4 ms·

> The entire biological point of your life is to reproduce There is no biological point of anyone’s life. This is nonsensical, it is also extremely offensive b

> The entire biological point of your life is to reproduce There is no biological point of anyone’s life. This is nonsensical, it is also extremely offensive both to childless by choice and, especially, to infertile people.

nemo44x 6y ago
I’m not trying to insult anyone but just stating an objective fact - life exists to reproduce life. Weak life dies out and strong life continues until it too is superseded. Evolution is a thing. Look outside and you see it everywhere. I’m not a biological essentialist but I also won’t deny this simple fact that binds humans to plants - we exist to generate new variations of ourselves. It doesn’t mean someone who won’t or can’t have children can’t contribute to humanity in a range of ways for their lives are just as worthy. But regardless if you choose to not or can not have children, this biological imperative has not selected you and your DNA will die with you. That’s just a fact.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  It makes no sense to jump from this statement >Weak life dies out and strong life continues until it too is superseded. Evolution is a thing. Look outside and you see it everywhere. To this >life exists to reproduce life You make a logical leap when you change "we generate new variations of ourselves" to "we exist to generate new variations of ourselves." >It doesn’t mean someone who won’t or can’t have children can’t contribute to humanity in a range of ways for their lives are just as worthy. But regardless if you choose to not or can not have children, this biological imperative has not selected you and your DNA will die with you. That’s just a fact. Exactly. So it is as meaningless and wrong as saying that the point of a falling ball is to hit the floor and bounce or that the point of the sun is to become a red giant. There is no "point", it is just a fact that will happen.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I’m not saying the only point. I made this clear I believe. The biological point still exists. It’s up to you to judge how much that means to you - to some nothing; to others everything. Why else would we have an entire chromosome dedicated to aiding in the reproduction of ourselves? Why do my plants spend so many calories on developing seedlings to reproduce a variation on themselves? Reproducing doesn’t say anything about you in my opinion. It is our biological purpose I believe through the science of evolution, however. And to the original point of the thread - it’s a benefit to society to have healthy, educated children in our society. This is the gift to all of us that parents give us. We should privilege that. We shouldn’t penalize this because of not only the societal benefit but because it’s objectively natural. The proof is the 7 billion people on earth. (Natural doesn’t mean better. It just means the biological drive our sex hormones and sex mechanisms grant us)
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      >The biological point still exists. >It is our biological purpose I believe through the science of evolution, however. The science of evolution doesn't say that it is our purpose. In fact, biology students are sometimes even trained to rewrite statements about natural selection that imply any teleology (stuff like "in order to"). Again, saying that something is the biological point is as meaningless as saying that the physical point of the sun is to become a red giant.
      - nemo44x 6y ago
        Evolution doesn’t try and say why - it says how. Yes, I’ll grant that. I believe it implies the why though as a biological organism. It’s not everything or even anything in the grand scheme. However it is the purpose since our biology is removed from our sense of self or humanity in the end. We, like plants, biologically exist to reproduce and carry on. The Sun analogy doesn’t make sense. You are describing the existence of an object/being in terms of existence and death. This is more analogous to an individual than a biological _system_. Indeed a star can’t reproduce as far as we/I know. However I’d argue a star that contributes to life, as the Sun does, is far more meaningful than one that does not. My evidence is me. There is no one to speak for the stars that don’t contribute to life.
- postalrat 6y ago
  So how far do you take this. Is it okay for a father to kill children who aren't to increase the odds his own children succeed?
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    Is abortion an ableist construct? We can make anything ridiculous. That doesn’t mean we take it seriously.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  You have taken the rules of a biological system and extrapolated them as a moral framework, placing a value judgement on it. It is like saying the sky is blue, therefore the point of the sky existing is to be blue, or all physical interactions generate entropy, so the point of the universe is to create entropy. Yes, life often replicates itself, but that is not why it exists. Any possible reason for existence is a story assigned by a conscious observer. Humans are conscious and decide their own purposes. Lifeforms can have their own purposes, which may or may not involve reproduction. Yes, those that don't reproduce go extinct, but that doesn't mean their purpose is not fulfilled. There is no objective value in evolutionary fitness or replication.

nemo44x 6y ago

I’m not trying to insult anyone but just stating an objective fact - life exists to reproduce life. Weak life dies out and strong life continues until it too is superseded. Evolution is a thing. Look outside and you see it everywhere. I’m not a biological essentialist but I also won’t deny this simple fact that binds humans to plants - we exist to generate new variations of ourselves. It doesn’t mean someone who won’t or can’t have children can’t contribute to humanity in a range of ways for their lives are just as worthy. But regardless if you choose to not or can not have children, this biological imperative has not selected you and your DNA will die with you. That’s just a fact.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
It makes no sense to jump from this statement >Weak life dies out and strong life continues until it too is superseded. Evolution is a thing. Look outside and you see it everywhere. To this >life exists to reproduce life You make a logical leap when you change "we generate new variations of ourselves" to "we exist to generate new variations of ourselves." >It doesn’t mean someone who won’t or can’t have children can’t contribute to humanity in a range of ways for their lives are just as worthy. But regardless if you choose to not or can not have children, this biological imperative has not selected you and your DNA will die with you. That’s just a fact. Exactly. So it is as meaningless and wrong as saying that the point of a falling ball is to hit the floor and bounce or that the point of the sun is to become a red giant. There is no "point", it is just a fact that will happen.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  I’m not saying the only point. I made this clear I believe. The biological point still exists. It’s up to you to judge how much that means to you - to some nothing; to others everything. Why else would we have an entire chromosome dedicated to aiding in the reproduction of ourselves? Why do my plants spend so many calories on developing seedlings to reproduce a variation on themselves? Reproducing doesn’t say anything about you in my opinion. It is our biological purpose I believe through the science of evolution, however. And to the original point of the thread - it’s a benefit to society to have healthy, educated children in our society. This is the gift to all of us that parents give us. We should privilege that. We shouldn’t penalize this because of not only the societal benefit but because it’s objectively natural. The proof is the 7 billion people on earth. (Natural doesn’t mean better. It just means the biological drive our sex hormones and sex mechanisms grant us)
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    >The biological point still exists. >It is our biological purpose I believe through the science of evolution, however. The science of evolution doesn't say that it is our purpose. In fact, biology students are sometimes even trained to rewrite statements about natural selection that imply any teleology (stuff like "in order to"). Again, saying that something is the biological point is as meaningless as saying that the physical point of the sun is to become a red giant.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      Evolution doesn’t try and say why - it says how. Yes, I’ll grant that. I believe it implies the why though as a biological organism. It’s not everything or even anything in the grand scheme. However it is the purpose since our biology is removed from our sense of self or humanity in the end. We, like plants, biologically exist to reproduce and carry on. The Sun analogy doesn’t make sense. You are describing the existence of an object/being in terms of existence and death. This is more analogous to an individual than a biological _system_. Indeed a star can’t reproduce as far as we/I know. However I’d argue a star that contributes to life, as the Sun does, is far more meaningful than one that does not. My evidence is me. There is no one to speak for the stars that don’t contribute to life.
postalrat 6y ago
So how far do you take this. Is it okay for a father to kill children who aren't to increase the odds his own children succeed?
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Is abortion an ableist construct? We can make anything ridiculous. That doesn’t mean we take it seriously.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
You have taken the rules of a biological system and extrapolated them as a moral framework, placing a value judgement on it. It is like saying the sky is blue, therefore the point of the sky existing is to be blue, or all physical interactions generate entropy, so the point of the universe is to create entropy. Yes, life often replicates itself, but that is not why it exists. Any possible reason for existence is a story assigned by a conscious observer. Humans are conscious and decide their own purposes. Lifeforms can have their own purposes, which may or may not involve reproduction. Yes, those that don't reproduce go extinct, but that doesn't mean their purpose is not fulfilled. There is no objective value in evolutionary fitness or replication.