Ok, this isn't a take-off on a previous discussion, here.  It's just that I'm really beginning to get a bit concerned.  It seems to be in style these days to declare that one does not want children, and quite frankly, I'm finding it rather depressing.  I've always wanted to get married and have a family, and it seems my chances are getting steadily thinner. There just seems to be so much hostility around; merely mentioning that you want kids is liable in most places to get you nasty comments, which, ironically enough, usually come from women who themselves have children.  A nice bit of hypocrisy, there, if you appreciate that sort of thing. 

I'm really hoping that this anti-child attitude is the exception rather than the rule among women today.  It is, isn't it?  Anyone?

Views: 581

Replies to This Discussion

There are several things wrong with what you're saying.

Your comparison to alpha and satellite individuals doesn't apply to our species.  You're thinking of canines and a few other groupings of pack species.  Try comparing us to other primates.  Bonobos and chimpanzees do nothing of the sort.  In fact, in many species of primates, females will specifically have sex with many males, so that none of the males know who the father of the baby is ... and they won't try to kill it.

There's evidence that our species behaved in a similar way, during our pre-agricultural period.

 

Then, you're comparing our drive to reproduce to a religious command.  You can't hold up something promoted by religion and immediately declare that the opposite must be correct, because religion is evil.

Without the religious command, we have to evaluate everything individually and develop our own morality and life values.  Some things religions promote are fine and good.  Others ... not so much.

Plus, the way you refer to anyone who has or wants to have children, using quasi-derogatory terms, all you're going to accomplish is pissing off anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

The biggest problem I have is that you're sounding sort of like a Libertarian.  You're pushing forward this idealized view of how you think the world should work.  I'm not hearing any suggestions for how we should realize your ideology.

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't be reproducing, except for our alphas.  How do we determine who that is, considering we're not a pack species that organizes under that sort of structure?

How do you propose we restrict reproduction, since our poor, under-educated religious members of society are going to keep breeding like rabbits, skewing our society in their direction?

Point by point...

If you spend even a modicum of time researching alpha individuals in any primate group you will find there is plenty. Alpha individuals DO NOT guarantee paternal exclusivity... whence the term satellite males...

As for pre-agricultural Homo sapiens... genetically, we have not significantly changed. 20,000 years is but a blip in human history. The one aspect of Homo sapiens affecting survivability which has changed, starting around 5,000 years ago is lactase persistence... a 'new' genetic variation originally occurring in Northern Europe, now spreading around the world to other human races, and occurring entirely separately among the Massai.

It's not "my view", I restrict my views to what I see evidence for in biology, through biological academia, not through pop culture. I do have issues with ideologues, such as yourself, who attempt to place non biological facts onto biology, just has religion has done for the last millenium. You should remember, debating science with a biologist is similar to atheists requesting proof of god from believers, and not the opposite. You can't just invent stuff and then say "it's biological" because it suits you.

In a strictly biological sense, humanity is WAY beyond ecologically sustainable numbers. Biologically speaking, the apex predator (humans without modern technology are but a average predator, but humans at our level of technology are THE apex predator). Many environmentalists tend to pander to humans' greed and ego and place ecological bandaids to "save the environment" that have nearly no such effect. The only effective way to regain a sustainable environment is to have less humans. I had my tubes tied when I was 30... I don't say anything I'm not willing to live up to.

How do we reduce breeding?

-UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION (versus elite access)

-REMOVE ALL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES TO REPRODUCTION (marriage and kids, in fact why not tax breeding?)

-ENDING THE RELIGION OF GROWTH (endless growth is not a sustainable dogma).

If you spend even a modicum of time researching alpha individuals in any primate group you will find there is plenty. Alpha individuals DO NOT guarantee paternal exclusivity... whence the term satellite males...

... which conflicts with what you said the first time around.  Without the alphas dominating breeding, what does this even have to do with population control?

As for pre-agricultural Homo sapiens... genetically, we have not significantly changed. 20,000 years is but a blip in human history. The one aspect of Homo sapiens affecting survivability which has changed, starting around 5,000 years ago is lactase persistence... a 'new' genetic variation originally occurring in Northern Europe, now spreading around the world to other human races, and occurring entirely separately among the Massai.

I didn't say a single thing about their genetics.  I only spoke about their behaviors.  You introducing irrelevancies ... again.

It's not "my view", I restrict my views to what I see evidence for in biology, through biological academia, not through pop culture. I do have issues with ideologues, such as yourself, who attempt to place non biological facts onto biology, just has religion has done for the last millenium. You should remember, debating science with a biologist is similar to atheists requesting proof of god from believers, and not the opposite. You can't just invent stuff and then say "it's biological" because it suits you.

And I never said a damned thing about biology.  I'm speaking about behaviors and sociology.  Stop misrepresenting me.

In a strictly biological sense, humanity is WAY beyond ecologically sustainable numbers. Biologically speaking, the apex predator (humans without modern technology are but a average predator, but humans at our level of technology are THE apex predator). Many environmentalists tend to pander to humans' greed and ego and place ecological bandaids to "save the environment" that have nearly no such effect. The only effective way to regain a sustainable environment is to have less humans. I had my tubes tied when I was 30... I don't say anything I'm not willing to live up to.

How do we reduce breeding?

-UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION (versus elite access)

-REMOVE ALL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES TO REPRODUCTION (marriage and kids, in fact why not tax breeding?)

-ENDING THE RELIGION OF GROWTH (endless growth is not a sustainable dogma).

The big problem I see remaining is that nations that don't agree to this sort of thing will then likely displace those who do.  We would need a world government to accomplish anything like what you propose.

dear me, this is why I dislike discussing biology with non scientists, sorry if it seems arrogant to you, but this really does annoy me to no end, that you claim scientific understanding of a topic, but your ideas are completely ideologically driven! :(

--Alpha/satellite: there is no conflict, the point was that NOT ALL individuals breed, and there is a lower fertility rate with this context for large mammals.

--You said: "drive to reproduce", and debated the alpha/satellite male idea, those are standard biological concepts... you reminded me of the way religious people attempt to use the word evolution muddled into their concepts of IE.  You're placing social constructs above biological/scientific reality as a guide to humanity, I corrected that. Constructs are like moralities, they only reflect ideology and are fickle. I recognise that you, as a non scientist, would be inclined to place pop culture above science when describing the realities of Homo sapiens life on earth, as a biologist, that is completely non rational to me.

--We live in the 'leading' nations of the world, we set the trends. WE are the nations refusing to sign climate agreements, WE are the nations penalising financial aid to third world countries that practice family planning, WE are the nations that force recessive economic policies on developing countries preventing them from achieving working on the three points I mentioned, WE are the nations that set the bar for growth and consumption that all other nations dream of following. If OUR nations correct our ways and stop meddling/using other countries and their resources, MAYBE we'd have a chance to turn the tides of ecosystemic decay.

I'm late to the discussion but on the few dating websites I'be been on, some women do write in their profiles that they do not want children, a few write that they do want, and many remain silent about whether they want children. I believe there is an unspoken taboo against saying anything about children until you have known a woman for a very long time. I wouldn't mind having a kid, although right now I believe my ideal number of children to have is just one. A long time ago I used to say I was looking for a girl to have my kid, in profiles on websites. Then I learned to remain silent about children. Now I would feel stupid about saying anything about having children to any girl I might meet and to me the topic feels effeminate and embarrassingly seriously. There was also a time when I was around 17 or 18 -23 when I told my parents and certain older people that I never wanted to have children and, while they weren't angry at all, they didn't congratulate me for "making" a good decision either. I think they were just unhappy at me for thinking I could perdict what I would want years from then. I think there are women who do want children, but, for some reason, when you mention it too early in the relationship, they don't change whether they do or don't want children, but suddenly they don't want you to be their kid's father...

Indeed females say that... and then they (we, not me) go ahead go ahead and date "bad boys" and domestic abusers.

IMO, we live in a world of great solitude and isolation, and people get desperate, and will hitch up with anything that's fun in bed. Female marriage/breeding choices depress me to no end. When the sex is good, there is a chemistry that happens, that overcomes our rational side (I've fallen for completely incompatible partners, but since I don't want to breed, I have no reason to misrepresent myself, no ulterior motive but some fun and companionship, so the sexy choices don't turn into bad life choices).


I'll take one of my good friends in example: she'd had 2 abortions, had known many men, was pretty convinced she'd never breed... then she met this egotistical man, who'd bred with two previous females, and left them both. She accidentally got pregnant with this guy, he told her he was willing to be the daddy... so she went ahead and continued the pregnancy. He stayed with her til month 6 of the pregnancy, then left (surprise? ha! people do not change). The kid is turning out to be a catastrophy. I blame her more than him. He lied, everybody lies... she was gullible enough to believe him. The buck stops there.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
6 minutes ago
Plinius commented on Daniel W's group Food!
8 minutes ago
Patricia liked Todd Crispin's profile
21 minutes ago
Deidre posted a status
"“It is every man’s obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it.” ~Albert Einstein"
1 hour ago
Deidre commented on Todd Crispin's status
1 hour ago
Loren Miller replied to Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin liked Donald R Barbera's blog post In the Closet (Part 3 Homosexuality)
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin liked Donald R Barbera's blog post What Does Science Say (Part 4 & 5 Homosexuals)
2 hours ago
David Joseph Hoebeeck replied to Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin posted a status
"lol...spelled my name wrong...wow.. I am not very good at this stuff.."
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin updated their profile
2 hours ago
Neanderthal Man replied to Marie Walewska's discussion Veena Malik sentenced to 26 years in jail for blasphemy in the group Les Athées Napoléonienne
2 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service