5 ms·

> I think it's deeply patronizing and bordering on armchair psychology to assert The reverse assertion is even more so, IMO. It's also an evolutionary dead end

• Barrin92 6y ago
  as one other poster has pointed out this seems like a silly strawman. Meaningful goals involve scientific pursuits, artistic pursuits, leading organisations or being engaged in a community, not collecting postage stamps. In fact these are the things that move humanity forward, it's not reproduction that advances human culture in any meaningful way. Isaac Newton didn't have children, but of course his contribution to human society is imeasurable. Evolution of human society isn't led by biological reproduction, it's led by cultural reproduction.
  • ssivark 6y ago
    And we've had maybe about ~10 people as impactful as Newton, in the last ~500 years. Is the typical person amenable to those all-or-nothing odds?
    • vaidhy 6y ago
      I only have to be meaningful to myself. If I can do that without kids, great.. if kids are what makes it meaningful, great.
      • m0zg 6y ago
        There is a time dimension to this as well, especially for women. By the time you decide you want kids, you might not be able to have them.
    • m0zg 6y ago
      The trouble with counterfactual history is that it's very easy to come up with one's own version. What if, for example, Newton's parents never had children? Or what if they never had children, but someone other than Newton invented the same, or better, things? And from there it quickly branches out to things that are combinatorially incomprehensible. At a macro level, fertility ratio below 2 (much more than 2 at the time, actually, since a lot of children died, but 2 is more self-explanatory) in Newton's England, however, would mean that England as we know it today would not exist, and some other nation that procreates better but perhaps doesn't value math and science as much, would take its place. From there: no computers, no United States, no Internet or Moon landings, different outcomes in several large scale wars. Pretty catastrophic, if you ask me.
• megameter 6y ago
  Attachment theory suggests that our moral underpinning comes from doing what is best for the child. And the morality of attachment theory is challenging at all stages of life. Having the child is necessary but insufficient to do good. Letting the child relish in uncontrolled impulses is good now and bad later. And so on. In light of that any assertion of having children being defacto good or not is incomplete without describing the overall society. Evolution is a strawman in this sense; our children do not immediately enter some Darwinian gladiatorial arena of genetic destiny. They are going to sample from the best examples they can find of how to live, and friends, extended families, and ideas echoed through time(as communicated orally, in books and other mediums) all play a part of that. It's not all on the parent, and if it's not all on the parent, then childless adults have a place, an "ought to do something for the child", even if they are not writing King Lear or inventing calculus.
  • m0zg 6y ago
    Thinking in terms of absolute "good" or "bad" is a sign of a young, undeveloped mind. Come back to me when you're in your 40s, as I am.