5 ms·

It depends a lot on attitude. If you consider procreation and family a big goal in your life, then you're right: the clock is always ticking. I'm almost 40 now,

by Udo 12y ago

It depends a lot on attitude. If you consider procreation and family a big goal in your life, then you're right: the clock is always ticking. I'm almost 40 now, that ship has thoroughly sailed. I don't agree that all the important choices happen during the first half though. Consider that for the first 1.5 decades you hardly make any of your own choices at all. So while the procreation thing is about halfway over at your age, in a lot of other ways you're just getting started.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
If procreation and family is not a big goal in your life, then it ain't life. Because reproduction is a defining property of "life" if you think of it. As I've added, it's actually a quarter. For women in modern society it's even less, close to 1/8 of their life. After "the ship has sailed", no choices matter anymore. Surely, you may decompose faster or slower, rot for quite some time or go out with the bang. But it's confined to your own body now, which is definitely mortal.
- eurleif 12y ago
  >After "the ship has sailed", no choices matter anymore. Surely, you may decompose faster or slower, rot for quite some time or go out with the bang. But it's confined to your own body now, which is definitely mortal. You're assuming the only way to influence the world is by spreading your genes. That's completely false.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    I'm assuming that the only satisfying way to influense the world is one that includes spreading your genes. And the age constaint is a huge problem here because it can ruin the whole thing even if I figure out everything else later on. You can fix many things later but not this. That's scary.
    - Udo 12y ago
      > I'm assuming that the only satisfying way to influense the world is one that includes spreading your genes. We get that, but it's an assumption that depends on your personal value system and on what you personally consider satisfying. That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population. A lot of people will agree with your basic assessment, however in this extreme form I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes. And that's not how we as a civilization see things any more, and the understanding that we have value based on who we are (instead of how many offspring we have) has been part of the general social contract since at least the enlightenment era.
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        "That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population" I didn't. However I think it is true for a big part of general population and they'll face a reality check soon enough. But I talk about myself mostly. "I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes" It's a bit different. People who are still able to spawn their genes are unconditionally valuable. But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. They may be very valuable (take nobel laureates), but it's not given. Maybe not. The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. That's my opinion.
        Udo 12y ago
        > But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. And that value is assigned conditionally by... you? It's your belief that the value of human life is restricted to its immediate usefulness? > The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. Again, I was not aware that we had a population crisis.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Udo 12y ago
  > If procreation and family is not a big goal in your life, then it ain't life. [...] After "the ship has sailed", no choices matter anymore. For your sake, I hope you'll change your view on this eventually. But I appreciate your honesty in expressing your belief that I should just kill myself right now. It depends hugely on what value you assign to the human mind. If you believe that humans are "just" wildlife and mere existence is the highest achievable goal, you're likely to come to the conclusion that nothing matters but procreation. But I highly doubt that you really believe this, because you're here, on HN, thinking about and debating matters that are far removed from the static archaic society whose values you ostensibly subscribe to. There are a lot of people who think that human life is more than a mere bacteria-like existence, and that its value extends beyond our biological goals and limitations. Whether you like it or not, we have long since started to explore problem spaces that could simply never be addressed with mindless biological evolution. For a few thousand years now we are in the process of out-growing our original substrate. As a civilization we're engaged in a complex struggle to eventually grow beyond an existence that is defined only by the most basic biological needs. If you can find it within yourself to identify with that struggle in some way, you may find that defining procreation as the ultimate end-all-be-all was the most bleak and unproductive premise you could possibly come up with.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    "your belief that I should just kill myself right now" My belief is that you don't have do anything, because it doesn't matter anymore. Might as well stay technically alive. "For a few thousand years now we are in the process of out-growing our original substrate" We're still not there. If we had uterine replicators, the problem we're discussing would be a non-issue. But, we don't. So it's a huge issue. We have to stay alive, and we're all dead in less than 100 years. Therefore, we have to reproduce. Surely we also have other goals, but reproduction is a sanity check on those. Maybe we can tear this chain apart one day, but we didn't yet.
    - Udo 12y ago
      > If we had uterine replicators, the problem we're discussing would be a non-issue. But, we don't. So it's a huge issue. We have to stay alive, and we're all dead in less than 100 years How can you look at this world and come to the conclusion that it's essential - and indeed the sole reason for being here - for everyone to spawn offspring? Is there an underpopulation problem I'm not aware of? Is the human race in danger of dying out? > My belief is that you don't have do anything, because it doesn't matter anymore. Might as well stay technically alive. In the light of your answer above I can't square this logically. You're asserting that my life would suddenly become meaningful again if we had "uterine replicators"?

by Udo 12y ago

guard-of-terra 12y ago

If procreation and family is not a big goal in your life, then it ain't life. Because reproduction is a defining property of "life" if you think of it. As I've added, it's actually a quarter. For women in modern society it's even less, close to 1/8 of their life. After "the ship has sailed", no choices matter anymore. Surely, you may decompose faster or slower, rot for quite some time or go out with the bang. But it's confined to your own body now, which is definitely mortal.

eurleif 12y ago
>After "the ship has sailed", no choices matter anymore. Surely, you may decompose faster or slower, rot for quite some time or go out with the bang. But it's confined to your own body now, which is definitely mortal. You're assuming the only way to influence the world is by spreading your genes. That's completely false.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  I'm assuming that the only satisfying way to influense the world is one that includes spreading your genes. And the age constaint is a huge problem here because it can ruin the whole thing even if I figure out everything else later on. You can fix many things later but not this. That's scary.
  - Udo 12y ago
    > I'm assuming that the only satisfying way to influense the world is one that includes spreading your genes. We get that, but it's an assumption that depends on your personal value system and on what you personally consider satisfying. That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population. A lot of people will agree with your basic assessment, however in this extreme form I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes. And that's not how we as a civilization see things any more, and the understanding that we have value based on who we are (instead of how many offspring we have) has been part of the general social contract since at least the enlightenment era.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      "That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population" I didn't. However I think it is true for a big part of general population and they'll face a reality check soon enough. But I talk about myself mostly. "I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes" It's a bit different. People who are still able to spawn their genes are unconditionally valuable. But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. They may be very valuable (take nobel laureates), but it's not given. Maybe not. The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. That's my opinion.
      - Udo 12y ago
        > But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. And that value is assigned conditionally by... you? It's your belief that the value of human life is restricted to its immediate usefulness? > The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. Again, I was not aware that we had a population crisis.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Udo 12y ago
> If procreation and family is not a big goal in your life, then it ain't life. [...] After "the ship has sailed", no choices matter anymore. For your sake, I hope you'll change your view on this eventually. But I appreciate your honesty in expressing your belief that I should just kill myself right now. It depends hugely on what value you assign to the human mind. If you believe that humans are "just" wildlife and mere existence is the highest achievable goal, you're likely to come to the conclusion that nothing matters but procreation. But I highly doubt that you really believe this, because you're here, on HN, thinking about and debating matters that are far removed from the static archaic society whose values you ostensibly subscribe to. There are a lot of people who think that human life is more than a mere bacteria-like existence, and that its value extends beyond our biological goals and limitations. Whether you like it or not, we have long since started to explore problem spaces that could simply never be addressed with mindless biological evolution. For a few thousand years now we are in the process of out-growing our original substrate. As a civilization we're engaged in a complex struggle to eventually grow beyond an existence that is defined only by the most basic biological needs. If you can find it within yourself to identify with that struggle in some way, you may find that defining procreation as the ultimate end-all-be-all was the most bleak and unproductive premise you could possibly come up with.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  "your belief that I should just kill myself right now" My belief is that you don't have do anything, because it doesn't matter anymore. Might as well stay technically alive. "For a few thousand years now we are in the process of out-growing our original substrate" We're still not there. If we had uterine replicators, the problem we're discussing would be a non-issue. But, we don't. So it's a huge issue. We have to stay alive, and we're all dead in less than 100 years. Therefore, we have to reproduce. Surely we also have other goals, but reproduction is a sanity check on those. Maybe we can tear this chain apart one day, but we didn't yet.
  - Udo 12y ago
    > If we had uterine replicators, the problem we're discussing would be a non-issue. But, we don't. So it's a huge issue. We have to stay alive, and we're all dead in less than 100 years How can you look at this world and come to the conclusion that it's essential - and indeed the sole reason for being here - for everyone to spawn offspring? Is there an underpopulation problem I'm not aware of? Is the human race in danger of dying out? > My belief is that you don't have do anything, because it doesn't matter anymore. Might as well stay technically alive. In the light of your answer above I can't square this logically. You're asserting that my life would suddenly become meaningful again if we had "uterine replicators"?