If an individual ties their legacy solely to the children they bring into the world, and those children, in turn, do the same, does this cycle truly create something worth remembering? (File photo)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a legacy as “an amount of money or property left to someone in a will” and “the long-lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc that took place in the past, or of a person’s life”.
In simpler terms, legacy refers to the enduring imprint of a person’s actions, achievements or contributions that benefit others even after their death.
This includes accomplishments from groundbreaking discoveries, the establishment of influential institutions to the creation of lasting works such as books and smaller but meaningful actions such as planting trees for a sustainable environment for future generations.
It is unfortunate that discussions about legacy often default to the idea of having children, even when people may lack the capacity or resources to adequately provide for their children’s needs or equip them with the skills necessary for self-sufficiency.
While the drive to have children as a legacy could be understood as a biological imperative to reproduce and sustain the human race, this notion has often been misinterpreted and misapplied. This societal pressure has led many to bear children despite being neither psychologically nor financially prepared to take on the responsibilities of parenthood.
In many cultures, this emphasis on children as the embodiment of one’s legacy manifests in parents putting pressure on their offspring to marry and have children. More often than not, this so-called legacy is equated with perpetuating the family name.
In patriarchal societies, this perpetuation typically hinges on having a male child, because it is believed that only sons can carry the family name forward after marriage.
This obsession with having male heirs has had devastating consequences. In some cases, it has resulted in the neglect or even infanticide of female children, who are seen as less desirable or outright unwanted.
In extreme cases, baby girls are murdered at birth or abandoned. In other instances, the relentless pursuit of a male child has led families to grow excessively large, with parents continuing to have children until a son is born.
Such practices highlight the deeply ingrained and harmful societal norms surrounding legacy, often prioritising the symbolic over the tangible, and perpetuating cycles of inequality, neglect, and unsustainable family dynamics.
The urge to continue one’s legacy through perpetuating the family name may be linked to an inherent biological and natural instinct to sustain the human race. But does this instinct provide a sufficient justification for having an excessively large number of children?
History shows that the legacies we most often celebrate and remember are rarely tied to the number of children a person had but rather to their remarkable deeds, groundbreaking inventions or contributions to humanity.
If an individual ties their legacy solely to the children they bring into the world, and those children, in turn, do the same, does this cycle truly create something worth remembering?
What distinguishes this kind of legacy from an endless chain of biological reproduction devoid of significant contributions or meaningful impact?
Furthermore, what kind of legacy is it to bring children into the world without the means to provide for them adequately or without equipping them with the tools and resources to care for themselves after one’s death?
A legacy should be more than mere biological succession. It should encompass meaningful actions and contributions that endure beyond one’s lifetime, benefiting not just one’s immediate descendants but society as a whole.
Leaving behind a legacy of poorly cared-for children or of unfulfilled potential diminishes the essence of what it means to leave a lasting, positive effect.
As we make our New Year’s resolutions, we should take a moment to reflect on the kind of legacy we want to leave behind. What do we truly want to be remembered for?
While having children is undoubtedly significant, is that the sole measure of a meaningful legacy? Perhaps it is time to broaden our perspectives, diversify our interests, and reimagine what legacy means in the broader context of our world.
In these difficult times, marked by war, social unrest, climate change and environmental degradation, leaving a positive legacy could mean contributing meaningfully to addressing these global issues.
Instead of focusing solely on biological succession, we might consider becoming active participants in the fight against these crises. This could involve standing up for justice, speaking out against the unnecessary loss of life in ongoing conflicts, or taking actionable steps to mitigate climate change and its devastating effects.
For instance, adopting environmentally conscious practices in our daily lives — such as reducing waste, planting trees or promoting sustainable resource use — can create a legacy that benefits not only our immediate communities but also future generations.
These actions help combat environmental degradation and its cascading effects on society, including exacerbating various forms of inequality and discrimination, which often arise when resources become scarce.
Moreover, focusing on environmental sustainability can have far-reaching economic implications, particularly in agriculture and the management of mineral resources, ensuring that these remain viable for generations to come.
By contributing to such efforts, we can leave behind a legacy rooted in justice, equity and sustainability — one that addresses not only the present but also the needs of a future that we will never see.
These legacies are significant because they not only contribute to the continued and sustainable survival of humanity but also ensure that one’s name is remembered — a motivation that, for many, drives the desire to have children in the first place.
Emmanuel Anoghena Oboh is a student of philosophy at the University of Johannesburg.