5 ms·

"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

"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
        So if we take as given that you're going to be focused on the evolutionary component, if you can no longer reproduce then walk up your family tree until you find your closest relative with progeny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        I'm not a walking set of genes. I'm a human being. What if I don't feel that my "closest relative with progeny" is in any way related to me? I don't care about inclusive fitness. Let the nature do that trick. I care about reproducing something resembling of myself. If my nearest genetic relatives don't resemble myself in any way, I don't care if they reproduce.

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
        So if we take as given that you're going to be focused on the evolutionary component, if you can no longer reproduce then walk up your family tree until you find your closest relative with progeny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        I'm not a walking set of genes. I'm a human being. What if I don't feel that my "closest relative with progeny" is in any way related to me? I don't care about inclusive fitness. Let the nature do that trick. I care about reproducing something resembling of myself. If my nearest genetic relatives don't resemble myself in any way, I don't care if they reproduce.