I think it’s reductionist to correlate this impulse to procreation
It is reductionist because it is meant that way. My view is that philosophy should start embracing what the scientific method has revealed at the most basic level of truth: complicated things always can be reduced to simple starting components.
First, a shameless plug, if you have the time my essay Evolving is a longer piece detailing a lot of my thinking framework.
But to keep it in context, I find your views challenging.
It is the creative impulse in general, once of whose outlets is having and raising children.
Well we are overstating our creativity for a long time and it appears that we’re not that defined by it. Apart from scores of other species kicking a** at the creativity exam, there is also the problem of it resulting as a combination of every single other particular item in the configuration of a human: from their white to gray matter ratio, to personality type, to childhood experience. Therefore creativity is not, in my opinion, a built in property of s human, but more of a concerted effect of many other parts that must go right.
Because of all the blabber above, it is natural for me to put our basic and general progeny binding mindsets before the appearance of creativity as a human behavior. That means creativity is indeed more than having and raising children, it encompasses a helluva lot more, but the basic generators for the volumes of our inner spaces are way simpler.
We wanted babies before we knew how to make fire, before we had a wheel, before we started caring for others a bit more than instructed by chemistry emitted by our bodies.
Creativity, and love for one’s creation, goes well beyond that of having children. The desire to continually mold and shape an Other over which we have power is much more generalized than just its expression in parenthood.
So, yes to the above, creativity and the love for one’s creation is complex and more general than parenthood. Unfortunately, actually, I wish parents would be to their children even less like artists are to their art. Yet parenting consistently includes the projection of the parent’s missed future on the child, just like an artwork should freeze in itself a vision of the future the artist had, but hey it’s hard.
On the other hand the desire to mold another over which we have power is completely separate from both creativity and progeny. It is a flaw of the avoiding pain at all costs bias, and, crucially is has absolutely no connection to love other than being the sure element that kills love, for this bias limits the freedom of the other to the core.
Come back, I’d love to keep our dialogue lit and thanks for the words.