• Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Having kids, that is the only way my genes can live on. But even having step or adopted kids is preferable.

    It just brings so much joy as nothing else.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s not our genes that he cares about. It’s his genes.

        For me personally, I feel that I am inherently good, humanity is inherently good, and I just want to pass the torch to the next generation and see how far they can carry it. We’re currently in a bit of a slump as a species, but I believe that everything will turn out alright in the end and I’d like for my descendants to be around to enjoy and indeed contribute to it.

        • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Why does it matter if they’re your descendants or others’? My 16 great great grandparents are as much strangers to me as any other 16 people walking around 100 years ago. And everyone here now is in the same place, whoever they came from. Not like I’ll be alive to (or would do so in any case) take pride in saying 'ooh those 12 people have something to do with me if you go back far enough"

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Why wouldn’t it matter? If your family doesn’t matter to you, what does?

            'ooh those 12 people have something to do with me if you go back far enough"

            It’s not about that, it’s that those 12 people won’t ever exist if I never have any kids. They have everything to do with me, because without me, they wouldn’t be alive. And I also think the world will be a better place if they do exist.

            • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I think that’s pure conjecture about how having kids affects the world. And the nature, worthiness, or value of those 12 people has nothing to do with whether or not you happen to personally be their ancestor. There’s nothing different or more special about one person’s progeny than another, so who cares if it’s your kids or 8 billion other people. The idea that that is important in the future is all about making yourself important in the present.

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                There’s nothing different or more special about one person’s progeny than another

                How do you figure that? Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? How do you think we got to the point where I’m communicating to you through a global communication network? Dumb luck?

                We are as important to future generations as past generations are to us. If previous human beings hadn’t done everything they did, we wouldn’t be here now. Likewise, everything that we do in the present has a rippling effect for the rest of human history. Having kids allows you to have a little more direct input on what kind of ripples you leave behind.

                • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  My point is not that previous people haven’t done significant things, it’s that they did those things independently of who one of their many ancestors happened to be. Much like an actual ripple, the larger the pond, the less likely any disturbance is to reach the shore, and the more likely it is to be quickly lost to the natural turbulence of any body of water.

                  If your evidence against that is the existence of significant inventions, there are very few, if any, that wouldn’t have been invented by someone else within years. No major invention or discovery, from the light bulb to relativity, has been made while others weren’t working on the same problem and making similar, if slightly slower, progress.

                  That’s why they say necessity is the mother of invention, not a person or an institution or anything that could be credited to a single creator.

                  And if you think humans are still evolving according to selection pressure the way that other species have/do, you just don’t understand how evolution actually works. The moment we gained self awareness and created social structures, we drifted so far from biological evolution that it’s an entirely moot point in terms of future generations. The least adaptive of us now, on average, still lives through the entirety of our birthing/fertile years, while significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed. Neither of those are the case with humans.

                  Ultimately, having kids to ensure your own legacy is possibly the most selfish reason you could create someone and thrust them into 80 years of what should be their own life.

                  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I don’t believe that anyone truly acts independently. We are all products of our environment, of which our ancestors comprise a significant portion. I don’t believe in free will.

                    Your contention regarding inventions is wrong, but irrelevant anyway. I understand that it’s nearly impossible to discuss this topic objectively without allowing your personal emotions to bleed into it, so I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve already made my points but you don’t seem to understand at all.

                    significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed.

                    And I don’t understand evolution? Wow. I think it’s possible you may be suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m just a vehicle to my genes which they use to travel to the future. They only can travel when they have a suitable host who can reproduce them and can make sure that the next version has the best chances to reproduce again. So over time natural selection optimized for the vehicles to want to reproduce. Everyone who didn’t have the desire to have kids in the past has none (other than rape victims) to move their genes forward.

        Anyway this is a extreme oversimplification of the whole idea of The Selfish Gene