5 ms·

I think you haven't really thought through your stance. If that is the only purpose, then men should sleep with as many women as possible, even raping them, bec

I think you haven't really thought through your stance. If that is the only purpose, then men should sleep with as many women as possible, even raping them, because that is what matters. I knowingly married a woman who is unable to bear children. We adopted two, and I don't feel in any way that my life is less for not spawning. Here is a hypothetical: in scenario 1, you are an average Joe and have three kids. In scenario 2, due to your dedication to medical research, you never have kids, but you develop a new drug that eliminates diarrhea and saves millions of lives every year. Do you really think scenario 1 is a more meaningful life than scenario 2?

lisper 3y ago
> If that is the only purpose, then men should sleep with as many women as possible, even raping them, because that is what matters. No, because humans are not born self-sufficient. Humans have to raise their offspring, not merely produce them, in order to be successful. > I knowingly married a woman who is unable to bear children. We adopted two, and I don't feel in any way that my life is less for not spawning. Your genes are not just in you, they are also in other humans, so your genes can improve their reproductive fitness by producing people like you who help to raise other people's children (in which those genes also reside). With that in mind I'll leave your last question as an exercise :-)
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  One reproductive strategy is to have a few offspring and invest heavily in them; another is to have as many as possible and accept a lower success rate. According to your initial comment, the purpose of live is to reproduce, and if that was the end of it, then having as many kids as possible and let the seeds fall where they may is a winning strategy (and many animals do exactly that), but for humans it is a winning strategy only if one can get other people to raise your kids, which means it works only if the cohort of freeloaders is small enough. As for the genetics part, it seems you think there is an altruism gene(s) and that I can somehow determine if others have the same genes that I have and then invest in them. The idea of an altruism gene is dubious; if if such a thing exists, the mathematics say it is a dead end. The two kids I adopted (from another ethnic group even) are far less likely to have "my" gene than had I married a woman who could bear my children. The source of my altruism (as such -- we adopted to fulfill our own emotional needs) is far more determined by culture and circumstance that by the influence of genes. That last point closes the circle for my own stance: meaning is cultural and personal. It makes me scratch my head when Christian friends try to convince me that their morality is not objective because it is based on the Bible, but we can see historically that different people/generations interpret the Bible and justify whatever morality is in vogue at the time. It is no more fixed than that of atheists.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > One reproductive strategy is to have a few offspring and invest heavily in them; another is to have as many as possible and accept a lower success rate. Yes. And it turns out that in most large mammals, including humans, the former strategy beats the latter. In smaller mammals, like rodents, the latter strategy beats the former. And your point would be...? > The idea of an altruism gene is dubious; if if such a thing exists, the mathematics say it is a dead end. Not so. In fact it's the exact opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

lisper 3y ago

> If that is the only purpose, then men should sleep with as many women as possible, even raping them, because that is what matters. No, because humans are not born self-sufficient. Humans have to raise their offspring, not merely produce them, in order to be successful. > I knowingly married a woman who is unable to bear children. We adopted two, and I don't feel in any way that my life is less for not spawning. Your genes are not just in you, they are also in other humans, so your genes can improve their reproductive fitness by producing people like you who help to raise other people's children (in which those genes also reside). With that in mind I'll leave your last question as an exercise :-)

tasty_freeze 3y ago
One reproductive strategy is to have a few offspring and invest heavily in them; another is to have as many as possible and accept a lower success rate. According to your initial comment, the purpose of live is to reproduce, and if that was the end of it, then having as many kids as possible and let the seeds fall where they may is a winning strategy (and many animals do exactly that), but for humans it is a winning strategy only if one can get other people to raise your kids, which means it works only if the cohort of freeloaders is small enough. As for the genetics part, it seems you think there is an altruism gene(s) and that I can somehow determine if others have the same genes that I have and then invest in them. The idea of an altruism gene is dubious; if if such a thing exists, the mathematics say it is a dead end. The two kids I adopted (from another ethnic group even) are far less likely to have "my" gene than had I married a woman who could bear my children. The source of my altruism (as such -- we adopted to fulfill our own emotional needs) is far more determined by culture and circumstance that by the influence of genes. That last point closes the circle for my own stance: meaning is cultural and personal. It makes me scratch my head when Christian friends try to convince me that their morality is not objective because it is based on the Bible, but we can see historically that different people/generations interpret the Bible and justify whatever morality is in vogue at the time. It is no more fixed than that of atheists.
- lisper 3y ago
  > One reproductive strategy is to have a few offspring and invest heavily in them; another is to have as many as possible and accept a lower success rate. Yes. And it turns out that in most large mammals, including humans, the former strategy beats the latter. In smaller mammals, like rodents, the latter strategy beats the former. And your point would be...? > The idea of an altruism gene is dubious; if if such a thing exists, the mathematics say it is a dead end. Not so. In fact it's the exact opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation