8 ms·

I suspect you're right. But I've just last night finished Brave New World and what strikes me is production of children in that book almost entirely for the pur

I suspect you're right. But I've just last night finished Brave New World and what strikes me is production of children in that book almost entirely for the purpose of labour. So, I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work and humans live for a very long time. I don't have children nor intend to - so likely this is a very cold take that doesn't apply to most - but the cynic in me says we've so far focussed on reproduction as individuals and at a country level to maintain productivity and extend the health and wealth of their elders. Without that pressure, would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before?

qgin 2y ago
It's already happened to a degree. People used to need to birth their own personal/family workforce (to work their land, for example). That was the main purpose of children. The idea that children are for some kind of top-of-the-pyramid self-actualization experience is really, really recent.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future Leaving behind and continuing your legacy and heritage. Personally I have no interest in pushing my blood, interests, and achievements and their endurement upon my hypothetical children, among many other reasons I have no interest in having children, but if someone wants to be that person then more power to them since it's none of my business.
ZiiS 2y ago
Once society has accepted robot labour without rights and children without parents, the question quickly becomes is flesh or steel cheaper.
trhway 2y ago
>what the driver for reproduction will be the people without such driver are naturally weeded out, so due to such weeding out the majority of the population always naturally consist of the people who have such a driver, it may be some crazy one in any given particular case, yet it is there. >in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work and humans live for a very long time. and with artificial uterine it would mean that some people, the wealthy ones, would be able to have a hundred, or a thousand of children. Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here. >would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before? the people who wouldn't be able to afford it as having children would be less beneficial for society as you correctly noted and it will be more like a personal luxury/indulgence and thus would be treated accordingly - taxed, no child support help from government, etc
- gnfargbl 2y ago
  > Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here. I agree that is a very likely outcome. We've seen that behaviour before in history, e.g. the Ottoman Imperial Harem contained a minimum of several hundred women at its peak. We would almost certainly see it again. Remember, though, that those children still need to be cared for after birth, and that requires humans.
  - trhway 2y ago
    >Remember, though, that those children still need to be cared for after birth, and that requires humans. I think AI and robots would make human involvement minimally necessary, be it basic physical care or education.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ben_w 2y ago
      On the one hand, based on FSD, Musk would be one of the first people to attempt this, well before the AI was capable enough to do a good job. On the other, super-rich people can already afford a lot of humans to assist with raising their kids. AI isn't strictly necessary for this, as seen with e.g. Genghis Khan. But yeah, if the G and the I in AGI is good enough and general enough, then robots directed by it could do a good job of raising kids — but at some point, you have to ask what life is even for, why you're having kids at all if you don't want to be involved in raising them.
      - trhway 2y ago
        > a lot of humans to assist with raising their kids. AI isn't strictly necessary for this, as seen with e.g. Genghis Khan. it willn't be just kids. It will be "designer babies". Cleaned-up DNA with imports from Mozart and Einstein DNAs, and countless other improvements and enhancements for higher IQ, stronger muscles, faster reaction, better health, etc and cyber-enhanced with Neuralink style connection from may be even before being born, etc. There would be not many humans who would be able even to just keep up, less serve as teachers and trainers to such kids. > to be involved in raising them. engineering them is also involvement.
gnfargbl 2y ago
I don't think much of the other proposed societal changes in BNW. They're a backdrop which Huxley uses to illustrate some aspects of human nature and to tell the rest of his story, but that's about it. We've had plenty of opportunity to move to the transient sexual model he outlines, for instance, and yet long-term relationships are still overwhelmingly the most popular choice. I also don't believe people generally have children to fulfil a wider societal responsibility. As a parent myself, we had children mostly because we thought it would be nice to have children around. It has been much more than "nice," in a way that I could never really put into words. However, I can honestly say that the maintenance of my own health and wealth into old age has never been remotely a concern; if anything, I spend my time trying to find ways to insulate them from the consequences of an ageing society. I don't see those aspects of parenthood changing.
- squigz 2y ago
  Societal pressures/responsibilities don't need to be consciously acknowledged by an individual for them to have an effect on that individuals' decision-making.
  - gnfargbl 2y ago
    True. My anecdata is that I don't see even the echoes of these pressures/responsibilities in my own historical choices, and as a result I doubt their effect on others.
    - squigz 2y ago
      In my experience, social pressure to have children is such a ubiquitous experience that it's difficult for me to think it doesn't have an effect. I wonder how this might vary between men & women
      - foobarian 2y ago
        You have to keep in mind the millions of years of evolution that surely managed to leave some instinct-level mechanisms to encourage having children.
nico 2y ago
> I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work If robots are doing all the work, my bet is humans won’t be dominating for too long Then if robots take over, and they spare us, the driver for human reproduction (for them to reproduce us) might just be to have pets
- horrible-hilde 2y ago
  yes, and we’ll love it.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
If you think humanity is a good thing, and you want it to continue indefinitely into the future, then reproduction is essential. If you do not think this, then you want Earth to be a dull rock, with no civilization and no intelligent species. It really is just that binary. >Without that pressure, would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before? They already made that choice, decades ago, and there's no evidence anyone is rethinking it. Fertility levels are sub-replacement.
scotty79 2y ago
People still make a lot of clothes even though huge percentage of the ends up in landfills after barely any use. Future purpose of childbirth is fashion.

qgin 2y ago

It's already happened to a degree. People used to need to birth their own personal/family workforce (to work their land, for example). That was the main purpose of children. The idea that children are for some kind of top-of-the-pyramid self-actualization experience is really, really recent.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future Leaving behind and continuing your legacy and heritage. Personally I have no interest in pushing my blood, interests, and achievements and their endurement upon my hypothetical children, among many other reasons I have no interest in having children, but if someone wants to be that person then more power to them since it's none of my business.

ZiiS 2y ago

Once society has accepted robot labour without rights and children without parents, the question quickly becomes is flesh or steel cheaper.

trhway 2y ago

>what the driver for reproduction will be the people without such driver are naturally weeded out, so due to such weeding out the majority of the population always naturally consist of the people who have such a driver, it may be some crazy one in any given particular case, yet it is there. >in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work and humans live for a very long time. and with artificial uterine it would mean that some people, the wealthy ones, would be able to have a hundred, or a thousand of children. Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here. >would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before? the people who wouldn't be able to afford it as having children would be less beneficial for society as you correctly noted and it will be more like a personal luxury/indulgence and thus would be treated accordingly - taxed, no child support help from government, etc

gnfargbl 2y ago
> Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here. I agree that is a very likely outcome. We've seen that behaviour before in history, e.g. the Ottoman Imperial Harem contained a minimum of several hundred women at its peak. We would almost certainly see it again. Remember, though, that those children still need to be cared for after birth, and that requires humans.
- trhway 2y ago
  >Remember, though, that those children still need to be cared for after birth, and that requires humans. I think AI and robots would make human involvement minimally necessary, be it basic physical care or education.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 2y ago
    On the one hand, based on FSD, Musk would be one of the first people to attempt this, well before the AI was capable enough to do a good job. On the other, super-rich people can already afford a lot of humans to assist with raising their kids. AI isn't strictly necessary for this, as seen with e.g. Genghis Khan. But yeah, if the G and the I in AGI is good enough and general enough, then robots directed by it could do a good job of raising kids — but at some point, you have to ask what life is even for, why you're having kids at all if you don't want to be involved in raising them.
    - trhway 2y ago
      > a lot of humans to assist with raising their kids. AI isn't strictly necessary for this, as seen with e.g. Genghis Khan. it willn't be just kids. It will be "designer babies". Cleaned-up DNA with imports from Mozart and Einstein DNAs, and countless other improvements and enhancements for higher IQ, stronger muscles, faster reaction, better health, etc and cyber-enhanced with Neuralink style connection from may be even before being born, etc. There would be not many humans who would be able even to just keep up, less serve as teachers and trainers to such kids. > to be involved in raising them. engineering them is also involvement.

gnfargbl 2y ago

I don't think much of the other proposed societal changes in BNW. They're a backdrop which Huxley uses to illustrate some aspects of human nature and to tell the rest of his story, but that's about it. We've had plenty of opportunity to move to the transient sexual model he outlines, for instance, and yet long-term relationships are still overwhelmingly the most popular choice. I also don't believe people generally have children to fulfil a wider societal responsibility. As a parent myself, we had children mostly because we thought it would be nice to have children around. It has been much more than "nice," in a way that I could never really put into words. However, I can honestly say that the maintenance of my own health and wealth into old age has never been remotely a concern; if anything, I spend my time trying to find ways to insulate them from the consequences of an ageing society. I don't see those aspects of parenthood changing.

squigz 2y ago
Societal pressures/responsibilities don't need to be consciously acknowledged by an individual for them to have an effect on that individuals' decision-making.
- gnfargbl 2y ago
  True. My anecdata is that I don't see even the echoes of these pressures/responsibilities in my own historical choices, and as a result I doubt their effect on others.
  - squigz 2y ago
    In my experience, social pressure to have children is such a ubiquitous experience that it's difficult for me to think it doesn't have an effect. I wonder how this might vary between men & women
    - foobarian 2y ago
      You have to keep in mind the millions of years of evolution that surely managed to leave some instinct-level mechanisms to encourage having children.

nico 2y ago

> I'm curious what the driver for reproduction will be in the future once robots are capable of doing all the work If robots are doing all the work, my bet is humans won’t be dominating for too long Then if robots take over, and they spare us, the driver for human reproduction (for them to reproduce us) might just be to have pets

horrible-hilde 2y ago
yes, and we’ll love it.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

If you think humanity is a good thing, and you want it to continue indefinitely into the future, then reproduction is essential. If you do not think this, then you want Earth to be a dull rock, with no civilization and no intelligent species. It really is just that binary. >Without that pressure, would people choose to have fewer children on a scale we've never seen before? They already made that choice, decades ago, and there's no evidence anyone is rethinking it. Fertility levels are sub-replacement.

scotty79 2y ago

People still make a lot of clothes even though huge percentage of the ends up in landfills after barely any use. Future purpose of childbirth is fashion.