4 ms·

> Sure it is, but I always thought we humans differentiate ourselves from other animals by not being motivated merely on instinct/drive, aren't we rational bein

> Sure it is, but I always thought we humans differentiate ourselves from other animals by not being motivated merely on instinct/drive, aren't we rational beings after all? Absolutely not. Humans are plain, regular, irrational animals with extra capacity for language and abstract reason. Humans are never motivated by reason. Reason in humans is typically used for rationalization - man is the rationalizing animal. We do things for irrational reasons and come up with persuasive arguments to ourselves and others as to why they were rational. Similarly, I think it's worth reflecting on the drives and forces that led you to feel this way about children. In some sense, it's a kind of 'sickness' to not want to - maybe that's reflected in your comment about your genetics. In general though, I think there's a tremendous societal malaise, a social disease, that lays pretty heavy on a lot of people. > I realize this might sound egoistic to some degree, but the same could be said about "passing on genes for the sake of passing on genes". I personally look at it a different way. My ancestors, going back to the first single-cell life billions of years ago, lived, fought, mated, and died so that I could live, knowingly or unknowingly - there's a chain of life from me going back all the way to the very beginning. Parts of them live on in me. Who am I to say - it all stops here, thanks, all of it ends with me?

freeflight 9y ago
>We do things for irrational reasons and come up with persuasive arguments to ourselves and others as to why they were rational. We do that sometimes yes, but it's not the only thing we do, sometimes we actually end up doing pretty reasonable things like valuing our environment more. >Similarly, I think it's worth reflecting on the drives and forces that led you to feel this way about children. In some sense, it's a kind of 'sickness' to not want to - maybe that's reflected in your comment about your genetics. It's the logical consequence of me growing up in a country with something that resembles a social security net. Historically one of the main reason for humans getting children was old-age/disabled security and the additional income for the family generated trough the free labor. This function of offspring does not exist anymore, at least in such a direct relation, in most countries with a social safety net. In that regard, drive is a rather meaningless emotion we manage to keep in check the majority of the time. Why is that considered sick? Usually, it's the other way around: People who can't keep their emotions in check are usually considered unstable. >In general though, I think there's a tremendous societal malaise, a social disease, that lays pretty heavy on a lot of people. Sorry, but what are you referring to there as societal malaise? That so many people don't want to have children anymore? I think it's the sensible reaction to the global state of affairs.

freeflight 9y ago

>We do things for irrational reasons and come up with persuasive arguments to ourselves and others as to why they were rational. We do that sometimes yes, but it's not the only thing we do, sometimes we actually end up doing pretty reasonable things like valuing our environment more. >Similarly, I think it's worth reflecting on the drives and forces that led you to feel this way about children. In some sense, it's a kind of 'sickness' to not want to - maybe that's reflected in your comment about your genetics. It's the logical consequence of me growing up in a country with something that resembles a social security net. Historically one of the main reason for humans getting children was old-age/disabled security and the additional income for the family generated trough the free labor. This function of offspring does not exist anymore, at least in such a direct relation, in most countries with a social safety net. In that regard, drive is a rather meaningless emotion we manage to keep in check the majority of the time. Why is that considered sick? Usually, it's the other way around: People who can't keep their emotions in check are usually considered unstable. >In general though, I think there's a tremendous societal malaise, a social disease, that lays pretty heavy on a lot of people. Sorry, but what are you referring to there as societal malaise? That so many people don't want to have children anymore? I think it's the sensible reaction to the global state of affairs.