I think everyone is forgetting something pretty important. Women. When that biological clock starts to tick. And she wants a child. What are you going to do then? You could stall for awhile I guess and even try to dissuade her. But if you really love that person you aren't going to just cut and run. You will be having them babies.
Dammit, I get my computer up and running to come in at the tail end of an evolution-oriented flamewar. Awesome.
Uglyfred: Awesome argument. Technically, any organism's social construct is the result of underlying genetics, in that the capacity for the social interaction is genetically coded. How it finally winds up going depends on interactions with other organisms in that same social structure, and its surrounding environment. Basically, development and evolution can also be spurred on by biotic factors in addition to abiotic ones. But, yes, it is wrong to consider only genetics or only sociology as the answer to every problem human civilization may encounter.
The concept of evolution having a "point" is totally wrong. That's a more classical Lamarckian view of evolution, and was summarily dispatched with the advent of the modern synthesis of evolution. Think of evolution not as a process but as a result of a process. It's a phenomenon that is observed, whose major active mechanism is natural selection: the non-intelligent non-random selection of randomly occuring traits. Evolution is reactionary, not pre-determined, and is more of a result than a process.
Saying that smart, beautiful, etc people have a duty to reproduce is silly.
I haven't read this board in a few days because I've been pretty sick. Many, many members of my family have the same condition. When I think about having a child, I have to think about saddling him/her with this. Does having this mean I'm defective? Maybe I'm not as smart or beautiful as some people? Maybe I don't have the same obligation to reproduce since I'm not so special. Maybe my family line should've been exterminated a few generations back, huh?
Maybe the people who think they're so special they have a duty to reproduce should stop and consider whether their self-congratulatory assessment of themselves is based on vanity, arrogance, and hubris. I've never met or heard of anyone whose genes are so precious they can't be lost.
Lots of famous people who are generally thought to be "special" in one way or another had children. What are they remembered for, if anything? What did Mozart's kid do? How about Einstein's kids? Washington's? Lincoln's? Churchill's? Carole and I have seen many kids go through the juvenile justice system that have had no trace of the talents of their parents. Our experiences with juvenile justice have made us pretty happy we don't have kids.
Whatever. It's moot for me because Carole had a tumor on one of her ovaries a few years back and had to have a hysterectomy. If I didn't have my physical problems, and I thought I was as special as the people who think they have an obligation to reproduce, should I have divorced her?
No. I'm dead serious. Watch her shows. She's hot. I'm usually attracted to women who are not necessarily considered very attractive. The more conventionally attractive of my admired women would be Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham Carter, Bernadette Peters, Gillian Anderson, Katherine Hepburn, and Dew Barrymore. All of whom pale before Nina Totenberg.
Comments
All this being said, I suspect that the truly selfish or egocentric will make sure that their genes are directly and unequivocally passed on.
And Jason, Raquel Welch is teh hotness.
I don't forsee this to be a concern in my own life.
Uglyfred: Awesome argument. Technically, any organism's social construct is the result of underlying genetics, in that the capacity for the social interaction is genetically coded. How it finally winds up going depends on interactions with other organisms in that same social structure, and its surrounding environment. Basically, development and evolution can also be spurred on by biotic factors in addition to abiotic ones. But, yes, it is wrong to consider only genetics or only sociology as the answer to every problem human civilization may encounter.
The concept of evolution having a "point" is totally wrong. That's a more classical Lamarckian view of evolution, and was summarily dispatched with the advent of the modern synthesis of evolution. Think of evolution not as a process but as a result of a process. It's a phenomenon that is observed, whose major active mechanism is natural selection: the non-intelligent non-random selection of randomly occuring traits. Evolution is reactionary, not pre-determined, and is more of a result than a process.
Yeah, that's all. Uglyfred basically said it all.
Maybe the people who think they're so special they have a duty to reproduce should stop and consider whether their self-congratulatory assessment of themselves is based on vanity, arrogance, and hubris. I've never met or heard of anyone whose genes are so precious they can't be lost.
Lots of famous people who are generally thought to be "special" in one way or another had children. What are they remembered for, if anything? What did Mozart's kid do? How about Einstein's kids? Washington's? Lincoln's? Churchill's? Carole and I have seen many kids go through the juvenile justice system that have had no trace of the talents of their parents. Our experiences with juvenile justice have made us pretty happy we don't have kids.
Whatever. It's moot for me because Carole had a tumor on one of her ovaries a few years back and had to have a hysterectomy. If I didn't have my physical problems, and I thought I was as special as the people who think they have an obligation to reproduce, should I have divorced her? You know who's hot? Gwen Ifill.
I'm usually attracted to women who are not necessarily considered very attractive. The more conventionally attractive of my admired women would be Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham Carter, Bernadette Peters, Gillian Anderson, Katherine Hepburn, and Dew Barrymore. All of whom pale before Nina Totenberg.