It has been proposed that it is better to be an only child than to have brothers and sisters, because in those conditions the child gets all his parents’ love and attention. Here what is “good” or “better” is defined as the actions and passions that allow and trigger the child to create and  develop physical and mental habits, which will make him possible to grow as a human being ─that is, to be a socially, politically, economically and ecologically conscious human being, and to build an harmonious and beautiful life. The fact of having all the love and attention of the parents has been considered a great advantage to get this aim, since love and attention create a solid self-image based on the feelings of self-esteem and confidence. The child receives great acknowledge and recognition by his good actions and strengthens values as acceptance and fearlessness. This allow him to make himself up as a strong person who does not fear to be wrong and who is open-minded enough to correct his interaction with the environment. There are, however, a lot of people who think that those conclusions are quite inaccurate. Even though it is a fact that in our societies the only child receives all the love and attention of his parents, it is not true that it follows that to be an only child is better than to have brothers and sisters. As the child is the center of the home, and as he spends most of the time in the house, it is believed that in those conditions he would develop negative feelings as selfishness and arrogance. Quite the opposite of what the defenders of the only child conditions say, the confidence and self-esteem that the child could constitute in home would fade when he begins to interact in scenarios different as those given in his home. The child would not be able to share and not be able to learn values as solidarity and friendship.