3 ms·

But from a biological/evolutionary/whatever perspective, isn't not wanting children definitely "wrong"?

by bllguo 9y ago

tluyben2 9y ago
Debatable in a world that is (also debatable) overcrowded and lacking resources. But in general sure; maybe OP has been to a lot of birthdays (as have I) where people stare at you like you just told you are a serial killer. While in reality you just don't want kids. That goes away when you go over 40 though. Then some people even start to envy you for your freedom. Generally better not care what other people think. It's a tiring and pointless thing.
a3_nm 9y ago
What does biology/evolution/whatever have to do with the goals that you choose to set for your own life?
- bllguo 9y ago
  hence why I said "from ... perspective;" I certainly am guilty of engaging in behaviors that are "wrong" from such a perspective
vilmosi 9y ago
Well so is eating meat everyday or looking at a screen 30cm away most of the day or not dying from an infection or having hot showers... Who cares at this point, just live your life, you owe nothing to "evolution".
- bllguo 9y ago
  I like this view on it. I can't disagree. I was just saying that there is some merit to being called "evolutionarily broken" for not wanting children. Whether you think that's good or bad or meaningless is another issue
- true_religion 9y ago
  Evolution is just a methodology, not living entity with desires and goals. If your genes allow you at the age of 20, to look so stunning that you have 10 children before you sadly die from the effort expended to look so swimmingly handsome, then your genes will soon proliferate to every corner of the globe. We'll call that successful 'evolution', even though most people today would be horrified that you only lived 20 years.
greenshackle2 9y ago
From that perspective it's also wrong not to want to impregnate other men's wives on the sly and have them raise the kid for you.
bhnmmhmd 9y ago
Well, natural phenomena (like having mates and children) don't always go according to the plan.[1] That's why nature populates the earth with enough people to ensure most of them will follow the rules of evolution/biology/whatever. But I'm guessing that even those people who don't want children are following the rules of natural selection. "Only the fittest will survive" is then translated to something like "only the genes of those who want to pass on their genomic data will survive". [1] People have free will after all.
ezrast 9y ago
If we were completely asocial, independent creatures, then perhaps. But humans - and therefore their genes - have always lived and died in groups, and even a primitive tribe may stand to benefit from having a small amount of individuals unburdened by child-rearing. From the point of view of the gene, what's important is only that some part of the family tree propagates; the number of dead-end branches doesn't matter. Therefore an increase in reproductive drive could easily be deleterious to a particular gene's long-term survival. Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the role of child-free individuals in our era of evolutionary adaptedness. I'm just pointing out that evolutionary dynamics are a lot more nuanced than "more children = good", especially in social animals.

But from a biological/evolutionary/whatever perspective, isn't not wanting children definitely "wrong"?

by bllguo 9y ago

But from a biological/evolutionary/whatever perspective, isn't not wanting children definitely "wrong"?

Debatable in a world that is (also debatable) overcrowded and lacking resources. But in general sure; maybe OP has been to a lot of birthdays (as have I) where people stare at you like you just told you are a serial killer. While in reality you just don't want kids. That goes away when you go over 40 though. Then some people even start to envy you for your freedom. Generally better not care what other people think. It's a tiring and pointless thing.

a3_nm 9y ago

What does biology/evolution/whatever have to do with the goals that you choose to set for your own life?

bllguo 9y ago
hence why I said "from ... perspective;" I certainly am guilty of engaging in behaviors that are "wrong" from such a perspective

vilmosi 9y ago

Well so is eating meat everyday or looking at a screen 30cm away most of the day or not dying from an infection or having hot showers... Who cares at this point, just live your life, you owe nothing to "evolution".

bllguo 9y ago
I like this view on it. I can't disagree. I was just saying that there is some merit to being called "evolutionarily broken" for not wanting children. Whether you think that's good or bad or meaningless is another issue
true_religion 9y ago
Evolution is just a methodology, not living entity with desires and goals. If your genes allow you at the age of 20, to look so stunning that you have 10 children before you sadly die from the effort expended to look so swimmingly handsome, then your genes will soon proliferate to every corner of the globe. We'll call that successful 'evolution', even though most people today would be horrified that you only lived 20 years.

greenshackle2 9y ago

From that perspective it's also wrong not to want to impregnate other men's wives on the sly and have them raise the kid for you.

bhnmmhmd 9y ago

Well, natural phenomena (like having mates and children) don't always go according to the plan.[1] That's why nature populates the earth with enough people to ensure most of them will follow the rules of evolution/biology/whatever. But I'm guessing that even those people who don't want children are following the rules of natural selection. "Only the fittest will survive" is then translated to something like "only the genes of those who want to pass on their genomic data will survive". [1] People have free will after all.

ezrast 9y ago

If we were completely asocial, independent creatures, then perhaps. But humans - and therefore their genes - have always lived and died in groups, and even a primitive tribe may stand to benefit from having a small amount of individuals unburdened by child-rearing. From the point of view of the gene, what's important is only that some part of the family tree propagates; the number of dead-end branches doesn't matter. Therefore an increase in reproductive drive could easily be deleterious to a particular gene's long-term survival. Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the role of child-free individuals in our era of evolutionary adaptedness. I'm just pointing out that evolutionary dynamics are a lot more nuanced than "more children = good", especially in social animals.