5 ms·

> 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 de

by 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.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        Sad thing is, I don't have a clan. I don't have a beehive, a community. So it seems that the only way for me to "keep the money in the bank" is reproduce physically. That's why nuclear family is called nuclear. And today we often have "subnuclear" people without any strong bonds. If I had a kind of clan, the situatiou would be different.
        dllthomas 12y ago

by Udo 12y ago

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.
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        Sad thing is, I don't have a clan. I don't have a beehive, a community. So it seems that the only way for me to "keep the money in the bank" is reproduce physically. That's why nuclear family is called nuclear. And today we often have "subnuclear" people without any strong bonds. If I had a kind of clan, the situatiou would be different.
        dllthomas 12y ago