3 ms·

I can’t speak for everyone in India etc. but for me, personally, I didn’t reproduce because I felt the world already had enough people for finite resources, and

I can’t speak for everyone in India etc. but for me, personally, I didn’t reproduce because I felt the world already had enough people for finite resources, and I didn’t think my descendants would get to experience as rich of a natural environment as the one I grew up in. I don’t regret this decision. Whilst I might have enjoyed being a parent, had things gone that way, there’s infinitely much to enjoy about being alive solo and free, and nothing to worry about in the aftermath.

ulnarkressty 5y ago
Maybe what we need is more people that are educated and think as you do, not less. Did you ever consider that your decision is actually applying evolutionary pressure the wrong way around (wrong according to your beliefs)?
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  I note your observation that the outcome of this strategy is a world populated by people who don't share the strategy, but that doesn't worry me. I don't want the world to be populated by people who think like me. I just appreciate it for what it is. It's a big old interesting world, and I'll only ever get to see bits of it. There are so many people in the world, all of them different, each of them thinking different things and trying to get to different places. That's what I like about the world. It's an interesting, surprising place, full of variety, unexpected schema, and ways to do things that have never occurred to me. What parents want for their kids is just the starting point for kids anyway. Where they end up and why, who knows?
  - grover35 5y ago
    I will have two extra kids to cancel out your decision
  - cbshsjsh 5y ago
    > I don't want the world to be populated by people who think like me. I didn’t want kids for the same reasons, and because I am highly anxious and the world seems pretty grim place. Ended up marrying a girl who wanted kids, so now we have kids. I am happy to be parent but now that I am hanging out with other parents, there are no longer intellectual discussions. Everyone seems more focused on the money. And honestly it seems there is a relationship between number of kids and intelligence. These people are happier though. Now I sort of hope my kids don’t think like me. Even if it means overpopulation.
- miroz 5y ago
  Such ideas are not transferred through genes, but through knowledge exchange. So, although OP has not reproduced, it doesn't mean he cannot spread his knowledge and still influence a lot of people.
  - PKop 5y ago
    You have no idea if this is true. Of course the motivation to procreate could be heritable. In fact it is extremely likely this is true. Why wouldn't it be?
    - saltcured 5y ago
      Clearly, the the decision not to reproduce is not going to be lost by following through on it. Anybody who decides not to reproduce is existence proof of the potential for the decision to emerge after countless generations of decisions to the contrary. I think that very few interesting behavioral traits are so simple as to have a binary presence depending on one mutation. Instead, we inherit complex systems of behavioral tendencies which can be actively expressed or silently carried depending on circumstance. Similarly, epigenetics have been demonstrated to even carry some memory of circumstances requiring trait expression across generations. This further "smears" adaptation over time. Also, these notions of adaptation and evolutionary pressure are statistical concepts applied whole populations, not some morality play embodied by individual actors who evolve or perish. For nearly every situation where one can worry about valuable traits dying out due to non-reproduction, can we not just as easily imagine that it is expression of well-tested, adaptive traits already present in our broader gene pool? It is quite arbitrary to embrace evolutionary ideas and yet decide that one's impulses and inherited tendencies are somehow maladaptive and must be denied. The impulses could be a refined adaptive trait which serves to protect the broader gene line of families and communities. Why should one level of meta-analysis be granted a higher value? Perhaps the pure impulse without meta-analysis is the real value. Or perhaps it is two levels: first considering to procreate in spite of the lack of desire, then realizing that this second guessing is unnecessary...
    - miroz 5y ago
      Well, most people tried to reproduce until very recently. What do you think what changed? The genes of the most people in one or two generations or our culture? I'm not saying genetics do not play a part at all, but the culture and knowledge can suppress it or express it. I recommend reading "The Meme Machine" which explains the concept in details.
- r3trohack3r 5y ago
  I don’t believe this is true. You are a draw from the pool of genes of your ancestors - with mutations. Assuming a specific mutation didn’t give you an evolutionary advantage that you’d feel compelled to pass on, sometimes the optimum play is to optimize for the _pool of genes_ you came from and not your specific draw. There is an counter-intuitive evolutionary advantage to altruistic behavior, in which an organism can most efficiently propagate its own genes by increasing the probability of the overall species/sub-species survival - even if that means self-sacrifice.
js8 5y ago
I share your sentiment, and I also decided not to reproduce.
cblconfederate 5y ago
not reproducing != being alive solo and free

ulnarkressty 5y ago

Maybe what we need is more people that are educated and think as you do, not less. Did you ever consider that your decision is actually applying evolutionary pressure the wrong way around (wrong according to your beliefs)?

wombatmobile 5y ago
I note your observation that the outcome of this strategy is a world populated by people who don't share the strategy, but that doesn't worry me. I don't want the world to be populated by people who think like me. I just appreciate it for what it is. It's a big old interesting world, and I'll only ever get to see bits of it. There are so many people in the world, all of them different, each of them thinking different things and trying to get to different places. That's what I like about the world. It's an interesting, surprising place, full of variety, unexpected schema, and ways to do things that have never occurred to me. What parents want for their kids is just the starting point for kids anyway. Where they end up and why, who knows?
- grover35 5y ago
  I will have two extra kids to cancel out your decision
- cbshsjsh 5y ago
  > I don't want the world to be populated by people who think like me. I didn’t want kids for the same reasons, and because I am highly anxious and the world seems pretty grim place. Ended up marrying a girl who wanted kids, so now we have kids. I am happy to be parent but now that I am hanging out with other parents, there are no longer intellectual discussions. Everyone seems more focused on the money. And honestly it seems there is a relationship between number of kids and intelligence. These people are happier though. Now I sort of hope my kids don’t think like me. Even if it means overpopulation.
miroz 5y ago
Such ideas are not transferred through genes, but through knowledge exchange. So, although OP has not reproduced, it doesn't mean he cannot spread his knowledge and still influence a lot of people.
- PKop 5y ago
  You have no idea if this is true. Of course the motivation to procreate could be heritable. In fact it is extremely likely this is true. Why wouldn't it be?
  - saltcured 5y ago
    Clearly, the the decision not to reproduce is not going to be lost by following through on it. Anybody who decides not to reproduce is existence proof of the potential for the decision to emerge after countless generations of decisions to the contrary. I think that very few interesting behavioral traits are so simple as to have a binary presence depending on one mutation. Instead, we inherit complex systems of behavioral tendencies which can be actively expressed or silently carried depending on circumstance. Similarly, epigenetics have been demonstrated to even carry some memory of circumstances requiring trait expression across generations. This further "smears" adaptation over time. Also, these notions of adaptation and evolutionary pressure are statistical concepts applied whole populations, not some morality play embodied by individual actors who evolve or perish. For nearly every situation where one can worry about valuable traits dying out due to non-reproduction, can we not just as easily imagine that it is expression of well-tested, adaptive traits already present in our broader gene pool? It is quite arbitrary to embrace evolutionary ideas and yet decide that one's impulses and inherited tendencies are somehow maladaptive and must be denied. The impulses could be a refined adaptive trait which serves to protect the broader gene line of families and communities. Why should one level of meta-analysis be granted a higher value? Perhaps the pure impulse without meta-analysis is the real value. Or perhaps it is two levels: first considering to procreate in spite of the lack of desire, then realizing that this second guessing is unnecessary...
  - miroz 5y ago
    Well, most people tried to reproduce until very recently. What do you think what changed? The genes of the most people in one or two generations or our culture? I'm not saying genetics do not play a part at all, but the culture and knowledge can suppress it or express it. I recommend reading "The Meme Machine" which explains the concept in details.
r3trohack3r 5y ago
I don’t believe this is true. You are a draw from the pool of genes of your ancestors - with mutations. Assuming a specific mutation didn’t give you an evolutionary advantage that you’d feel compelled to pass on, sometimes the optimum play is to optimize for the _pool of genes_ you came from and not your specific draw. There is an counter-intuitive evolutionary advantage to altruistic behavior, in which an organism can most efficiently propagate its own genes by increasing the probability of the overall species/sub-species survival - even if that means self-sacrifice.

js8 5y ago

I share your sentiment, and I also decided not to reproduce.

cblconfederate 5y ago

not reproducing != being alive solo and free