5 ms·
> I don't see humans completely overcome their biological nature any time soon, if ever. Not intentionally, but we've managed to create societies where reprodu
by tenpies 5y ago
> I don't see humans completely overcome their biological nature any time soon, if ever.
Not intentionally, but we've managed to create societies where reproduction is extremely costly in every conceivable way and are even working to convince people that reproduction is outright tyrannical, sexist, and environmentally genocidal.
The instinct will certainly remain, but population decline seems inevitable the way things are going. Even a few decades from now, the human breadbaskets of the developing world adopt the anti-natalist systems we have in the developed world.
- wildmanx 5y agoEternal population growth is not a necessity for advancing civilization.
- politician 5y agoWhat is the right number of unique minds?
- wizzwizz4 5y agoThat's an ethics question; advanced civilisations are not required to be ethical.
- politician 5y agoI don’t see how aspiring to be an unethical civilization with a fixed number of individuals is preferable to a civilization that grows and shrinks having pockets of ethical and unethical members. If the argument is that somehow the former is more environmentally friendly, then I don’t understand why we should accept dystopia for an uncaring god.
- mekkkkkk 5y agoLikely below infinite?
- wruza 5y agoA better question is how much any of these minds deserve and what they do to achieve it. Competitive reality is not a dream, it’s pretty harsh. There is not much to have and you can only have so much in total.