4 ms·

So, one is conditioned to “not have kid”, but having them is perfectly natural and there is absolutely no conditioning in wanting them? When my partner in a ch

So, one is conditioned to “not have kid”, but having them is perfectly natural and there is absolutely no conditioning in wanting them? When my partner in a childless relationship gets asked “but why?” when she says she doesn’t want children, her answer is this: “would you have asked the same question, had I said I want them?”

bigyikes 3y ago
No, they would not have asked that question, because literally 100% of their ancestors for millions of generations had children (or otherwise reproduced). That’s the default option.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  Which reinforces my point. Reddit, an irrelevant blip in history is a stronger conditioning than millennia of “default option”?
  - chr1 3y ago
    The default option worked not by conscious thought but by desire for sex. Now we have found a way to decouple that from procreation, so people have to actually think, and they often end up choosing a path that leads to dead end.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  For millions of generations there were millions of generations that came to another conclusion and didn’t procreate. And also your assumption that all those millions of generations that you’ve mentioned procreated willingly is false.
  - RestlessMind 3y ago
    > ...that came to another conclusion and didn’t procreate and then they didn't survive for the next generation. If that is okay with a society, nature will simply replace that society with another one.
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      Not necessarily. Civilization is built on knowledge of people who procreated and who didn't.
RestlessMind 3y ago
Because the fatal flaw of a lot of advanced societies is elevating individualism. You are ultimately just a part of the human species and we evolved naturally to produce babies and raise them (i.e. desire for sex). We were also a lot more tribal and it was easier to raise kids with a village. Combination of the latest trends of the past few decades (contraception, individualism, nuclear families) goes against the natural design for the sustenance of our species. Nature doesn't have morals and is pretty ruthless, so if a sub-species doesn't want to have kids, it will cease to exist and will be replaced by the one who values kids. South Korea will be an interesting example to watch - whether they reverse their course and start valuing kids as a society, or they might get replaced by immigrants or are taken over by the neighboring countries. Nothing good or bad inherently with either option because life is meaningless anyway.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  SK disappears in a poof of logic and NK just waltzes south.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  This is certainly true on a global and evolutionary scale. Yet, we, as individuals don't work on a global and evolutionary scale, but an individual one, at least in our society. Therefore I'm perfectly fine not having kids, because I have absolutely no intention to accept and feel the societal burden on my unprivileged shoulders.

bigyikes 3y ago

No, they would not have asked that question, because literally 100% of their ancestors for millions of generations had children (or otherwise reproduced). That’s the default option.

camillomiller 3y ago
Which reinforces my point. Reddit, an irrelevant blip in history is a stronger conditioning than millennia of “default option”?
- chr1 3y ago
  The default option worked not by conscious thought but by desire for sex. Now we have found a way to decouple that from procreation, so people have to actually think, and they often end up choosing a path that leads to dead end.
wiseowise 3y ago
For millions of generations there were millions of generations that came to another conclusion and didn’t procreate. And also your assumption that all those millions of generations that you’ve mentioned procreated willingly is false.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > ...that came to another conclusion and didn’t procreate and then they didn't survive for the next generation. If that is okay with a society, nature will simply replace that society with another one.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    Not necessarily. Civilization is built on knowledge of people who procreated and who didn't.

RestlessMind 3y ago

Because the fatal flaw of a lot of advanced societies is elevating individualism. You are ultimately just a part of the human species and we evolved naturally to produce babies and raise them (i.e. desire for sex). We were also a lot more tribal and it was easier to raise kids with a village. Combination of the latest trends of the past few decades (contraception, individualism, nuclear families) goes against the natural design for the sustenance of our species. Nature doesn't have morals and is pretty ruthless, so if a sub-species doesn't want to have kids, it will cease to exist and will be replaced by the one who values kids. South Korea will be an interesting example to watch - whether they reverse their course and start valuing kids as a society, or they might get replaced by immigrants or are taken over by the neighboring countries. Nothing good or bad inherently with either option because life is meaningless anyway.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
SK disappears in a poof of logic and NK just waltzes south.
camillomiller 3y ago
This is certainly true on a global and evolutionary scale. Yet, we, as individuals don't work on a global and evolutionary scale, but an individual one, at least in our society. Therefore I'm perfectly fine not having kids, because I have absolutely no intention to accept and feel the societal burden on my unprivileged shoulders.