Procreation is a defined property of life

The argument

The seven key defining features of life are organization, metabolism, homeostasis, growth, reproduction, response, and evolution. Of these seven characteristics, reproduction is paramount as life cannot continue without producing offspring. The other six maintain an individual organism for as long as it lasts; only reproduction maintains life itself beyond that span. Therefore, the purpose of life is procreation. Evolutionary theory is offered in support of the same conclusion from a different direction. Evolutionary theory tells us that while humans are complex mammals and have copious amounts of DNA, that DNA only exists within one person. In addition, while humans are finite beings, genes are immortal — they persist beyond any particular individual who carried them. The only way to spread one's genetic information beyond themselves is through procreation, so the one thing that outlasts a person can only be passed on by that single route. Genetic variation is a necessity in life, so the purpose of life is to procreate to pass on genetic material. The tendency to procreate is natural since it is such an important part of life, and the way human development is organised reflects its priority. Similarly, puberty is considered a life changing moment because of one's ability to have children, and a body that reorganises itself around reproductive capacity is a body built with that end in view. Puberty and the natural human tendency to procreate occur because procreation is such a defining aspect of life. We owe our existence to procreation. We owe our future to procreation. Procreation is the purpose of life, as it is a defined feature of life.

Context

The purpose of life has been an eternally multi-faceted philosophical issue. From an objective and evolutionary point of view, procreation is a defined property of life, so it is the purpose of life.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The argument for procreation takes a very objective, evolutionary stance. Humans are not objective; we have bias, emotion, conflict, and differences. These aspects can supersede the need to procreate with other priorities which define their respective purpose of life. Several humans cannot or chose not to have children, but their lives still have purpose. For example, many members of the LGTBQ+ community do not have children biologically. In addition, many people who have changed the world did not have children including Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent van Gogh, Julius Caesar, and Socrates. The argument for procreation suggests that the lives of these people have no purpose or value since they did not have children. Of course, the previous notion is false.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise moves between two senses of "purpose". That reproduction is a property by which biologists define living systems is a descriptive classification; the purpose of a human life is a normative claim about what someone ought to pursue. The first does not entail the second — metabolism and homeostasis are equally on the list, and no one concludes that the purpose of life is to maintain a stable internal temperature. [Rejecting P2] Genes are the subject of that sentence, not the person. That genetic material persists through reproduction describes what happens to genes, and treating an individual's purpose as the propagation of their DNA assumes precisely what the argument set out to show. People also transmit a great deal that outlives them — work, teaching, institutions, care — which the premise excludes by definition rather than by argument. [Rejecting P3] Naturalness generates no obligation; the same reasoning would license any widespread biological drive. The premise also proves too much for its own conclusion, since it would follow that people who cannot conceive, who choose not to, or who are past reproductive age have lives without purpose — a consequence the argument neither defends nor accepts.