3 ms·

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved in reproduction but they are all involved in helping the species survive into the future. So even if you don’t reproduce you have a critical role to play in society (helping it stay cohesive, helping productivity, helping through your work efforts, helping your friends and family raise children who can help humanity survive and be good humans themselves etc)

mrphoebs 3y ago
I doesn't seem like the above commenter was making a value judgement.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  > So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success. I’m responding to this and saying that’s not an accurate way to frame it. I’m saying you are participating in evolutionary success even if you don’t reproduce. For example, a more social family where there are siblings that don’t reproduce and instead invest in the success of the reproductive sibling’s offspring is still evolutionary success and would be being selected for through your whole families reproductive success as a whole rather than your individual success. The argument being made here is similar to the argument that sterilizing would result in removal of genes from the pool - it doesn’t work because gene selection is very complicated and doesn’t solely rely on individual reproduction.
  - mrphoebs 3y ago
    My mistake, I presumed incorrectly, that the argument you were making came from a place of defensiveness, rather than a more holistic framing of evolutionary success. Thanks for providing further clarity.
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    I like this argument because it frames the “self”/“you” as an illusion—instead, there is a more distributed self. I recognize that there are arguments against this argument — but you point out that DNA identity is pretty distributed as well. Neat.
  - NortySpock 3y ago
    I'm currently more focused on spreading good memes to the next generation. Memes like kindness, empathy, planning ahead, being honest with yourself (and preferably others), communicating your intentions clearly ahead of time, and how good parenting takes more emotional labor and emotional intelligence than, say, the kind of parenting that solely consists of yelling when the parent does not receive the desired response from the child. Genes are not the only thing the next generation needs.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    You also remove infection vectors for failed memetics from the pool
Loughla 3y ago
Genetic line =/= role to play in society. Those are different things.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
The OP was making an observation. But I'll bite. First, human beings are not bees or ants. Our nature vis-a-vis reproduction is quite different. Most human beings do reproduce as that is our nature, or certainly most of us used to with the exception of periods of social collapse (think of Rome). We're in that sort of condition now, where we are having little or no children in the developed world. This does not bode well and at some point the decline of such a society will become irreversible. Of course, you are right that not everyone must reproduce, that there is no particular obligation for anyone to reproduce, and that those who do not can still contribute to the well-being of their families, the human species, and the common good. And indeed, if you are, say, a Catholic, you would say that while having children is the natural course and the normal path for most people, a small minority are called to sacrifice this natural end for the sake of a higher supernatural, spiritual end, e.g., the priesthood, by which one becomes a spiritual parent in place of a biological one. Certainly, we can be parental figures in non-biological ways as well. Even biological parents do that. But that's not that we're seeing behind the present demographic decline. Something like the priesthood is an exception, not the rule. Most who can have children of their own are not having them, or many of them, not because of some kind of exceptional higher calling, but rather for morally dubious reasons. Children are demanding. They require sacrifice. They demand the love known as charity. A consumerist is going to view a child not as a gift, but a burden. Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US). Having many children used to be seen as a blessing, a privilege. Today, we both think we're entitled to having children (IVF is a testament to that), and refuse to have them.
- ARandomerDude 3y ago
  > Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US) I think it has a lot more to do with feminism than any Protestant/Catholic divide. In the Protestant church I attend, having 6+ kids is pretty normal. Certainly many evangelicals don’t value large families but I think they’re getting that mindset from the culture, rather than sacred Scipture.
laeri 3y ago
They are involved in helping their queen produce new offspring that also contains part of their own genetic material. In bees and ants you have to think of them as one single individual. Each single worker is not able to reproduce but they still will indirectly still reproduce through their queen. Not sure what being good humans has to do with this.
BurningFrog 3y ago
Ants and bees in a hive have very similar genetics. Typically 75%, and sometimes 100%, if I remember. This means that a hive in some ways is best thought of as a single organization, which happens to have a "distributed" body. In that view, the non reproducing individuals are propagating their DNA in the same sense that human liver cells do, even though they don't have the direct involvement that down and egg cells do.
- derac 3y ago
  Human beings are 99.9% genetically similar to each other. Also, we're about 99% genetically similar to chimpanzees.
  - inciampati 3y ago
    In the euchromatic regions, yeah, it's about that. Elsewhere (e.g. centromeres) we are all quite diverse. This is recent news due to long read sequencing and complete genome assembly. The human pangenome project is touching on this, if still reticent to make clear claims about the centromeres. I'm not sure that "99%" similar is the right way to think about chimpanzees and humans. We have a different chromosome number. Our chromosome 2 is a roberstonian fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes found in all other great apes, including chimpanzees and bonobos.
  - lynguist 3y ago
    And 30% to a tomato. So what? The basics of cellular respiration are always the same on this planet.
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_microorganism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_microorganism
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    That's a different kind of percentage. The terminology is unfortunate and confusing. I'm taking about the sense in which you share 50% of the DNA with a sibling or payment.
jmyeet 3y ago
This is a perfect example of what I like to call the Eggs-Waffles Phenomenon. Basically, you can’t say something like “I like waffles” on the internet without someone replying “how dare you malign people who like eggs”. And here there’s not even a value judgement or personal preference yet this has somehow been perceived as an attack on the childless. Others have jumped in to bemoan the perceived attack on the family. It’s wild. Nowhere do I argue that you should or shouldn’t reproduce or that either outcome affects your perceived or actual value. The word “fail” seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your perceptions here.

mrphoebs 3y ago

I doesn't seem like the above commenter was making a value judgement.

vlovich123 3y ago
> So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success. I’m responding to this and saying that’s not an accurate way to frame it. I’m saying you are participating in evolutionary success even if you don’t reproduce. For example, a more social family where there are siblings that don’t reproduce and instead invest in the success of the reproductive sibling’s offspring is still evolutionary success and would be being selected for through your whole families reproductive success as a whole rather than your individual success. The argument being made here is similar to the argument that sterilizing would result in removal of genes from the pool - it doesn’t work because gene selection is very complicated and doesn’t solely rely on individual reproduction.
- mrphoebs 3y ago
  My mistake, I presumed incorrectly, that the argument you were making came from a place of defensiveness, rather than a more holistic framing of evolutionary success. Thanks for providing further clarity.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  I like this argument because it frames the “self”/“you” as an illusion—instead, there is a more distributed self. I recognize that there are arguments against this argument — but you point out that DNA identity is pretty distributed as well. Neat.
- NortySpock 3y ago
  I'm currently more focused on spreading good memes to the next generation. Memes like kindness, empathy, planning ahead, being honest with yourself (and preferably others), communicating your intentions clearly ahead of time, and how good parenting takes more emotional labor and emotional intelligence than, say, the kind of parenting that solely consists of yelling when the parent does not receive the desired response from the child. Genes are not the only thing the next generation needs.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  You also remove infection vectors for failed memetics from the pool

Loughla 3y ago

Genetic line =/= role to play in society. Those are different things.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

The OP was making an observation. But I'll bite. First, human beings are not bees or ants. Our nature vis-a-vis reproduction is quite different. Most human beings do reproduce as that is our nature, or certainly most of us used to with the exception of periods of social collapse (think of Rome). We're in that sort of condition now, where we are having little or no children in the developed world. This does not bode well and at some point the decline of such a society will become irreversible. Of course, you are right that not everyone must reproduce, that there is no particular obligation for anyone to reproduce, and that those who do not can still contribute to the well-being of their families, the human species, and the common good. And indeed, if you are, say, a Catholic, you would say that while having children is the natural course and the normal path for most people, a small minority are called to sacrifice this natural end for the sake of a higher supernatural, spiritual end, e.g., the priesthood, by which one becomes a spiritual parent in place of a biological one. Certainly, we can be parental figures in non-biological ways as well. Even biological parents do that. But that's not that we're seeing behind the present demographic decline. Something like the priesthood is an exception, not the rule. Most who can have children of their own are not having them, or many of them, not because of some kind of exceptional higher calling, but rather for morally dubious reasons. Children are demanding. They require sacrifice. They demand the love known as charity. A consumerist is going to view a child not as a gift, but a burden. Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US). Having many children used to be seen as a blessing, a privilege. Today, we both think we're entitled to having children (IVF is a testament to that), and refuse to have them.

ARandomerDude 3y ago
> Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US) I think it has a lot more to do with feminism than any Protestant/Catholic divide. In the Protestant church I attend, having 6+ kids is pretty normal. Certainly many evangelicals don’t value large families but I think they’re getting that mindset from the culture, rather than sacred Scipture.

laeri 3y ago

They are involved in helping their queen produce new offspring that also contains part of their own genetic material. In bees and ants you have to think of them as one single individual. Each single worker is not able to reproduce but they still will indirectly still reproduce through their queen. Not sure what being good humans has to do with this.

BurningFrog 3y ago

Ants and bees in a hive have very similar genetics. Typically 75%, and sometimes 100%, if I remember. This means that a hive in some ways is best thought of as a single organization, which happens to have a "distributed" body. In that view, the non reproducing individuals are propagating their DNA in the same sense that human liver cells do, even though they don't have the direct involvement that down and egg cells do.

derac 3y ago
Human beings are 99.9% genetically similar to each other. Also, we're about 99% genetically similar to chimpanzees.
- inciampati 3y ago
  In the euchromatic regions, yeah, it's about that. Elsewhere (e.g. centromeres) we are all quite diverse. This is recent news due to long read sequencing and complete genome assembly. The human pangenome project is touching on this, if still reticent to make clear claims about the centromeres. I'm not sure that "99%" similar is the right way to think about chimpanzees and humans. We have a different chromosome number. Our chromosome 2 is a roberstonian fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes found in all other great apes, including chimpanzees and bonobos.
- lynguist 3y ago
  And 30% to a tomato. So what? The basics of cellular respiration are always the same on this planet.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_microorganism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_microorganism
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  That's a different kind of percentage. The terminology is unfortunate and confusing. I'm taking about the sense in which you share 50% of the DNA with a sibling or payment.

jmyeet 3y ago

This is a perfect example of what I like to call the Eggs-Waffles Phenomenon. Basically, you can’t say something like “I like waffles” on the internet without someone replying “how dare you malign people who like eggs”. And here there’s not even a value judgement or personal preference yet this has somehow been perceived as an attack on the childless. Others have jumped in to bemoan the perceived attack on the family. It’s wild. Nowhere do I argue that you should or shouldn’t reproduce or that either outcome affects your perceived or actual value. The word “fail” seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your perceptions here.