Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Intentionally Darwining Yourself.
(Disclaimer, this is in Flamewars for a reason. If you are easily offended, please move along).
Recently both R&S rather vehemently claimed that neither of them wanted to have children. Certainly whether or not to have children is a matter of individual choice. Perhaps some might say that many people who should not have children make the choice to have them and conversely (and perhaps the case here) people who should have them, don’t.
But the point of this thread is this: if you choose not to have children, what is the difference between that choice and choosing to strap yourself in a redneck rocket and trying to fly over a canyon? The evolutionary result is the same: a dead end. I would submit to you that to choose consciously not to have children is to fail as an organism.
Look, one of the basic purposes in life is to reproduce. Everything does it. Bacteria do it. In fact, the ability to reproduce is part of the definition of life itself. If you don’t do it, everything you have to offer to the genetic pool is gone (for some, perhaps that’s a good thing).
I’m not talking about people who can’t have kids. That’s not a choice. Moreover, it’s worse if you are gifted and you choose not to have kids. From an altruistic point of you, society benefits if gifted people have kids. If you have ability, don’t Darwin yourself by deciding not to have kids.
Recently both R&S rather vehemently claimed that neither of them wanted to have children. Certainly whether or not to have children is a matter of individual choice. Perhaps some might say that many people who should not have children make the choice to have them and conversely (and perhaps the case here) people who should have them, don’t.
But the point of this thread is this: if you choose not to have children, what is the difference between that choice and choosing to strap yourself in a redneck rocket and trying to fly over a canyon? The evolutionary result is the same: a dead end. I would submit to you that to choose consciously not to have children is to fail as an organism.
Look, one of the basic purposes in life is to reproduce. Everything does it. Bacteria do it. In fact, the ability to reproduce is part of the definition of life itself. If you don’t do it, everything you have to offer to the genetic pool is gone (for some, perhaps that’s a good thing).
I’m not talking about people who can’t have kids. That’s not a choice. Moreover, it’s worse if you are gifted and you choose not to have kids. From an altruistic point of you, society benefits if gifted people have kids. If you have ability, don’t Darwin yourself by deciding not to have kids.
Comments
There are other ways to"achieve immortality" or help society. One can create a great invention, or a fantastic piece of art.
As R&S brought up, properly take care of kids can seriously hamper many activities. In the years needed to raise a son, one of them could write a program that helps solve world hunger or just designs a delicious burger made to an individual's preferences. These are important tasks that someone must solve. The more focused they can be, the better.
The humans you are creating are not even guaranteed to be as gifted as you are. Let's say you got lucky and the humans you raise are even more gifted than you are. Are you going to suggest that when they come of age they should have children instead of utilizing their gift to its fullest?
Oh, and if you think you can get married and have kids while still being a productive scientist think again.
The only solution to the problem would be one in which we produce more human beings using the genetic material from gifted members of society, but those people are not actually responsible for those children. Is that really what you prefer?
What's the point of having children to pass on a gift if nobody is ever going to use that gift?
I think the best course of action is to just keep putting our energy towards advancements in medicine. As people live longer, and stay healthier longer, they will have more time to achieve greater things. I also think that if you have siblings who choose to reproduce, that there is less of a need to reproduce to pass on your genetic material since genetic material very similar to yours is being passed on elsewhere.
I applaude Scott and Bischie for making strong arguments. However, reproduction remains an essential purpose. No matter how great you are or what you do, that should still be on the list. Hire people to raise the kid, for God's sakes. I'm sure that's what Bill Clinton did.
Scott's argument that kids are anathema to achievement is specious. Old age is anathema to achievement. So wait until you're in your late 30s or forties or hell, pull a Tony Randall and have kids in your 70s.
First, what is the end product toward which the evolutionary process is working? Surely there must be a goal. We've long since passed the point where survival is the goal. What is it now?
Second, higher intelligences have evolved past the need for the primary goal to be reproduction. Now the primary goal of homo sapiens is enlightenment. We're more than animals.
Third, if perpetuation of the species is still the main goal, then a portion of the populace MUST choose not to reproduce. All animal groups reach homeostasis. For example, when wolves reproduce too much, they run out of plentiful prey and natural factors cull the pack's population. You don't have to look any further than China to see that humans need to find ways to limit the population as well. We've gotten too smart for natural selection; now we have to do it by choice.
Of course, if I had my way, we'd limit the reproduction of humanity's worst pairings. Stupid people, genetically flawed people, and impoverished people are having too many kids. I don't see any way to rectify that view with libertarianism, though, so I'm going to let it drop.
Now a homosexual can have a kid (well theoretically) a couple of lesbian can have each one have a kid and in that way they can have each one "succeed in life". Now homosexuals can do the same thing and a couple can have each one kid of their own (there are some countries like Brazil that allows this).
However, lets say my aunt was married but she decided to divorce and now is too old to get married and have kids on their own. Well, I think it depends in cultures because she is like a second mother to me and all that she had thought me when I was a kid I will teach it to my kids because I think that is more important than genetic material.
Also even though Genetics matter to me since I study science I think that my cultural heritage is more important, I am keeping my father and mother's last name and it became by official last name here in America (two last names united by a "-" ), and If I ever have a kid it will have my big last name, and I will tell my wife that she can keep her last name if she wants and she can also give her last name to our kid.
It is crazy but that is how I am :P
If life is a game, procreation is a trivial victory point, but an essential one nonetheless. You can subcontract away all of the unpleasantries, but as Dave said, your kid will thank you for being here later. Clearly you've never played Civilization. The goal is to reach the stars. Based on your comments, you'd want the children of the best and brightest to help get us there wouldn't you?
Oh, and I believe I said "failure as an organism" not failure in life. Rym pointed out that reproduction is not essential to living (although the act involved certainly makes living more fun). Organisms need to reproduce to perpetuate the species. Finally, Jason, humans most certainly are animals, but they do not reach homeostasis.
You're full of shit. The nature/nurture debate has raged for decades amongst psychologists. Your percentages are entirely arbitrary. I subscribe to the nurture theory. Genes have a contribution, but if you are not introduced to reading/culture/computers/schooling in an appropriate manner, it doesn't matter how much genetic potential you have.
I can only hope your quip about Civilization is a joke. Manifest Destiny has never been enough for humans. Yes, I would want the best and brightest to help get me to the stars, but that's not what you're suggesting. What you're suggesting is that everyone reproduces. If everyone reproduces, then the result is a more muddled gene pool. It means that genetic weaknesses are perpetuated. It means that congenital biological defects are perpetuated. It means that mental disorders such as Down's Syndrome are perpetuated.
There are no victory points in life. There is only what you experience. There is no overarching biological imperative or score card anymore for humans. There is no fate and there is no god, so who is keeping these scores?
Now Jason, you are the first to resort to the ad hominem and I'm surprised at you. I'll grant you that you can't grow an orchid in the desert. However, when you study the lives of identical twins separated at birth, you see astonishing similarities in their lives. Frankly, if nurture worked so well then everyone could grow up to be a doctor, computer scientist or (god help them) journalist. However, we all know that's not the case. If you don't have the smarts, you can't handle the knowledge, no matter how long you go to school.
Of course not everyone reproduces, hence the humor of the Darwin awards, hence the point of my post. I'll grant you no God, I'll grant you no fate (other than genetic), but if we aren't going to the stars, then what should we do? Collectively eat a shotgun? I think not. At a base level, as organisms, we must continue to grow and spread to the stars. It's what organisms do.
So, unless our population is dying out, I think we're o.k.
Why would everyone be successful under the nurture theory? Not everyone is nurtured well, and that makes a difference. There is also the intervention of chance.
Try this -- ask an elementary school teacher which of his or her students are most successful. The answer will almost always be the students who have stable homes, live above the poverty line, and are given access to books, music, and computers. The answer will not be red heads, or people over 6 feet tall, people with upper body strength, or even people with extremely high IQs.
As for the stars, why do people constantly think that outward expansion is the ultimate accomplishment? We have yet to plumb the depths of our own oceans or psyches. We have a lot of work to do to achieve equity in our societies. We can't even agree how to run prosperous countries, let alone colonize the stars.
This is just another example of how some people seem to need something bigger than themselves. Your need for social Darwinism and manifest destiny is really no different than the primitive mind's need for god. Why can't what we have be enough? Can you read every book ever written? Watch every TV show produced? Achieve spiritual enlightenment? Capture every Pokemon? Hear every song? There is plenty to accomplish here on Terra as individuals without worrying about the species as a granfaloon.
Also, it would be a waste of good genes for me to not reproduce. Someone has to spawn the next generation of intelligent, cute and geeky girls.
After a man settles down, the testosterone level falls, as does his creative output, Kanazawa theorizes."
So really, you should feel the effects of this if you are in a long term and serious relationship regardless of whether you marry or have kids. Therefore, Rym should be screwed regardless. (Actually, this is more the case for mistresses. ^_^)
I think it's a bit more simple then that. If you’re a driven individual regardless of what you do, you’re going to probably be on the road to doing something great by 35 regardless of whether you have kids or are married. Typically, people like this wait to get married or have kids until they are in their 30's anyhow, (or are too wrapped up in their research or education to have the time). Therefore, if you’re hot shit, you’re probably on your way to making some waves right out of college. Remember though Darwin had 10 fucking kids (!!!) and Einstein was married and had a kid at 23. Not to mention Carl Sagan (Married 3 times), Stephen Jay Gould (two marriages and 4 kids), Isaac Asimov (2 kids), Norman Borlaug (who has saved more lives then anyone, got married right out of college and had two kids).
Personally, I don't care if anyone marries or has kids, but damn people like to make a lot of crazily stupid statements on this subject.
You're absolutely right. Mistakes do happen though, especially when you are thinking with the wrong head.
It is true, however, that reproducing would severely limit my personal freedom, not to mention substantially diminish my financial resources. The opportunity cost of a child is far greater than what I am willing to pay regardless of the possible long-term reward. You'll really have to back that statement up before I'll even acknowledge it. Whatever we want. The argument that choosing not to breed somehow prevents someone from being born reeks of the Beethoven Fallacy. You were born, but the infinite multitudes of variant siblings who could possibly have been created by your parents, nevermind the infinite multitudes possible with parental infidelity, were just as likely, and could make the same argument in reverse. Saying that you're glad your parents chose to have -you- is tantamount to saying that you're glad they didn't have any of those -other- children. Choosing to have zero children is statistically inseparable from choosing to have only one from your perspective, so you cannot use the fact that you exist as proper evidence that others should procreate, as nothing is lost which was not originally had. You're begging the question at every turn and ignoring the possibility of alternative utility. Come back when you have a real argument born of something other than sentiment.
And so, steps in Plan B. Unless you are a religious type and adhere to all of the pro-life/anti-contraceptive rules. Or unless, you cannot afford it. Or if you get one of the pharmacists who tries to refuse to provide it on a religious basis, which is problematic, in that the pill must be taken within 48-72 hours of the encounter.
there was a special on one of the health channels a while back about this and I will try and dig it up.
Then cropped up the Mead-Freeman debate in the 1980's, when Derek Freeman set out to debunk Mead with accusations that she was unscientific (which Boas' students were) and downright wrong. I've read some authors who state that Boas and his students had an "intellectual hegemony" over the university environment and that their emphasis on nurture over nature continued unquestioned for a good number of years. It seems in anthropology at least, and possibly in the other social sciences, there is a pendulum swing back and forth between science/positivism/objectivity/biology/nature and interpretation/humanism/subjectivity/nurture every few decades, and so we had the pendulum swinging from the 19th century social Darwinist and cultural evolutionist thinkers to Boas' rejection and cultural determinism, then from Boas to Neoevolutionists like Leslie White and the whole other cadre of positivists, then to postmodernist and feminist thinking which rejected science as a voice of colonial domination, etc etc etc. My point is that whether nature or nurture is more important goes back and forth with the times; it's a reflection of our country's social and scientific environment.
The real danger is when we reduce all human behavior to either biology OR culture. Using just one viewpoint, you're not going to be able to understand the whole picture of human behavior. There is a complex web of things, both in our biological makeup and our social circumstances, that shape how we act and why things happen. The article Scott linked to, then, falls prey to this danger. The idea that "'a single psychological mechanism' is responsible for this: the competitive edge among young men to fight for glory and gain the attention of women. That craving drives the all-important male hormone, testosterone" is sociobiology, plain and simple, and it's reductionist. There are lots of reasons men might become less productive in their scientific community once they marry, and they aren't all biological. For example, one could argue that the current scientific system is not built in a way that accomodates family men or female scientists with children. Were the system to be redesigned, could these married scientists achieve more? Isn't there an age bias also built into many professions, that could be affecting some scientific fields? There are other complex factors around this issue that need to be investigated, and attributing older men's lessened achievements to his ties with women and a family, and to testosterone, strikes me as incredibly cheap. Frankly, that study has absolutely no depth, and offers nothing insightful. It is simply using science to validate current popular beliefs.
As for the overall topic about reproduction and failing as an organism, we must remember some important points about evolution. First, evolution is NOT a competition between individuals, in which organisms fail, succeed, or win. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was not even coined by Darwin - it was penned by Herbert Spencer, a 19th century unilinealist evolutionary thinker who served as one of the inspirations for social Darwinism. "Fitness" means what percentage of genes are carried into the next generation, yes, and this can be achieved by having more children who have more children. However, fitness can also be INCLUSIVE, meaning that through altruistic behavior, such as aiding other family members, you can increase fitness because people related to you have similar or the same genes as you, and by helping them you pass your own genes along, even if you choose not to bear children yourself. This shows that one does not necessarily need to reproduce to "succeed as an organism." PWNED! (Also: check out kin selection.)
The second important thing to remember (I saw this being bandied about a few posts above,) evolution does NOT have an end-goal. There is no "perfect form" of humans that we are advancing towards, nor does evolution function to create individuals who conform to our idea of "perfect." Saying that smart, beautiful, etc people have a duty to reproduce is silly. Those may be *socially* desirable traits, but guess what - the environment doesn't give a fuck. Traits that enable people to better survive to produce more successful offspring will be selected for. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt populations to the environment as it changes. That's it. There are no "higher" forms of life. This is why social Darwinism is retarded. Anything that limits the variation of genes in the human gene pool is bad, because as the environment changes, different traits may be needed to exist in that environment. If we genetically engineer people to have traits that are socially desirable, and discourage people with "undesirable" traits from breeding, what happens if the environment changes so that the currently socially desired traits are maladaptive?
In short, the nature/nurture debate has been going on a long time, but to reduce human behavior or reality to just biology or just culture is stupid. Social Darwinists are stupid. Evolution is a thing not well-understood. Fitness is not a competition between individuals, you can refrain from having kids and still be fit according to inclusive fitness, and oh yeah - no one has the right to tell us what to do with our bodies. They're ours.