Nazi, let me say that that doesn't make them "bad people." I'm certain there are a billion poor mothers who are doing everything they can for their children. Just yesterday I saw a pod on CurrentTV (did I just say that? ) about Central American mothers and fathers hopping on the sides of trains to go through Mexico and steal their way into the United States - on top of walking in the desert for days on end and surviving other hardships - all for their kids back home. No, they're not bad people. They just weren't smart enough to know they wouldn't be able to raise their kids.


No, I don't think there's a motherly instinct specifically engendered to women, at least not the kind with the animist mystique and mythos that is often referred to. Because in that traditional sense, an old farmer man has a motherly instinct. Nor do I think there is a reproductive instinct. At least not anymore.

I think there is a caring instinct in all people, but the actual ability to do it is subject to intelligence and other mental factors. It's easy to forget that evolution is going on right now. It hasn't ended with whatever factors are currently present.

Finally, I recognize that I'm not a woman and could be entirely wrong. Feel to free to brush aside everything I've said for that point alone.

Just because you cover it up doesn't mean you still don't have the instinct.

Originally posted by Alric
Just because you cover it up doesn't mean you still don't have the instinct.

Right, I was suggesting that it is no longer salient.

How does an organism "cover up" an instinct? By learning. If that learned behavior is desirable enough in a population, that undesirable instinct will be selected against.

I'm not saying there isn't a human alive on earth who does not have a reproductive instinct. But the nature of that instinct has changed and is changing significantly.