But is that enough to say that the child is what gives the life meaning? Could it be wrong to say that the care we provide our children with is not 100% based on our love for them? I think it wouldn't. As observed in the animal world, parents provide their young with special care- and so do humans. Animals care for their offspring so that it lives, goes off to live on its own, and reproduce- pass on the genes. That is their primary goal. "Survival of the fittest" as Darwin called it. It is highly doubtful that animals care for their young so that, when it grows up, it can go off and lead a better life then they did. Maybe find some better grazing land so that it can attract more females to reproduce with (if the offspring we are taking as an example is a male). This again shows that even if that was the case, passing on the dominating genes is still the main focus of the whole "operation". We cannot say that humans are like animals-we have the ability to think logically and intelligently. But is the idea of a parent caring for his child that far fetched from the concept of passing on the genes? Is what some call "life's meaning" simply an instinct to keep the young one alive, so that it can grow up and reproduce? I think that it is possible. Deep down we are still animals, even in todays world we can see the rivalry take place. People are always trying to be better than the person standing next to them is. But that could be a topic for a different paper, so lets not get sidetracked from our main idea here. The amount of love that a parent gives to his child is not comparable to anything. There is nothing wrong with that being the meaning of someone's life, the devotion and affection to the kid is enough to fill the empty slot. If this is a never-ending process, I don't see anything wrong with it. But what should one do when he raises his child, and it goes off to live on its own.
