>In other words, you’re making a circular argument: since you’re defining “biologically programmed behavior” as “having children” No, I am pointing out a contr

>In other words, you’re making a circular argument: since you’re defining “biologically programmed behavior” as “having children” No, I am pointing out a contradictory argument, which was PG's "X is not X (because some Y)." Well, no, X is X, because that's how reasonable people define identities. His original quote: >But it is not, as I implicitly believed before having kids, simply your DNA heading for the lifeboats. How I read it: >[Having kids] is not...simply your [biological programming to reproduce]. That is obviously wrong to me, and the clearest way to point that out is to show that "biological programming to reproduce" is the definition of having kids. >You’re also missing my point. The only reason you have any desires or goals or ambitions in the first place is because, at least heuristically, they serve some sort of self-replicating purpose. I'm not missing that point, I agree with that point. I just don't see the relevance to my original argument.