5 ms·

I will be childfree, so will my sister. Both of us are queer. As far as I know, all my three cousins (two of whom are queer) feel the same. There's no reason to

I will be childfree, so will my sister. Both of us are queer. As far as I know, all my three cousins (two of whom are queer) feel the same. There's no reason to expect that your children will want to reproduce, and it is pretty selfish to project your own dissatisfaction with life onto another human that way.

xyzzy9563 1y ago
If someone cares more about themselves than continuing their family line or the human species, it’s arguably more selfish.
- rfrey 1y ago
  Why should somebody consider their own "family line" special? That seems pretty arbitrary - perhaps hardwired in some way but not in any sense a moral imperative. When there's an imminent danger of the human species ending because of a lack of babies, we can talk about the other point.
  - hshshshshsh 1y ago
    Family like any other material possessions is just another building block for the ego. Trying to believe you own something or is something when nothing is permanent and everything is part of everything else.
- mikestew 1y ago
  …continuing their family line… I’m not Henry VIII, just some rube from Indiana. Our family is nothing special. …or the human species Nor is this some post-apocalyptic future where children are scarce.
  - BadCookie 1y ago
    Children kind of are scarce, though? Most countries aren’t reproducing at replacement levels. Were that to continue forever, the human population would go to zero. School districts around me are closing schools because there aren’t enough kids to fill them.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      Murray Rothbard argued there should be a thriving market for children. There's certainly something to it, there are so many places where children or at least female ones are viewed as completely without value and yet others who view them as both scarce and valuable. We are currently struggling much in this world with the problem of ensuring children end up where they are most cherished and valued. It sounds terrible, but I'm inclined to agree with him the children would be better off if there really were child auctions.
- hshshshshsh 1y ago
  It's also selfish to bring humans that goes through immense suffering in their life so that you get meaning out of life or get joy from kids.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    I find discussions of selfishness interesting in the context of a biological imperative. Raising kids mostly feels to me like I have a horrible heroin addiction. Loads of cash and time, reduced access to jobs, increased risk of intrusion by authorities and I struggle to see any personal benefit but lots of personal losses. Nonetheless my brain has tricked me somehow into it, at some basic biological level, and it seems this trickery at least at the population level is a necessary condition of life to the point free will is a total joke to consider as part of the equation. At an individual maybe there is some selfish choice but at a population level having a kid is about the biological equivalent of taking a shit -- people don't take a shit because they are selfish they do it because it is biologically required and humans simply evolved to match this requirement.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - apsurd 1y ago
      This sounds like the free will argument. we're just complex receptors to stimuli, we don't choose anything, we receive inputs and react accordingly. "it's just biology" in this sense there's no discussion on why humans chooses kids or heroin, or taking a shit. The answer is "they don't" so this isn't about kids. you've made up your mind about all reality.
      - ty6853 1y ago
        >in this sense there's no discussion on why humans chooses kids or heroin, or taking a shit. The answer is "they don't" This is false equivalence, taking heroin isn't a biologicals imperative, reproduction is obligatory to life. My thesis is humans have no real choice at a population level not to reproduce, your fallaciously equate that to a reductionist view on everything else including things not obligatory to life.
- Arubis 1y ago
  You’re projecting your values. There’s very strong arguments to be made in both directions without being responsible for a family line (however you might choose to define that) or an entire species.
Boogie_Man 1y ago
Legitimate and honest question which is not an attempt to insult or devalue you: Do you personally consider 4/5 cousins in a generation of a family being queer (to my understanding this means not heterosexual) to be a statistical anomaly, or have you pinpointed a cause or causes for this outlier? Feel free to not answer if it's a painful thing.

xyzzy9563 1y ago

If someone cares more about themselves than continuing their family line or the human species, it’s arguably more selfish.

rfrey 1y ago
Why should somebody consider their own "family line" special? That seems pretty arbitrary - perhaps hardwired in some way but not in any sense a moral imperative. When there's an imminent danger of the human species ending because of a lack of babies, we can talk about the other point.
- hshshshshsh 1y ago
  Family like any other material possessions is just another building block for the ego. Trying to believe you own something or is something when nothing is permanent and everything is part of everything else.
mikestew 1y ago
…continuing their family line… I’m not Henry VIII, just some rube from Indiana. Our family is nothing special. …or the human species Nor is this some post-apocalyptic future where children are scarce.
- BadCookie 1y ago
  Children kind of are scarce, though? Most countries aren’t reproducing at replacement levels. Were that to continue forever, the human population would go to zero. School districts around me are closing schools because there aren’t enough kids to fill them.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    Murray Rothbard argued there should be a thriving market for children. There's certainly something to it, there are so many places where children or at least female ones are viewed as completely without value and yet others who view them as both scarce and valuable. We are currently struggling much in this world with the problem of ensuring children end up where they are most cherished and valued. It sounds terrible, but I'm inclined to agree with him the children would be better off if there really were child auctions.
hshshshshsh 1y ago
It's also selfish to bring humans that goes through immense suffering in their life so that you get meaning out of life or get joy from kids.
- ty6853 1y ago
  I find discussions of selfishness interesting in the context of a biological imperative. Raising kids mostly feels to me like I have a horrible heroin addiction. Loads of cash and time, reduced access to jobs, increased risk of intrusion by authorities and I struggle to see any personal benefit but lots of personal losses. Nonetheless my brain has tricked me somehow into it, at some basic biological level, and it seems this trickery at least at the population level is a necessary condition of life to the point free will is a total joke to consider as part of the equation. At an individual maybe there is some selfish choice but at a population level having a kid is about the biological equivalent of taking a shit -- people don't take a shit because they are selfish they do it because it is biologically required and humans simply evolved to match this requirement.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - apsurd 1y ago
    This sounds like the free will argument. we're just complex receptors to stimuli, we don't choose anything, we receive inputs and react accordingly. "it's just biology" in this sense there's no discussion on why humans chooses kids or heroin, or taking a shit. The answer is "they don't" so this isn't about kids. you've made up your mind about all reality.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      >in this sense there's no discussion on why humans chooses kids or heroin, or taking a shit. The answer is "they don't" This is false equivalence, taking heroin isn't a biologicals imperative, reproduction is obligatory to life. My thesis is humans have no real choice at a population level not to reproduce, your fallaciously equate that to a reductionist view on everything else including things not obligatory to life.
Arubis 1y ago
You’re projecting your values. There’s very strong arguments to be made in both directions without being responsible for a family line (however you might choose to define that) or an entire species.

Boogie_Man 1y ago

Legitimate and honest question which is not an attempt to insult or devalue you: Do you personally consider 4/5 cousins in a generation of a family being queer (to my understanding this means not heterosexual) to be a statistical anomaly, or have you pinpointed a cause or causes for this outlier? Feel free to not answer if it's a painful thing.