Often we reduce the role of children to reproduce the society, to keep the number of people at the desired level. Children need to learn our language, understand our behaviour, culture and rules, etc.
Who could transfer this knowledge better than professionals, people educated to teach exactly this? - If you look at it from this point of view, it would be most economical to give your children away for education after birth as soon as possible.There is of course another point of view: What is the most important role of children?
The more the better? or from maximation to optimisation
During the past years we have got used to increase our materialistic wealth in an impetuous speed. Lika a mighty fly-wheel the economical development took its course. You only had to take your seat and automatically got carried away. No wonder that questions about meaning and purpose of this development were ignored. Now as this fly-wheel turns slower and some people even prophesy its stop or backward turn, it's possible again to pose questions.
It's not long ago - our grandparents have still experienced this time - when every additional Dollar or Euro in the purse lead to a growth in life quality. In other words: Not long ago, more materialistic possession automatically ment an improvement in the life situation. Most of us have taken over this "the-more-the-better-principle" without thinking reflecting and follow it as a sheer habit. This is the only explanation, why even wealthy nations fall into a depressive mood, when the personal incomes suddenly don't rise any more or when the industrial turnovers and profits stagnate. We must find out for ourselves, if we could live a fortunate life with todays income respectively if we would need more materialistic wealth for that purpose. This question we should ask ourselves however, since from a certain level on, more materialistic wealth doesn't automatically mean more satisfaction and joy. Some time or other we will have enough to eat, enough clothing, an enough large home, enough jewelery, enough mobility etc.
We do not see our environment and the events around us as «objective» or neutral (perceptive reality). Instead it is rather like looking through a pair of glasses, which determines our interpretation of a picture. I hold these glasses myself in front of my eyes. According to the way these glasses change what is really a neutral picture of an event, the picture makes us feel for example fear, joy, anger or it makes us sad. We feel the picture to be good or bad, negative or positive, meaningful or senseless, dark or light, correct or false.
There is yet another explanation as to why the basic rights of existence really have to be lived and that it is insufficient to simply not violate this law:
If we always have to watch out that we don’t violate the basic rights of existence in order to reach the permanent state of total harmony, we live in continual fear that we will violate the law in spite of trying not to. This would be a negative form of motivation: I learn swimming so that I don’t drown; I take part in a dancing course so that I don’t step on my dancing partner’s toes; I practise a musical instrument, so that I don’t produce wrong notes etc.