Discuss your Opinion!

[Vapymid]

I would argue the opposite is more egotistical ... Since I have relatives who are more than capable of continuing the line ... I do not believe that life for life sake justifies it's existence when we have billions of people on this earth.

So. Leaving it to others to deal with all the problems and resposibilities of propagating the genetic line? And that is not egotistical?

 

my existence is a byproduct of that biological impulse that we humans have to breed.

You are confusing the cause and effect here. The impulse is a byproduct of the need and purpose to exist, not the other way round. The impulse is only there because of the need to procreate.

 

I'm aware enough that I have these impulses as well and so I actively push against them so that I don't become a victim of their control.

Do you also resist the urge to breathe and eat and drink? They are also biological impulses you despise so much... But what is the justification for you to denounce something that has demostrated its worth time and time again? Why do you claim that you in your meagre couple of decades of existence is somehow wiser than the process that has managed to create your mind out of a disjointed soup of chemicals that existed billions of years ago?

 

Regards

[Heliocentrical]

So. Leaving it to others to deal with all the problems and resposibilities of propagating the genetic line? And that is not egotistical?

Or not, it's up to them whether they choose to breed or not. But most people tend to be naturally inclined to breed so there's no pressure on them to do so since that's what they want to do anyway. For me having children makes me think of how I'm dragging them down with me into this miserable existence we call life and that's why I'm hesitant. Something that I think in of itself isn't worth it. IMO If I truly care about my kids then not having them is the best option I can see for them. If I say "This person should exist because I say so" then that comes across to me as egotistical because I can't ask the person whether or not they want to exist. As far as I'm concerned there will be no decision because I will not be made to force anyone's hand.

 

You are confusing the cause and effect here. The impulse is a byproduct of the need and purpose to exist, not the other way round. The impulse is only there because of the need to procreate.

Why would you say we need to procreate? What is it about my innate biology that is worth preserving? What am I leaving for worse by not participating in procreation? There's billions of humans on Earth and they're all generic as I am with ups in downs in their respective gene pools.

 

Do you also resist the urge to breathe and eat and drink? They are also biological impulses you despise so much... But what is the justification for you to denounce something that has demostrated its worth time and time again? Why do you claim that you in your meagre couple of decades of existence is somehow wiser than the process that has managed to create your mind out of a disjointed soup of chemicals that existed billions of years ago?

 

The difference between consumption and procreation is that one's an optional impulse and other isn't. Oh sure, I might mentally torment myself by going against a biological impulse, but it won't outright kill me unlike say hunger and dehydration. I'm not saying I'm wise. I've boiled down what I believe procreation to be and that is pure impulse. If that impulse didn't exist then no one would procreate and thus humans wouldn't be around. Any sort of importance that their bloodlines may have had during their lifetimes are long gone. Now you could argue that human life is intelligent due to the industries that we've produce over the course of several hundred years and that would be one reason to procreate in order to remain relevant to those industries as those industries grow.

[Vapymid]

Your position is apriori egotistical and selfish because you posit yourself as an infdividual detached from the rest of the humanity and absolved of any responsibility and duties connecting you to it.

 

The argument that creating life is "forcing somebody's hand" is equally specious. You are just as well forcing the hand of your unborn children AND your ancestors, who no longer have an ability to influence the matter and so rely on you for continuing their genetic line - by intentionally avoiding to have an offspring. At least, when you do have children - you give them a chance to have a say in it all.

 

The main problem though is the former, as you seem to see yourself as something discrete in time and space, separate from the rest of not only humans but the earthly life as a whole.

 

In fact, though - you and every last one of us is primarily a cell, a part of a larger entity and a process. And we must play our part within our lives and also without - by ensuring the continuity and selection of our genetic lines, hence - procreation...

 

And you are wrong in trying to draw a distinction between "existential" and "non-existential" impulses. The instincts we are talking about are all existential. If you don't eat or breathe - you die. If you do not procreate, a whole chain of existence that led to the appearance of you dies.

 

Your body itself is an analogy for this. Your body is nothing but a collection of individual cells, nano-machines. The existence of you as an entity depends on the existence of your cells at any given moment but also on cellular division (procreation) as when the cells stop creating copies of themselves your organism is beginning to take damage and die.

 

Yes, there are redundancies and safeties both in your body and in the tree of life as a whole. So - one cell or one individual selfishly refusing to perform its function may not cause damage... On the other hand - it just might...

 

Regards

[Heliocentrical]

@Vapymid Okay I can kinda see where you're coming from but I still think there's a problem. So that we're on the same page let me provide an example of a larger entity that believe exists, Knowledge. What we know and tell others so that they know contributes to the grand body that is all of knowledge. If we only know one thing that no one else knows then that part of knowledge dies. But what happens if other people know that knowledge? If you subtract yourself from that equation now then your not going to affect that part. Maybe you were taught a specific way in order to obtain that knowledge but then how much does that specific way of teaching affect knowledge retention? Retention will vary from person to person but you will non the less be catering to those who retain knowledge from that particular type of teaching. But I can't really see that for the entity of procreation. Is it the combine genes of you and your partner? is that what's unique? I mean I guess so but if that's the case then we're all unique. Which would defeat the concept of being unique.

[Vapymid]

Knowledge is a subset of information. And genetic lines are pure information.

 

So, if you wish to use this for analogies, or rather for interpretation - which is absolutely valid as far as I am concerned - your genes are part of the information pool, but whether or not you pass them on makes them part of the knowledge.

 

Regards

[Heliocentrical]

Knowledge is a subset of information. And genetic lines are pure information.

 

So, if you wish to use this for analogies, or rather for interpretation - which is absolutely valid as far as I am concerned - your genes are part of the information pool, but whether or not you pass them on makes them part of the knowledge.

 

Regards

A fair conclusion that I agree with. Until I gave it context I didn't really consider that perspective of procreation. I admit, it's something that I should be more careful about rather then simply throwing the responsibility away. With that being said I've literally seen only a few women outside of my own mother IRL and my work field isn't known for it's gender diversity either. I don't know, maybe it's just my environment but women seem to be rarer then unicorns over here.

[BTGBullseye]

I've literally seen only a few women outside of my own mother IRL and my work field isn't known for it's gender diversity either. I don't know, maybe it's just my environment but women seem to be rarer then unicorns over here.

That's what socializing outside of work is for... Go to places that people with personalities you like go to, and see if you can find any of the opposite sex there. Then get progressively less picky until you are looking only for those traits you are incapable of compromising on. (for me, religion, being single, and being genetically + physically female are the only non-negotiables)

 

Find the traits you would want in a mate, and start looking for that person. (it may take a while, I haven't come across one in 11 years of searching)

[Heliocentrical]

That's what socializing outside of work is for... Go to places that people with personalities you like go to, and see if you can find any of the opposite sex there. Then get progressively less picky until you are looking only for those traits you are incapable of compromising on. (for me, religion, being single, and being genetically + physically female are the only non-negotiables)

 

Find the traits you would want in a mate, and start looking for that person. (it may take a while, I haven't come across one in 11 years of searching)

TBH I think actively looking for someone is the wrong way to go about it. IMO it seems unnaturally forced. I'd much rather casually meet someone that just so happens to click with me chemistry wise. I'm a pretty sociable person so it probably just hasn't happened yet. This isn't something that I require in order to be happy. If it happens cool, if it doesn't happen I'm fine with that too.

[BTGBullseye]

IMO it seems unnaturally forced.

Men have left their homes in search of women for millennia... Only in recent decades have they even been able to find relationships without traveling. It's a 1 in several billion chance that you'll meet the right person for you, and those odds increase the less you travel. (the more area you cover, the more likely you are to find the one for you)

 

Nobody wants to leave their comfort zone, but that's the only way to meet people you don't already know.

[Heliocentrical]

Men have left their homes in search of women for millennia... Only in recent decades have they even been able to find relationships without traveling. It's a 1 in several billion chance that you'll meet the right person for you, and those odds increase the less you travel. (the more area you cover, the more likely you are to find the one for you)

 

Nobody wants to leave their comfort zone, but that's the only way to meet people you don't already know.

Still, my interest is practically nonexistent. I'm kinda "Meh" about getting a GF. I'd rather go work on my skills and pursue other interests.

[BTGBullseye]

That's OK, just don't let it put you off the idea of meeting the person you'll want to spend the rest of your life with. (or of actively searching for her)

[Jeb_CC]

A DeviantArt poll gave me an idea for another subject!

 

Subject #25 - Would you be friends with a homophobic/racist/hateful person?

http://ari-bunnii.deviantart.com/journal/poll/5888603/

I've already posted my thoughts so I'll just copy and paste them here. ^_^

"Yes because there's a lot more to people than their negatives. A person may be racist but they might be generous, helpful, supportive. And I highly doubt a racist person would talk 100% of the time about how much they dislike other people. I'm sure there's more to them than what there seems to be.

Love people. Even the racist, the cheaters, the homophobic.

I just think; "How would I want to be treated?" And I don't want to be alone and depressed cause of one thing that's negative about me. I mean - I used to be homophobic but I've changed a LOT, and now I accept and respect homosexuals WAY more. I had friends who helped me get over that unnecessary hate. So why can't you be friends with a racist and help them get over that? Or even just accept it? Cause nobody is perfect. "

I was actually rather surprised by the poll results...

I obviously voted yes... but only 25% voted yes. Huh.

 

Ladies and gents, your thoughts?

[Heliocentrical]

# Subject 25

I agree, I have grandparents who're homophobic and I can't see myself hating them simply because of that. They're very nice people otherwise. Just slightly fearful is all.

 

I wish could give my granddad a hug and tell him "It's okay, gay people aren't scary". But sadly I know that won't happen. They're a bit stuck in their ways and I doubt me saying that will change their minds.

 

I used to be homophobic but I've changed a LOT, and now I accept and respect homosexuals WAY more. I had friends who helped me get over that unnecessary hate.

I really wouldn't sweat it. 13 yo me was exactly the same way. 13 yo me also harrassed bronies and furries because that's what 13 yos on the internet do for fun I guess. 13 yo me was also generally an unpleasant and angry individual. I'm not very proud looking back on it. But I've came to terms with it as stupid kid BS and moved on.

[Reverend_UshankaCat_]

#25

Well, I am friends with a homophobic/racist/hateful person. It's especially his racism I'm uncomfortable with, but really he seems to just hate everyone and everything. I'm still friends with him because I still have the hope that I can somehow change him. I know that deep within he is just a nice guy, going through an arsehole phase.

[Vapymid]

No person in the world is immune or selfless enough to not have some kind of prejudice, be it by race, sex, sexuality... It is in our instincts - those same instincts that make us be attracted to the opposite sex by necessity mean that we must be repulsed by homosexual encounters... The old parochial tribal instincts would mean we look at anyone different from us with immediate competitive fear and suspicion.

 

But it is what we do with these instincts that matters in the end. There are people who recognise these urges in themselves, accept them for what they are and strive to counteract them, then there are those who succumb to them but have learned to hide their feelings - for political correctness... Then there are the simplest kind - who just follow their instincts and do not know better...

 

The latter of the three - they would never be among my friends in the first place.

 

Out of the for former two... I'd rather be with the first kind... The honest kind. I'd rather my friend vented their frustration, knowing that that's what he is doing, than pretended to be an all-loving and all-caring saint but was reading Mein Kampf in the privacy of his bedroom...

 

Well, yes, some solutions to the wolrd's problems may seem deceptively simple but only the stupid really subscribe to them.

 

Regards

[AP_Pastor]

#25

I'm kinda mixed about being friends with either of the three. But if they're the kind who don't try to shove their ideals down my throat, or has a sense of humour and doesn't take the homophobia and/or racism too seriously, I guess I can give them a chance. Hateful person is another story. I wouldn't go near one.

[Heliocentrical]

Hateful person is another story. I wouldn't go near one.

If we're talking about someone who's actively cruel to everything then yeah I wouldn't either. But I don't think general misanthropy is a problem. Saying "you can all go to hell" is completely different from beating the shit out of random passers by because they hate all humans. A lot of comedians use misanthropy for comedic effect too.

[AP_Pastor]

I was thinking more of the former. Misanthropy's alright, I guess. Makes interesting characters.

[BTGBullseye]

#25, have to agree with Vapy.

[GolfClubNinja]

You also have to take into account how racist they are. From "I would not date a Jewish girl/guy" to "kill the Jews". Honesty would help, but I find no problem if they are not trying to push their agenda or actively attack people and they are more the rocking-chair-on-the-porch racist