Question Is your offspring's future one of your life's purpose ?

[Duo]

Actually, some bird species decided to stop flying (not really suddenly, but yet).

Hehehe, I completely forgot about chikens

Since so many other humans before you have killed other humans senselessly, is it a duty for us to go on with it?

Not quite the same thing. I meant to say is that if that the advancment of our species has come as result of procreation, the tool that our and any other species needs in order to keep surving. Every new baby born is a contribution to ensure the progress of mankind. Just imagine, 2 people who have the potential to give birth to someone that would be naturally immune to some incurable disease, or who knows, have some other special attributes, and those 2 people don't procreate because they suddenly decide not to.

I don't think, you can derive any duty from the deeds of your ancestors. It's your choice, & this choice is largely based on your instincts.

Of course i can derive a certain sense of duty. If I am who I am today, it is thanks to them, it wasn't just my parents who contributed to me being born and to my attributes of today, but also the genes that were inhereted by my ancestors. Perhaps the best quality that I posses may be something I inhereted from my great grand-father. Yeah it is my choice, I'm not saying procreate at all cost because so have done your ancestors, however, my point is that if they mated and created a child, then why shouldn't you do it ?

I noticed that I didn't answer the original question "Is your offspring's future one of your life's purpose?"
In my case: a definite no.
Whether I procreate or not would be essentially a decision of my girlfriend/wife. I'm not really interested in having descendants. If I should have some, I'd care for them until they can look after themselves. That would be it. Their future is in their own hands.

Perfect, thats your opinion, and I respect that, however, I respectuflly disagre.

Again, let my make myself clear ; I am not saying that you must procreate, that doing it is the absolute and unconditional right thing for everyone to do, that those who don't are not of any use. By all means no. I'm just saying that if you are able to conceive a child, then in a way it is a natural calling that you must fullfill.

 

[bossel]

Hehehe, I completely forgot about chikens

Er..., don't want to sound like a teacher, but, er..., chickens actually can fly. They don't do it very often & are not very good at it, but they can. I thought more of emus & such.

Every new baby born is a contribution to ensure the progress of mankind. Just imagine, 2 people who have the potential to give birth to someone that would be naturally immune to some incurable disease, or who knows, have some other special attributes, and those 2 people don't procreate because they suddenly decide not to.

Hmm, this may be the difference between an optimist & a realist (or a pessimist, just as you wish). I see the potential of progress, but it's only a potential. At the same time there is a potential for disaster. Every new baby born is also a potential new Hitler or Eva Braun.

Of course i can derive a certain sense of duty. If I am who I am today, it is thanks to them, it wasn't just my parents who contributed to me being born and to my attributes of today, but also the genes that were inhereted by my ancestors. Perhaps the best quality that I posses may be something I inhereted from my great grand-father. Yeah it is my choice, I'm not saying procreate at all cost because so have done your ancestors, however, my point is that if they mated and created a child, then why shouldn't you do it ?

You can feel a certain duty, but it does not logically derive. That's what I wanted to say. If you feel you owe your ancestors anything, then it is your own decision. People are (or at least should be) free to make that choice.

Again, let my make myself clear ; I am not saying that you must procreate, that doing it is the absolute and unconditional right thing for everyone to do, that those who don't are not of any use. By all means no. I'm just saying that if you are able to conceive a child, then in a way it is a natural calling that you must fullfill.

Disagreement is nice, this is a discussion forum. Would be quite boring if we all agreed.
But this last remark in my last post was not directed at you, it was just a general answer to the original question. Sorry if I caused confusion.

 

[bossel]

The point is: "very little". This "reality" works only on quantum levels. We live in the "macro world", we are "macro beings", which means we are subjected to our "laws of physics" in contrast to the "laws of quantum physics" which rule the "quarks world".

Just today in New Scientist is an article that there might actually be a bigger influence of the quantum world on the macro world. There is no valid proof for this yet, but obviously well enough researched for NS to publish the news.

Quote:
"Now, he has shown in a paper submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters that entanglement can explain one of the defining traits of superconductivity ? the Meissner effect, in which a magnet will levitate above a piece of superconducting material. The magnetic field induces a current in the surface of the superconductor, and this current effectively excludes the magnetic field from the interior of the material, causing the magnet to hover.

Only a current composed of entangled electrons in the superconductor can achieve this effect, Vedral says. The current halts the photons of the magnetic field after they have travelled only a short distance through the superconductor. For the normally massless photons it is as if they have suddenly entered treacle, effectively giving them a mass.

Vedral admits that the idea is still sketchy. ?Intuitively speaking, I think there must be a connection [between entanglement and mass],? he says. ?But whether we can quantify it remains unclear.?"

 

[digicross]

www.savethemales.ca

The site seems to have a nice comment about the current situation of repopulation, though it did get some details wrong. The answer is pretty straight, someone or something want us dead. So 'they' intent drive us to extinction in the name of 'progress'/'evolution'.


The novel "1984" seems to have a good commentary about the current situation back then and now.

1~2% of the population is the Inner Party = These days we would refer them as celebrities, kings, Presidents, and so on.

13% the population is the Outer Party = These days we would refer them Policemen, Firemen, the Army, and so on.

85% the population is the Proles = These days we would refer them as the average Joe or Jane.

And thank God the world is the pretty much alright, despite how mess up it look like to the people in Outer Party.



As for overpopulation destroyed the human species.

Not very likely, since before things get overpopulated, the rate of population increase will stall and then there will be a population decline, and then everything will be back to normal. And so far, I haven't seen the rate of population to be stalling in the near future.


Though of course the destruction of humans is what 'they' want, too bad for 'them' that 'they' wouldn't get it anytime soon. We will die peacefully, arigato gozaimasu, but not until we screw 'them' totally.

We would breed heavily that would leave our numbers like the stars of the heaven and the sand upon the sea shore, we will conquer the world, and no one can do nothing about it.



As for "Every new baby born is also a potential new Hitler or Eva Braun."

Great! We will have another wonderful painter or athlet! Or maybe just puppets who happened to be wonderful painters or athletes.

So what's the potential for disaster? You already mentioned the potential for progress (Adolf and Eva), what is the potential for disaster? That these two might be used as puppets to provocate their own people to fight against their own people? To solve that dillemma is easy, just eliminate or 'neutered' the puppet master.

 

[himagain]

I am very concerned that my offspring perpetuate my and their mother's genes.
But, I have very little control at this point. Whether and how my grandchildren will
Procreate is not up to me. Still, I hope.

 

[Carlos]

The genetic combinations can be as recombined by chance that our children and future descendants not resemble the father in anything, I'd rather raise a child clone of myself and put up without their mother.

 

[Balder]

Not necessarily it is the my ultimate life's purpose, but I'm going to have children to spread my genes, and maintain the existence of my ethnic group.

However I can say that yes, it's one of my life's purpose, but not the principal one.

 

[nordicwarrior]

Wrote a paper in Introduction to Philosophy class that mirrored Maciamo's same points... genetic contribution/continuation of the species via offspring/sole purpose of man to continue his or her DNA. Only got a B-. Professor must not have been a fan of this line of thinking.

I've changed my opinion since then though.

 

[LeBrok]

Three goals of every known life.

Eat, Survive, Multiply.