4 ms·

"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 tech

"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"?
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  "Is there an underpopulation problem I'm not aware of?" Actually there is. A lot of developed societies face shrinking population. And the population of young people capable of spawning offspring will decrease much faster. And I'm not sure that undeveloped societies are capable of both "carrying the flag" and not falling into the same trap. They don't have a good record if you ask me. "You're asserting that my life would suddenly become meaningful again if we had "uterine replicators"?" Yes, because now you (or I) have choice to procreate. You may for some reason refuse to do it, but you can. Now, when you no longer have this choice, you're a "human minus procreation" which is less than "human".
  - Udo 12y ago
    > Yes, because now you (or I) have choice to procreate. This is bizarre, because we're talking about the same mind, doing the same things for society (or not) - it's just that in one case testicles have a function and in the other they don't. So depending on the overall state of gonads in our civilization I'm worthless now - but if we didn't need gonads, my mind would suddenly start having a value? That is truly and epically twisted. > Now, when you no longer have this choice, you're a "human minus procreation" which is less than "human". Well, to be labeled subhuman by you in this context feels almost like a compliment.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      I'm not saying that you're worthless. I'm just not sure you're alive by strict standards. I'm not sure I will be - in fifteen years. So now you think that I've "labeled" 1000 - 1 to be less than 1000? So much for math.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Even without passing on your own genes directly, you can: 1) help make sure those copies of your genes in others survive (help out relatives who did reproduce) - evolutionarily, this is equivalent to reproducing, if slightly attenuated; and 2) have a lasting memetic impact. And that's if you're focused only on the long term, which you seem to be - there's plenty more shorter term reasons to be alive.
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Just to chase down this train of thought a little more: there are lots of ways to benefit your clan (and therefore some of your genes) without reproducing. Look at bees and termites, where the vast majority of them never reproduce, yet the queen is driven to produce them because they help the colony survive. That's selection too. Or how about a gene that drives non-reproductive young males to be restless, jump on a horse and ride over the horizon on a whim. Sometimes they come back, say "There's buffalo over there!" and the whole tribe benefits. That's selected for too.
bradleysmith 12y ago
>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. You're discounting the value of information that people can leave, separate to their DNA chain. A great many scientists, artists, philosophers, etc. bore no children. They still expressed a change in the behaviors, ideas, and lives of a great many people after them. Actually, one might argue they are, by and large, more effective at continuity of their own goals. How many children have you seen carry on the worldviews and goals of their parents? Even throughout history? Yes, we need SOMEONE to reproduce or there won't be anyone to read the damned work. But, the work is still there, unto itself, after it's author has passed away. tl;dr: The production of children is not the only way affect the Universe after your death as a human.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  I personally do not trust that kind of "SOMEONE" we have that they'll produce and nourish the offspring capable of "carrying the banner". And I can't associate with them and their offspring.
  - bradleysmith 12y ago
    That's a valid pursuit, and I think it noble of you. Your associations are your own, and I don't intend to suggest they be any particular way at all. Still, your point doesn't take away from those non-SOMEONE's that do not bear children, and the net impact they have left on humanity and the Universe. I can't believe that Leonardo DaVinci, Michelangelo, and so many other contributors to the works of humanity that had no children were "lives wasted" for their lack of reproduction.
viewer5 12y ago
Udo said this: > 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. You didn't reply to it initially; I was hoping to see your thoughts on that point.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  No, I don't subscribe to the values of a "static archaic society". I think those values are self-defeating bullshit. But I think we haven't got a new stable set of values either. We're literally doing the same thing to demographics as we do with oil - eating away future generations' prospects. But the same people who shun oil overusage and pollution praise demographic "overmining" and "waste". However I really believe that I would feel dead when I strike 50 without descendants. And that's a pretty likely outcome.

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"?

guard-of-terra 12y ago
"Is there an underpopulation problem I'm not aware of?" Actually there is. A lot of developed societies face shrinking population. And the population of young people capable of spawning offspring will decrease much faster. And I'm not sure that undeveloped societies are capable of both "carrying the flag" and not falling into the same trap. They don't have a good record if you ask me. "You're asserting that my life would suddenly become meaningful again if we had "uterine replicators"?" Yes, because now you (or I) have choice to procreate. You may for some reason refuse to do it, but you can. Now, when you no longer have this choice, you're a "human minus procreation" which is less than "human".
- Udo 12y ago
  > Yes, because now you (or I) have choice to procreate. This is bizarre, because we're talking about the same mind, doing the same things for society (or not) - it's just that in one case testicles have a function and in the other they don't. So depending on the overall state of gonads in our civilization I'm worthless now - but if we didn't need gonads, my mind would suddenly start having a value? That is truly and epically twisted. > Now, when you no longer have this choice, you're a "human minus procreation" which is less than "human". Well, to be labeled subhuman by you in this context feels almost like a compliment.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    I'm not saying that you're worthless. I'm just not sure you're alive by strict standards. I'm not sure I will be - in fifteen years. So now you think that I've "labeled" 1000 - 1 to be less than 1000? So much for math.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Even without passing on your own genes directly, you can: 1) help make sure those copies of your genes in others survive (help out relatives who did reproduce) - evolutionarily, this is equivalent to reproducing, if slightly attenuated; and 2) have a lasting memetic impact. And that's if you're focused only on the long term, which you seem to be - there's plenty more shorter term reasons to be alive.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Just to chase down this train of thought a little more: there are lots of ways to benefit your clan (and therefore some of your genes) without reproducing. Look at bees and termites, where the vast majority of them never reproduce, yet the queen is driven to produce them because they help the colony survive. That's selection too. Or how about a gene that drives non-reproductive young males to be restless, jump on a horse and ride over the horizon on a whim. Sometimes they come back, say "There's buffalo over there!" and the whole tribe benefits. That's selected for too.

bradleysmith 12y ago

>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. You're discounting the value of information that people can leave, separate to their DNA chain. A great many scientists, artists, philosophers, etc. bore no children. They still expressed a change in the behaviors, ideas, and lives of a great many people after them. Actually, one might argue they are, by and large, more effective at continuity of their own goals. How many children have you seen carry on the worldviews and goals of their parents? Even throughout history? Yes, we need SOMEONE to reproduce or there won't be anyone to read the damned work. But, the work is still there, unto itself, after it's author has passed away. tl;dr: The production of children is not the only way affect the Universe after your death as a human.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
I personally do not trust that kind of "SOMEONE" we have that they'll produce and nourish the offspring capable of "carrying the banner". And I can't associate with them and their offspring.
- bradleysmith 12y ago
  That's a valid pursuit, and I think it noble of you. Your associations are your own, and I don't intend to suggest they be any particular way at all. Still, your point doesn't take away from those non-SOMEONE's that do not bear children, and the net impact they have left on humanity and the Universe. I can't believe that Leonardo DaVinci, Michelangelo, and so many other contributors to the works of humanity that had no children were "lives wasted" for their lack of reproduction.

viewer5 12y ago

Udo said this: > 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. You didn't reply to it initially; I was hoping to see your thoughts on that point.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
No, I don't subscribe to the values of a "static archaic society". I think those values are self-defeating bullshit. But I think we haven't got a new stable set of values either. We're literally doing the same thing to demographics as we do with oil - eating away future generations' prospects. But the same people who shun oil overusage and pollution praise demographic "overmining" and "waste". However I really believe that I would feel dead when I strike 50 without descendants. And that's a pretty likely outcome.