this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
73 points (86.9% liked)
Asklemmy
42480 readers
1709 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about my understanding of evolution is incorrect, and how do you see natural selection working in present humans? Very possible that Dunning-Kruger is at play, but we may have to agree to disagree as to where...
I'll get back to you on that. Seriously, I just don't have time rn but I'll edit this when I have a chance within the next 24 hrs. The second half of your question is particularly difficult to answer.
Ok I just accidentally wiped my entire edit before saving. Fuck that, I'm not writing all that again. God damn it that was such a good response too. Sorry.
I'm sure it was better than Darwin
It'd be wasted on you, as my previous insights have been. But yeah, evolution doesn't exist, genetics don't exist, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.
There's nothing different between me and LeBron James, I'm just not trying hard enough to dunk π . If only I made the choice to dunk the basketball, independently of the fact that my ancestors are not particularly tall. But my ancestors are irrelevant, as you've clearly asserted.