Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Breed or Not to Breed?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#61

Post by tharne »

mikewarot wrote: post #41
tharne wrote: post #9

These types of movements never really go anywhere, in large part because their proponents remove themselves from the genepool. It's the same reason that people having been saying for generations that religion is going to disappear, but it never actually does. Non-religious cultures tend to have below-replacement rate births while religious ones have higher birthrates. The main thing that not having children does is e…

>The main thing that not having children does is ensure a future that is full of people with very different values from yourself. The first thing you need to accept if you want to have kids, is that they will NOT live the life you want them to live, nor will they accept your values at all, unless you can convince them that your values have merit. How well have you been able to convince your friends of something? Yeah…

> The first thing you need to accept if you want to have kids, is that they will NOT live the life you want them to live, nor will they accept your values at all, unless you can convince them that your values have merit

People will do what they want, but most people end up with values fairly similar to those of their family. We tend to focus all of our attention on the differences because those are more interesting and gossip worthy. But most of us are products of our genetics and our environment to a greater extent than we'd like to admit.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#62

Post by Auracle »

confidantlake wrote: post #46
Auracle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common thing I’ve heard is people saying “I wouldn’t want to bring a baby in to THIS world,” which I think shows that we really need to do a better job teaching history. It’s literally the best time there’s ever been to bring a child in to the world. There’s no constant threat of nuclear annihilation, no giant world wars, a large portion of childhood diseases have been eradicated, the chance of the mother dying in…

There is a constant threat of nuclear annihilation. It never went away.

Sure, but we’re not constantly on the brink and teaching kids to duck and cover.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#63

Post by goodpoint »

mgamache wrote: post #60
goodpoint wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genes don't drive anything. They can give you a wide nose or red hairs but not your goals in life.

Sure they do. You think you have free will?

Please don't make things up. Genes do not determine life goals or liking maths more than physics and so on.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#64

Post by goodpoint »

rsj_hn wrote: post #59
goodpoint wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not. We don't have a "don't have kids" gene that can get outcompeted.

> This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not. To think that fertility -- one of the key issues in evolution -- would not be influenced by genetics requires a massive detachment from reality as well as lack of awareness of current knowledge about genetics and human behavior. Note that we have data on this, and a good rule of thumb is that most everything i…

You are confusing ability to have children (which has genetic components) with the decision of doing so. Then you make a mishmash of claims around other aspects. Then you cherry-pick some random articles, some of which not linked to papers from reliable journals.

Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim. E.g. that norwegians make better programmers because of some obscure genes potentially related to hand dexterity that might potentially help typing...

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#65

Post by rsj_hn »

goodpoint wrote: post #64
rsj_hn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not. To think that fertility -- one of the key issues in evolution -- would not be influenced by genetics requires a massive detachment from reality as well as lack of awareness of current knowledge about genetics and human behavior. Note that we have data on this, and a good rule of thumb is that most everything i…

You are confusing ability to have children (which has genetic components) with the decision of doing so. Then you make a mishmash of claims around other aspects. Then you cherry-pick some random articles, some of which not linked to papers from reliable journals. Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim. E.g. that norwegians make better programmers because of some obscure genes potentially…

> You are confusing ability to have children (which has genetic components) with the decision of doing so.

No, I'm not. Please re-read the sources I mentioned, as well as the text I wrote. I listed both factors and focused on the second - indeed I emphasized this point repeatedly.

> Then you cherry-pick some random articles

None of the points I raised are controversial in the literature, and the journals and textbooks I cited are quite mainstread -- e.g. Nature, NIH, etc. You are welcome to cite even a single paper. I'll wait.

> Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim.

You know what is even easier that "cherry picking" articles? Not being able to provide even a single scientific paper for any of your claims, because they have no scientific basis.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#66

Post by errcorrectcode »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I've heard this kind of commentary a lot, but I still believe it's much more of a case of "people not wanting to have kids and then giving climate change as the reason" than climate change actually being the deciding factor in not having kids. I think in most cases it's more akin to virtue signaling. The modern world, especially in the US, is quite unfriendly to having kids. Both parents have lots of other opportunit…

How to create an idiocracy and ruin the gene pool: The "smart" people worried about their "carbon footprint" or "quality of life" deciding not to have kids while the knuckle-draggers down the street have 10.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#67

Post by errcorrectcode »

Auracle wrote: post #31
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I've heard this kind of commentary a lot, but I still believe it's much more of a case of "people not wanting to have kids and then giving climate change as the reason" than climate change actually being the deciding factor in not having kids. I think in most cases it's more akin to virtue signaling. The modern world, especially in the US, is quite unfriendly to having kids. Both parents have lots of other opportunit…

A common thing I’ve heard is people saying “I wouldn’t want to bring a baby in to THIS world,” which I think shows that we really need to do a better job teaching history. It’s literally the best time there’s ever been to bring a child in to the world. There’s no constant threat of nuclear annihilation, no giant world wars, a large portion of childhood diseases have been eradicated, the chance of the mother dying in…

There's always an existential threat. That argument is for people who won't have anyone to care for them when they get old, won't have as much joy or love in their lives, and their genes will die with them. An absolutely pointless life, in my unpopular opinion, but only my opinion nonetheless.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#68

Post by errcorrectcode »

Auracle wrote: post #62
confidantlake wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a constant threat of nuclear annihilation. It never went away.

Sure, but we’re not constantly on the brink and teaching kids to duck and cover.

Duck and cover was pointless fearmongering and safety theater.

We are on the brink from numerous existential threats including, but not limited to: climate change (i.e., more extreme weather damage and deaths, desertification, regional famines, resource wars, and billions/hundreds of millions of CC refugees), asteroids, GRBs, pandemics (viral, bacteriological, and mycotic), epidemics of diabetes, CHD, and cancer, nuclear terrorism, US vs. China over Taiwan, NATO vs. Russia, mega-tsunami.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#69

Post by errcorrectcode »

rsj_hn wrote: post #59
goodpoint wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not. We don't have a "don't have kids" gene that can get outcompeted.

> This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not. To think that fertility -- one of the key issues in evolution -- would not be influenced by genetics requires a massive detachment from reality as well as lack of awareness of current knowledge about genetics and human behavior. Note that we have data on this, and a good rule of thumb is that most everything i…

Low intelligence, low income, and poor self control are associated with greater teen pregnancies and larger families. Smart, high income kids are rarely teenaged moms.

Re: To Breed or Not to Breed?

#70

Post by native_samples »

errcorrectcode wrote: post #66
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I've heard this kind of commentary a lot, but I still believe it's much more of a case of "people not wanting to have kids and then giving climate change as the reason" than climate change actually being the deciding factor in not having kids. I think in most cases it's more akin to virtue signaling. The modern world, especially in the US, is quite unfriendly to having kids. Both parents have lots of other opportunit…

How to create an idiocracy and ruin the gene pool: The "smart" people worried about their "carbon footprint" or "quality of life" deciding not to have kids while the knuckle-draggers down the street have 10.

You realize Idiocracy is based on highly controversial theories of IQ, genetics and eugenics? And that you're also using a rather laughable definition of "smart" that involves deciding not to have children because of some stuff some academics said, when they've been saying the same things for decades and have been proven wrong many times before? This is not a definition of smart I'd subscribe to.
Post reply on HN