5 ms·

It's not artifice to point out that most contraceptives are not permanent, and don't prevent child-free people from choosing to have children later in their lif

It's not artifice to point out that most contraceptives are not permanent, and don't prevent child-free people from choosing to have children later in their life. Calling those individuals an "evolutionary dead end" is entirely jumping the gun, and precludes the possibility that mature parents are more financially stable and well-educated. Had my parents conceived me before they were 30, I'd have grown up destitute on the outskirts of Detroit. Giving people an alternative to adoption or abortion is important, even if you feel it's petty or antiproductive.

sho_hn 3y ago
I would agree; it's good that I didn't call them that :-) Given the context of the thread, I'm referring to people who remain child-free for all of their lives. And "evolutionary dead-end" isn't calling anyone names. It's just what it is. I tend to agree with you on having children a little later.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  People who remain child-free their whole lives generally don't plan it to be that way. It's the sum of cumulative questions asked at multiple points in your life: "am I ready to raise children?" We aren't predestined to dead-end lives or evolutionary staleouts, sometimes virile and willing individuals die before they conceive. I think your characterization is futile, and the wrong lens of looking at majority of non-sterile people. Couples do indeed shy away from raising a child, but shaming them for temporarily turning down the question is the wrong response.
  - sho_hn 3y ago
    Why do you consider something factual as shaming?
Teever 3y ago
Very good points. Though I'm pretty sure that people who refer to child-free people as "evolutionary dead ends" are lashing out because they have some sense of jealousy.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  Jealousy of what exactly? :)
  - Teever 3y ago
    I dunno, I just have a rule of thumb with online conversations that the harsher the language that someone uses the more they're doing it for personal reasons.
    - sho_hn 3y ago
      I don't think it's harsh language, it's just factual. I actually think it's more interesting why child-free people would consider it harsh or react sensitively to it, at least when it's a conscious choice.
      - Teever 3y ago
        Whether or not something is factual is besides the point. Pregnant women are smug.[0] Pregnancy often ruins women's bodies. People with five children have too many children. I consider these things to be very factual. You won't find me saying them to people though. As to why people 'react sensitively' to these kinds of comments is quite simple. People, especially women, very strongly dislike being reduced down to their reproductive ability. I guarantee you that someone like Rosalind Franklin has contributed so very much more to 'evolution' and the wellbeing of our species, however you want to measure it than your stereostypical redneck pumping out a dozen kids in the trailer park. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTB3ASkdOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTB3ASkdOo
        sho_hn 3y ago
        That's mistaking the scientific theory of evolution as we define it today for something that it isn't. I'm not making value-statements about anyone's contributions to society, because it's unrelated to modern evolutionary science. I agree people have a lot more to contribute to society than whether they have children or not. It would be patently silly to suggest otherwise. I admire a great many people who didn't or won't have any! It won't change that your hypothetical redneck passes on more genetic material than they do.
brightball 3y ago
It's an "evolutionary dead end" if we assume that people who intend to be "child free" follow through with it. What you're describing it more akin to waiting until you're more financially stable, which is perfectly normal. There's an entire swath of people in society today who are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool, for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons are marketed influences trying to convince people to do it too, which is more nefarious in my opinion. No matter how you slice it though, from an evolutionary perspective deciding not to reproduce only has one outcome.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  The majority of people who choose to be child-free are doing just that - making a choice. Unless you are referring to the extreme minority of people who castrate or kill themselves to avoid conception, you're not actually describing people being "removed" from anything. They're just making choices that don't result in conception. If someone is gay, they are most likely still capable of conceiving with the opposite sex. They are making a series of conscious decisions that preclude that conception, but they haven't been "removed" from the gene pool any more than a straight couple using a condom has been. Unless you don't believe in free will, most people are not at a "dead-end" at all.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Are they? Most women I know who are child less (not on board with calling it "child free", as if it's a sort of disease), ended up that way because they didn't get into a stable relationship quickly enough before their biology caught up with them. It wasn't so much an explicit choice as much as a consequence of an inability to be satisfied with a partner, or inability to settle.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

sho_hn 3y ago

I would agree; it's good that I didn't call them that :-) Given the context of the thread, I'm referring to people who remain child-free for all of their lives. And "evolutionary dead-end" isn't calling anyone names. It's just what it is. I tend to agree with you on having children a little later.

smoldesu 3y ago
People who remain child-free their whole lives generally don't plan it to be that way. It's the sum of cumulative questions asked at multiple points in your life: "am I ready to raise children?" We aren't predestined to dead-end lives or evolutionary staleouts, sometimes virile and willing individuals die before they conceive. I think your characterization is futile, and the wrong lens of looking at majority of non-sterile people. Couples do indeed shy away from raising a child, but shaming them for temporarily turning down the question is the wrong response.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  Why do you consider something factual as shaming?

Teever 3y ago

Very good points. Though I'm pretty sure that people who refer to child-free people as "evolutionary dead ends" are lashing out because they have some sense of jealousy.

sho_hn 3y ago
Jealousy of what exactly? :)
- Teever 3y ago
  I dunno, I just have a rule of thumb with online conversations that the harsher the language that someone uses the more they're doing it for personal reasons.
  - sho_hn 3y ago
    I don't think it's harsh language, it's just factual. I actually think it's more interesting why child-free people would consider it harsh or react sensitively to it, at least when it's a conscious choice.
    - Teever 3y ago
      Whether or not something is factual is besides the point. Pregnant women are smug.[0] Pregnancy often ruins women's bodies. People with five children have too many children. I consider these things to be very factual. You won't find me saying them to people though. As to why people 'react sensitively' to these kinds of comments is quite simple. People, especially women, very strongly dislike being reduced down to their reproductive ability. I guarantee you that someone like Rosalind Franklin has contributed so very much more to 'evolution' and the wellbeing of our species, however you want to measure it than your stereostypical redneck pumping out a dozen kids in the trailer park. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTB3ASkdOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTB3ASkdOo
      - sho_hn 3y ago
        That's mistaking the scientific theory of evolution as we define it today for something that it isn't. I'm not making value-statements about anyone's contributions to society, because it's unrelated to modern evolutionary science. I agree people have a lot more to contribute to society than whether they have children or not. It would be patently silly to suggest otherwise. I admire a great many people who didn't or won't have any! It won't change that your hypothetical redneck passes on more genetic material than they do.

brightball 3y ago

It's an "evolutionary dead end" if we assume that people who intend to be "child free" follow through with it. What you're describing it more akin to waiting until you're more financially stable, which is perfectly normal. There's an entire swath of people in society today who are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool, for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons are marketed influences trying to convince people to do it too, which is more nefarious in my opinion. No matter how you slice it though, from an evolutionary perspective deciding not to reproduce only has one outcome.

smoldesu 3y ago
The majority of people who choose to be child-free are doing just that - making a choice. Unless you are referring to the extreme minority of people who castrate or kill themselves to avoid conception, you're not actually describing people being "removed" from anything. They're just making choices that don't result in conception. If someone is gay, they are most likely still capable of conceiving with the opposite sex. They are making a series of conscious decisions that preclude that conception, but they haven't been "removed" from the gene pool any more than a straight couple using a condom has been. Unless you don't believe in free will, most people are not at a "dead-end" at all.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Are they? Most women I know who are child less (not on board with calling it "child free", as if it's a sort of disease), ended up that way because they didn't get into a stable relationship quickly enough before their biology caught up with them. It wasn't so much an explicit choice as much as a consequence of an inability to be satisfied with a partner, or inability to settle.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]