How can you look at this world and come to the conclusion that it's essential - and indeed the sole reason for being here - for everyone to spawn offspring? Is there an underpopulation problem I'm not aware of? Is the human race in danger of dying out?
> My belief is that you don't have do anything, because it doesn't matter anymore. Might as well stay technically alive.
In the light of your answer above I can't square this logically. You're asserting that my life would suddenly become meaningful again if we had "uterine replicators"?
Actually there is. A lot of developed societies face shrinking population. And the population of young people capable of spawning offspring will decrease much faster.
And I'm not sure that undeveloped societies are capable of both "carrying the flag" and not falling into the same trap. They don't have a good record if you ask me.
"You're asserting that my life would suddenly become meaningful again if we had "uterine replicators"?"
Yes, because now you (or I) have choice to procreate. You may for some reason refuse to do it, but you can. Now, when you no longer have this choice, you're a "human minus procreation" which is less than "human".
This is bizarre, because we're talking about the same mind, doing the same things for society (or not) - it's just that in one case testicles have a function and in the other they don't. So depending on the overall state of gonads in our civilization I'm worthless now - but if we didn't need gonads, my mind would suddenly start having a value?
That is truly and epically twisted.
> Now, when you no longer have this choice, you're a "human minus procreation" which is less than "human".
Well, to be labeled subhuman by you in this context feels almost like a compliment.
So now you think that I've "labeled" 1000 - 1 to be less than 1000? So much for math.
1) help make sure those copies of your genes in others survive (help out relatives who did reproduce) - evolutionarily, this is equivalent to reproducing, if slightly attenuated;
and 2) have a lasting memetic impact.
And that's if you're focused only on the long term, which you seem to be - there's plenty more shorter term reasons to be alive.
Or how about a gene that drives non-reproductive young males to be restless, jump on a horse and ride over the horizon on a whim. Sometimes they come back, say "There's buffalo over there!" and the whole tribe benefits. That's selected for too.
That's why nuclear family is called nuclear. And today we often have "subnuclear" people without any strong bonds.
If I had a kind of clan, the situatiou would be different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule
What if I don't feel that my "closest relative with progeny" is in any way related to me?
I don't care about inclusive fitness. Let the nature do that trick. I care about reproducing something resembling of myself. If my nearest genetic relatives don't resemble myself in any way, I don't care if they reproduce.
Certainly. But then I'd say that a huge portion of what makes you you is not genetic at all, and like I said much earlier you can always pass on memes.
I can give memes to other unrelated people but I don't know whether they use those for good.
Children are safe bet in that regards (if you failed - means you just passed your failureness to them, good)
I don't see why that doesn't mean you should work harder at it. Maybe the marginal benefit is minimal, but if the marginal benefit of everything else is zero then it might still be the best option.
You might want to develop a different ideology to help you cope in that event.
The CD suggests that male fertility problems are not rare.
> Many couples struggle with infertility and seek help to become pregnant; however, it is often thought of as only a women’s condition. A CDC study analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and found that 7.5% of all sexually experienced men younger than age 45 reported seeing a fertility doctor during their lifetime—this equals 3.3–4.7 million men. Of men who sought help, 18% were diagnosed with a male-related infertility problem, including sperm or semen problems (14%) and varicocele (6%).
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.
And I can't associate with them and their offspring.
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.
> But I highly doubt that you really believe this, because you're here, on HN, thinking about and debating matters that are far removed from the static archaic society whose values you ostensibly subscribe to.
You didn't reply to it initially; I was hoping to see your thoughts on that point.
But I think we haven't got a new stable set of values either. We're literally doing the same thing to demographics as we do with oil - eating away future generations' prospects. But the same people who shun oil overusage and pollution praise demographic "overmining" and "waste".
However I really believe that I would feel dead when I strike 50 without descendants. And that's a pretty likely outcome.
My belief is that you don't have do anything, because it doesn't matter anymore. Might as well stay technically alive.
"For a few thousand years now we are in the process of out-growing our original substrate"
We're still not there. If we had uterine replicators, the problem we're discussing would be a non-issue.
But, we don't. So it's a huge issue. 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.
Maybe we can tear this chain apart one day, but we didn't yet.