3 ms·
>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 sanit
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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.