08-29-2006, 02:17 PM
|
#16
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Erik wrote
If you can justify your own self-preservation, then I will hazard a guess that you do so because there is existence rather than non-existence, so you might as well exist for your time on this earth, the alternative being non-existence, where you cannot explore any justifications at all. In the same vein, you can concoct a justification for the preservation of consciousness.
|
Two notes: first, I cannot yet justify existence. I am merely holding out until I come to one decision or another.
Seond, preservation of conciousness is understandable to me. Propagation is another thing altogether.
Quote:
Erik wrote
What is the remedy for someone who has a child without a license? Jail time? The state taking the child away? The denial of tax breaks for parents with children?
|
The penalties are an interesting question -- but simply having a law would certainly force many people to evaluate the decision. Do you think this is an appropriate beginning? What happened in China? (I have never asked my Chinese friends what social views on propagation are currently.)
Quote:
Erik wrote
I am having some difficulty in voicing my views on the value of being able to make life choices without regulation. This comes down to whether we advance past the justification for self-preservation and childbirth on to the justification for pursuing happiness. I guess I could just say that I would rather experience happiness than pain, on the whole. The ability to freely choose (let's leave aside that sticky question for the moment) is an important component of my happiness. Since the decision to have children is one that commits the parents to many years of work and sacrifice, I would want to preserve the value of that choice as much as possible.
|
Wow. I am not nearly ready to say that my happiness depends on the creation of another life form. If you can honestly look at yourself and say life would not be worth living without propagation, please elaborate. This is foreign territory to me.
Quote:
Erik wrote
But I could not agree with you more about the strange feeling of watching friends of mine going about having kids without as much as a thought of the natural impulses driving them to it.
|
It's like watching someone take their dreams and run them through the garbage disposal all because some sperm and ovae want to get together and have a par-tay. And nothing I say even brings a blink to their eyes. *sigh*
|
|
|
08-29-2006, 03:44 PM
|
#17
|
Guest
|
Mike, let me respond to your original post.
I've done a lot of soul-searching about having kids, so my desire to have them is *with* a lot of second thoughts.
1. Kids are a great opportunity for a lot of love, laughs, etc.. Love, laughs, etc. are Good. QED. It's hard to duplicate the type of love kids provide in any other arena. (The same can be said for the headaches and pulling-out-of-hair that kids can provide, too. But, the love is worth the risk of the headaches, even though the headaches can be very serious).
2. Kids help to temper downside of death as personal extinction. Kids are another way in which we literally leave something of ourselves behind - kids are the original, most basic way of doing that.
|
|
|
08-29-2006, 03:53 PM
|
#18
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 644
|
Mike,
If I gave you the impression that I think my life would not be worth living without propagation, I apologize. What I was trying to argue was that, if we can defend the position that it is justifiable to increase our happiness, then I can justify the position that insuring the value of propagating as a function of happiness is itself valuable. But I do not myself view propagating as a function of my happiness.
I guess I begin with the notion that it is valuable to our happiness to have the freedom to do something or to refrain from doing something. Since the choice to have or not have children is fairly momentous, I sense that keeping it as far away from regulation or coercion has an effect on our overall happiness. I admit I have little in the way of empirical data to back this up.
I actually think a better way of going about regulating childbirth is precisely the way it has become an issue to you and me. Correct me if I am wrong, but we have come to these thoughts because we are processing what the facts of evolution are telling us. Rather than telling other humans that they can only have 1.5 children, I would prefer to instruct them on the facts of evolution. That's why I think atheism actually has a moral basis, because you can more easily process the cold hard truth; you don't have to go through the cognitive dissonance of believing life has some meaning or purpose while at the same time receiving fact after fact that confirms exactly the opposite.
The issue of whether people will actually learn is another matter for another day.
|
|
|
08-29-2006, 11:43 PM
|
#19
|
Guest
|
I think the desire to reproduce is something that naturally evolved in us. After all, those organisms which didn't want to reproduce, didn't, and their genes didn't get passed on.
However, some people might not want to reproduce. I think you can't just say it's one thing that causes this. Maybe it's an example of nature over nurture, the person's personal prefference...
I dunno, maybe a bunch of scientist and sociologists could explain this better.
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 08:12 AM
|
#20
|
Guest
|
Quote:
HeWhoAsks wrote
Mike, let me respond to your original post.
I've done a lot of soul-searching about having kids, so my desire to have them is *with* a lot of second thoughts.
1. Kids are a great opportunity for a lot of love, laughs, etc.. Love, laughs, etc. are Good. QED. It's hard to duplicate the type of love kids provide in any other arena. (The same can be said for the headaches and pulling-out-of-hair that kids can provide, too. But, the love is worth the risk of the headaches, even though the headaches can be very serious).
2. Kids help to temper downside of death as personal extinction. Kids are another way in which we literally leave something of ourselves behind - kids are the original, most basic way of doing that.
|
Interesting ideas.
Would adoption fulfill #1 above? Obviously, it leaves #2 in the cold dark dust, but certainly #1 is about the raising of the child, not the having, correct?
As for #2: I am almost positive I do not have this emotion in me. In fact, it might be the opposite. For what reason would I possibly want to leave a bit of me behind? This is my view, I'd love to hear an elaboration of your point.
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 08:19 AM
|
#21
|
Guest
|
Thanks for clarifying, Erik! I was under a false impression. Also,
Quote:
Erik wrote
If I gave you the impression that I think my life would not be worth living without propagation, I apologize. What I was trying to argue was that, if we can defend the position that it is justifiable to increase our happiness, then I can justify the position that insuring the value of propagating as a function of happiness is itself valuable. But I do not myself view propagating as a function of my happiness.
I guess I begin with the notion that it is valuable to our happiness to have the freedom to do something or to refrain from doing something. Since the choice to have or not have children is fairly momentous, I sense that keeping it as far away from regulation or coercion has an effect on our overall happiness. I admit I have little in the way of empirical data to back this up.
|
Justifying hapiness is one thing. Justifying it at the potential expense of another is a different beast altogether. Murder, for instance, is another act that has momentus consequences and affects at a base level the life of another. This act, however, has piles and piles of regulations and punishments. In neither case are you giving the choice to the other life, but in one case you're creating, the other denying. I think these are only different in kind, not in type.
Quote:
Erik wrote
I actually think a better way of going about regulating childbirth is precisely the way it has become an issue to you and me. Correct me if I am wrong, but we have come to these thoughts because we are processing what the facts of evolution are telling us. Rather than telling other humans that they can only have 1.5 children, I would prefer to instruct them on the facts of evolution. That's why I think atheism actually has a moral basis, because you can more easily process the cold hard truth; you don't have to go through the cognitive dissonance of believing life has some meaning or purpose while at the same time receiving fact after fact that confirms exactly the opposite.
The issue of whether people will actually learn is another matter for another day.
|
Well said! *round of applause*
In my own introspection, I really have to believe that atheism promotes clarity in thinking, and that's all either of us really want, I think. I don't want to prevent people from childbearing; I just want to know that they've thought it through first. This seems a remarkably difficult concept to impress on would-be parents, too!
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 08:21 AM
|
#22
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Baphomet wrote
I think the desire to reproduce is something that naturally evolved in us. After all, those organisms which didn't want to reproduce, didn't, and their genes didn't get passed on.
However, some people might not want to reproduce. I think you can't just say it's one thing that causes this. Maybe it's an example of nature over nurture, the person's personal prefference...
I dunno, maybe a bunch of scientist and sociologists could explain this better.
|
No, I think you're absolutely right. I wonder, though, why it doesn't happen more often? Why don't people, who have thoughts and foresight, choose not to have a child when their impulses say otherwise?
After all, I'd really like to steal my friend's lunch, and from a purely instinctive point of view, I might. But my rational thoughts prevent me.
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 09:00 AM
|
#23
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Mike the Kitty wrote
Quote:
Baphomet wrote
I think the desire to reproduce is something that naturally evolved in us. After all, those organisms which didn't want to reproduce, didn't, and their genes didn't get passed on.
However, some people might not want to reproduce. I think you can't just say it's one thing that causes this. Maybe it's an example of nature over nurture, the person's personal prefference...
I dunno, maybe a bunch of scientist and sociologists could explain this better.
|
No, I think you're absolutely right. I wonder, though, why it doesn't happen more often? Why don't people, who have thoughts and foresight, choose not to have a child when their impulses say otherwise?
After all, I'd really like to steal my friend's lunch, and from a purely instinctive point of view, I might. But my rational thoughts prevent me.
|
Like I said, I think there are a bunch of factors invovled. One of the nice things about how we evolved is that we aren't slaves to instinct. So while someone may be horny, they can stop themselves from commiting rape. It's an evolutionary advantage to be able to control our urges.
So not wanting to have kids isn't all that suprising if you think about it. I have to ask you though, if there was some world-wide disaster, and only a handful of people survived, would you want to have kids then? I'm just curious as to see how people who don't want kids would change their minds if the survival of the species depended on it.
I for one, only want to have one kid. But if there was aforementioned disaster did happen, I'd probably try to crank out as many as possible for the survival of the species... to repopulate the earth, that sorta thing.
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 09:17 AM
|
#24
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 644
|
Mike,
Once again, I am in complete agreement with you. Curiously enough, the thought process you are describing sometimes makes me feel like a complete outsider.
Baphomet,
I guess one of the questions I would have is whether one should have any children at all if disaster is impending. Otherwise, you risk sending your children through hell. My great uncle drew exactly this conclusion in the 1920's. He and his wife, living in Stuttgart, decided not to have children because of the terrible events they foresaw, and they didn't want their children to have to live through them. This is, IMHO, a completely defensible attitude.
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 10:01 AM
|
#25
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Baphomet wrote
I have to ask you though, if there was some world-wide disaster, and only a handful of people survived, would you want to have kids then? I'm just curious as to see how people who don't want kids would change their minds if the survival of the species depended on it.
|
I see no real forceful argument for the continuation of the human species. I don't think it is either important or necessary to have another generation.
As Erik noted, though, for some people, justifying their own survival may be akin to justifying the propagation of their kind. He may be of a different mind than me here.
|
|
|
08-30-2006, 10:15 AM
|
#26
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Mike the Kitty wrote
Quote:
Baphomet wrote
I have to ask you though, if there was some world-wide disaster, and only a handful of people survived, would you want to have kids then? I'm just curious as to see how people who don't want kids would change their minds if the survival of the species depended on it.
|
I see no real forceful argument for the continuation of the human species. I don't think it is either important or necessary to have another generation.
As Erik noted, though, for some people, justifying their own survival may be akin to justifying the propagation of their kind. He may be of a different mind than me here.
|
I kinda see the survival of our species as being important. That must be my instincts speaking. Honestly, the universe doesn't care one way or the other whether we live or die, but as far as I'm concerned, I would like humans to stick around as long as possible.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 05:43 AM
|
#27
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
I'm going to forego my usual tact and graciousness and simply criticize like a sourpuss. No offense intended.
Quote:
Rocketman wrote
Both of my children wer ehappy accidents--the first one--not so happy--but it worked out after all.
I wish I had a good answer for you. I wish I had one beforehand that made all kinds of sense and was practical and pragmatic and all of that.
But after all is said and done I only have these reasons--admittedly discovered after the fact--
1) They need me. In accepting my responsibilty for them I have discovered new a better parts of myself. I realize the foundation of altruism more keenly now because of their presence.
2) They test me. I need to consider my reactions, my worldview, my instruction before I expose them to it. It has forced me into some profound reexaminations of the kind of person I am and what I beleive.
3) They love me. The world can be cold and hard--but at the end of the day this provides me with strength.
Does this seem self serving? It is--but only in the best sense--they are in away a continuation of me--thay are an example of the best I can be. I do not make any decisions now without considering the effect that my actions may have upon them--not simply in my direct interactions withthem --but in the eefect said behaviours will ahve on me as their primary breadwinner and the male guide in their lives.
I have kids now--but it had occured to me that without them I would probably not qualify as a complete adult human being.
Not because I believe that there is anything wrong with not having them for some--but because when I examine what I was before them and what I am after them--I would ever go back.
In the final analysis it is as muc this as anything--I think I'm a good person--and becoming a better one. If good people do not have children--then who is?
|
Rocket, I read this and all's I'm hearing is 'me me me.' The "foundation of altruism" you speak of props up a mountain of narcissism. Even your admission that your "reasons" are self-serving is more egocentric hooey. A "continuation of me" indeed. Your testimonial here addresses one of the central questions asked in this thread re genetic impulse: at the end of the day, humans (and all life) are replicating machines -- self-replicating, I hasten to add.
Quote:
StillSurviving wrote
I look forward to the relationship I'll have with my children. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how many kids I want, even considering not having any. I've decided to have 2 kids. I've convinced myself that my children as raised by me and my wife will have a postive effect on the world.
Those are the basics of my decision.
|
"Convinced myself" sounds about right. Unless your offspring yields another Einstein or Mozart, any positive effect they have on the world will be negligible -- and in any case will be outweighed by the negative effects: your children are going to compete with billions of other humans for finite resources. I'm sure that you and your wife are great people, but if you really wanted to help the world, you should have adopted babies, not brought more two more to the table.
Now I'll have my coffee and turn back into kindly Dr Jekyll.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 06:12 AM
|
#28
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Mike the Kitty wrote
Quote:
HeWhoAsks wrote
1. Kids are a great opportunity for a lot of love, laughs, etc.. Love, laughs, etc. are Good. QED. It's hard to duplicate the type of love kids provide in any other arena. (The same can be said for the headaches and pulling-out-of-hair that kids can provide, too. But, the love is worth the risk of the headaches, even though the headaches can be very serious).
2. Kids help to temper downside of death as personal extinction. Kids are another way in which we literally leave something of ourselves behind - kids are the original, most basic way of doing that.
|
Interesting ideas.
Would adoption fulfill #1 above? Obviously, it leaves #2 in the cold dark dust, but certainly #1 is about the raising of the child, not the having, correct?
As for #2: I am almost positive I do not have this emotion in me. In fact, it might be the opposite. For what reason would I possibly want to leave a bit of me behind? This is my view, I'd love to hear an elaboration of your point.
|
Adoption fulfills #1 to a great extent, but I believe that there is still some small but significant difference between adoption and biological kids, perhaps based on #2.
On #2: You are literally asking for a reason, but teasing a reason out of what I think is a gut-level reaction probably means it can only be an estimation. I think it is less a reason than an emotion (which does not make it any less valid).
Having said that, allow me to press forward. It may be no more complex than we are strongly programmed by evolution to survive, and leaving a bit of oneself behind in the form of biological children allows one to survive in a basic, elemental sense.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:02 PM
|
#29
|
Guest
|
Quote:
HeWhoAsks wrote
On #2: You are literally asking for a reason, but teasing a reason out of what I think is a gut-level reaction probably means it can only be an estimation. I think it is less a reason than an emotion (which does not make it any less valid).
|
I strongly disagree here. Emotions must not be ignored, certainly. But one cannot use them as justification for an act, no matter if the emotion is considered "good" or "bad" or whatever.
All decisions and acts must be rational ones.
An instictive act is ethical by accident. A rational one by design.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 04:52 PM
|
#30
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Mike the Kitty wrote
Emotions must not be ignored, certainly. But one cannot use them as justification for an act, no matter if the emotion is considered "good" or "bad" or whatever.
All decisions and acts must be rational ones.
|
Wow, you're going to have to do a pretty exhaustive proof to justify this idea when you use the word "all." All I have to do is find one white crow, and the whole thing is caput.
To take a trivial example, if someone offers me chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and all other aspects of the situation are exactly the same whether I choose chocolate or vanilla except for the fact of the flavor being chocolate on one hand and vanilla on the other, then I can't see why an emotional decision--just based on what the hell I want at that specific time; that is, *for no reason*-- would be a problem.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.
|