• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should childless couples be considered inferior?

Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  • Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody

    Votes: 105 74.5%
  • Not if they have reproductive problems.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • They should get a medal for lowering world population.

    Votes: 20 14.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 6.4%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    141
Great, then you won't be disappointed. I will NOT change my mind, and I don't WANT a baby. Nor do I want a husband. I enjoy my life of freedom far too much to give it up for either marriage or motherhood.

Can't you just be straight forward enough to say "no, I will not acknowledge that there is a really slim possibility albeit with a extremely high improbability, change of changing my mind and even should I do so, I'd never admit here that I did."? Or even "Yes if that 1 in 52853 qunitatrillion raised to the 6 billionth power chance should ever occur, I'd be honest enough to admit I was wrong."?
 
I'm shocked SM..why ever did you make such a decision at such an early age??

I was a lot younger than SM when I decided to not have children.....unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a tubal due to my age and the fact I don't have kids. I have never regretted my choice to be childfree.
 
Can't you just be straight forward enough to say "no, I will not acknowledge that there is a really slim possibility albeit with a extremely high improbability, change of changing my mind and even should I do so, I'd never admit here that I did."?

Why is it so important to you that I answer the question YOUR way?

I have said more than once that there is NO chance that I will ever "meet someone who could change my mind" about being childfree or about marriage either, for that matter. Obviously, for some reason that is beyond me, my answer isn't enough for you. Well, as I also said before, that isn't my problem. Since I enjoy my life much more BECAUSE I'm single and childfree, there is NO guy out there who could ever make me want to change it. ANY guy who tried pressuring me into marriage OR motherhood will be dumped immediately.

The way I see it, the single/childfree life is paradise, marriage/motherhood would be misery, for me anyway. I have no desire or intention to trade paradise for misery.
 
There is nothing rational about this weird form of social darwinism promoted by people who know nothing about sociology or anthropology.
I read about evolution, animal behavior (humans are animals), and game theory. I tend to look at evolution from Dawkins' perspective, which is based on gene survival and includes individual actions, social actions, and the physical characteristics of the "meat machines" used for transporting and copying genes. There is a genetic basis for animal behavior and anyone who denies that doesn't know much about evolution. For example, many animals risk their own survival to warn others in their group of a predator. That isn't "social Darwinism" or "altruism", it's gene survival - because when virtually the entire population has this trait, the genes (individuals) in it tend to survive better than the population that doesn't have this trait. This natural selection extends to many, many kinds of behavior, including the social pressures we've talked about here. Again, it isn't "social Darwinism", altruism, or any of a number of other misnomers for this kind of behavior. It's simply natural selection at work.


And just an FYI - one of my sisters has never been married or had children and is well over 60 at this point. I have no problem with her life choices at all and never have had. I guess the next time we talk I'll have to broach this subject with her. We've never talked about it because, quite frankly, it's none of my business how anyone's lives their life as long as it's not overtly harmful to me.
 
Last edited:
I read about evolution, animal behavior (humans are animals), and game theory. I tend to look at evolution from Dawkins' perspective, which is based on gene survival and includes individual actions, social actions, and the physical characteristics of the "meat machines" used for transporting and copying genes. There is a genetic basis for animal behavior and anyone who denies that doesn't know much about evolution. For example, many animals risk their own survival to warn others in their group of a predator. That isn't "social Darwinism" or "altruism", it's gene survival - because when virtually the entire population has this trait, the genes (individuals) in it tend to survive better than the population that doesn't have this trait. This natural selection extends to many, many kinds of behavior, including the social pressures we've talked about here. Again, it isn't "social Darwinism", altruism, or any of a number of other misnomers for this kind of behavior. It's simply natural selection at work.


And just an FYI - one of my sisters has never been married or had children and is well over 60 at this point. I have no problem with her life choices at all and never have had. I guess the next time we talk I'll have to broach this subject with her. We've never talked about it because, quite frankly, it's none of my business how anyone's lives their life as long as it's not overtly harmful to me.

Obviously humans are animals, and our instincts control our behavior as a matter of simple default. I might even accept that this is the level the majority of people operate at the majority of the time.

But you can't simply ignore the other things our high intellects compel us to do. You can't compare us apples-to-apples with any other animal, because none come close to our brain structure. The closest is probably dolphins, and if you take a good look at them, you'll see they display some of the same evolutionarily meaningless behavior that we do, although not to the same extent.

Humans -- some of them, anyway -- spend a great deal of their time doing things that have nothing to do with tribe survival altruism, reproduction, or self-preservation. Why do we make art? Why do we learn about the distant cosmos when, at least at first blush, we have no reason to believe this has any affect on us? Why do we do things for the sake of mental intrigue that are overtly risky to our lives, and don't offer any survival benefit to our "tribe"?

Because we're just not that simple. You can't think of humans as though we just go into heat.

We've got mental energy to burn, and we burn it in all kinds of ways that offer us nothing on the level of the selfish gene. Hell, half the point of trying to make life so easy for ourselves is to give us more time to do these evolutionarily meaningless things.

And I might also note that Dawkins knows nothing about sociology. It is not his field of expertise, and he is not qualified to speak about it. He is also exceptionally poor at philosophy, and listening to him debate the religious on that level is embarrassing to me -- and I'm an atheist who agrees with him.

Just because Dawkins is famous and is qualified in the field he actually knows something about (biology) does not make him an authority on all things. He is extremely ignorant about a great many subjects, regardless of how much he talks about them.

But even ignoring all that, if you want to think of humans in such a simplistic way, the childfree serve a very clear purpose for the same reason altruism does. We spend much more of our lives working, and often working in very challenging and humanitarian fields. And if your argument were true, we would be appreciated by society for the same reason altruism is. The purpose we serve "the tribe" is quite obvious, even if it doesn't benefit our own genes.

And yet, we are not. And we are especially maligned in societies that still suffer a lot of sexual repression and misogyny. Gee, what a coincidence.
 
Last edited:
And I might also note that Dawkins knows nothing about sociology. It is not his field of expertise, and he is not qualified to speak about it.

The problem is that this leaves almost no one who can claim to know sociology because most sociologists are neo-luddites who don't acknowledge the role of genetics in their field of study and so don't design their studies to account for genetic/biological confounds.

They certainly THINK they know something, but they don't ACTUALLY know squat. They may as well be witch-doctors.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

A big fat NO! You may have an inferior education compared to another, a lower rank in the military, or an underling with a menial job position with many superiors above you but to be childless has nothing to do with being inferior IMO.
 
Obviously humans are animals, and our instincts control our behavior as a matter of simple default. I might even accept that this is the level the majority of people operate at the majority of the time.

But you can't simply ignore the other things our high intellects compel us to do. You can't compare us apples-to-apples with any other animal, because none come close to our brain structure. The closest is probably dolphins, and if you take a good look at them, you'll see they display some of the same evolutionarily meaningless behavior that we do, although not to the same extent.

Humans -- some of them, anyway -- spend a great deal of their time doing things that have nothing to do with tribe survival altruism, reproduction, or self-preservation. Why do we make art? Why do we learn about the distant cosmos when, at least at first blush, we have no reason to believe this has any affect on us? Why do we do things for the sake of mental intrigue that are overtly risky to our lives, and don't offer any survival benefit to our "tribe"?
Art is another form of (semi-permanent) communication like writing. The advantages of communication and writing are obvious.

We learn about everything and try to rationalize the world because the genes that push us that way are almost constantly reinforced. Our tool making ability helps us a lot in this area.

"Overly risky" behavior - depending on what you mean by that - is almost all a product of the modern age. We're built for an environment that's dangerous. There are medical clues and problems showing up more and more that our safe, sedate, overly clean lifestyle is killing us.


Because we're just not that simple. You can't think of humans as though we just go into heat.
Many animals never go into heat so I don't know where you're going with that thought.


Basic human behavior is that simple. At the bottom of it all is a biological mechanism that pushes us this way or that way. We are our biological history and our genes. You seem to believe we're transcendental/metaphysical. I don't.



We've got mental energy to burn, and we burn it in all kinds of ways that offer us nothing on the level of the selfish gene. Hell, half the point of trying to make life so easy for ourselves is to give us more time to do these evolutionarily meaningless things.
We "make life easy" because we're programmed to do so. As I noted above, we've taken it to such an extreme it's become harmful in many ways. Evolution isn't some guided action leading from here to there. Every organism on the planet is saddled with it's genetic history and sometimes that leads to lethal consequences. In time, those genes that survive our new environment will dominate, just as lactose tolerance is now common to most Europeans and their descendants.


And I might also note that Dawkins knows nothing about sociology. It is not his field of expertise, and he is not qualified to speak about it. He is also exceptionally poor at philosophy, and listening to him debate the religious on that level is embarrassing to me -- and I'm an atheist who agrees with him.

Just because Dawkins is famous and is qualified in the field he actually knows something about (biology) does not make him an authority on all things. He is extremely ignorant about a great many subjects, regardless of how much he talks about them.
I didn't take any of Dawkins' non-biological teachings into account. I've never read any of his other books. The extended phenotype is a biological concept and, as you've noted, biology is his specialty. The same idea that promotes the screening of genes for "better" dam building in a beaver is the same one that screens for social behaviors in humans and many other animals.


But even ignoring all that, if you want to think of humans in such a simplistic way, the childfree serve a very clear purpose for the same reason altruism does. We spend much more of our lives working, and often working in very challenging and humanitarian fields. And if your argument were true, we would be appreciated by society for the same reason altruism is. The purpose we serve "the tribe" is quite obvious, even if it doesn't benefit our own genes.

And yet, we are not. And we are especially maligned in societies that still suffer a lot of sexual repression and misogyny. Gee, what a coincidence.
Altruism doesn't exist. It's an illusion made up by people who didn't understand evolution and it's been perpetuated by ignorance.


Again, you're trying to rationalize something that I've already said isn't rational. Social behavior in general isn't rational. But people's attitudes on most subjects of this nature aren't rational at all or we wouldn't have the issues we do with other, non-survival behaviors. Why should you care if the girl next door kills herself or the guy next door gets his kicks sucking ****? Rationally, neither situation is any of your damn business but it doesn't stop such behavior from being "frowned upon" (to say the least) by a huge portion of the population. That's just the way life is, like it or not. Social behavior never has been rational and I honestly doubt it ever will be. The best we can hope for is that future generations are better grounded in tolerance, which is rationally accepting (as opposed to deriding) behavior you don't like.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that this leaves almost no one who can claim to know sociology because most sociologists are neo-luddites who don't acknowledge the role of genetics in their field of study and so don't design their studies to account for genetic/biological confounds.

They certainly THINK they know something, but they don't ACTUALLY know squat. They may as well be witch-doctors.

Um, you don't design studies -- in ANY field -- to pre-emptively tell you something you want to hear. That defeats the entire point. So if sociological studies and surveys come to a conclusion that doesn't lend itself to over-simplification based on an entirely different field of science, that isn't science's fault. It means the over-simplifier is wrong.
 
Art is another form of (semi-permanent) communication like writing. The advantages of communication and writing are obvious.

We learn about everything and try to rationalize the world because the genes that push us that way are almost constantly reinforced. Our tool making ability helps us a lot in this area.

"Overly risky" behavior - depending on what you mean by that - is almost all a product of the modern age. We're built for an environment that's dangerous. There are medical clues and problems showing up more and more that our safe, sedate, overly clean lifestyle is killing us.


Many animals never go into heat so I don't know where you're going with that thought.


Basic human behavior is that simple. At the bottom of it all is a biological mechanism that pushes us this way or that way. We are our biological history and our genes. You seem to believe we're transcendental/metaphysical. I don't.

We "make life easy" because we're programmed to do so. As I noted above, we've taken it to such an extreme it's become harmful in many ways. Evolution isn't some guided action leading from here to there. Every organism on the planet is saddled with it's genetic history and sometimes that leads to lethal consequences. In time, those genes that survive our new environment will dominate, just as lactose tolerance is now common to most Europeans and their descendants.

I didn't take any of Dawkins' non-biological teachings into account. I've never read any of his other books. The extended phenotype is a biological concept and, as you've noted, biology is his specialty. The same idea that promotes the screening of genes for "better" dam building in a beaver is the same one that screens for social behaviors in humans and many other animals.

Altruism doesn't exist. It's an illusion made up by people who didn't understand evolution and it's been perpetuated by ignorance.


Again, you're trying to rationalize something that I've already said isn't rational. Social behavior in general isn't rational. But people's attitudes on most subjects of this nature aren't rational at all or we wouldn't have the issues we do with other, non-survival behaviors. Why should you care if the girl next door kills herself or the guy next door gets his kicks sucking ****? Rationally, neither situation is any of your damn business but it doesn't stop such behavior from being "frowned upon" (to say the least) by a huge portion of the population. That's just the way life is, like it or not. Social behavior never has been rational and I honestly doubt it ever will be. The best we can hope for is that future generations are better grounded in tolerance, which is rationally accepting (as opposed to deriding) behavior you don't like.

Art doesn't always communicate. So, wrong. Risk is not always for the thrill. For example, it probably is if it's easy to do like skydiving, but learning to be shot into space takes so many years or decades that anyone who does it has a different motivation -- probably just curiosity and want for knowledge, however pointless it is. So, wrong.

Not even close. Even the other highly intelligent species -- none of whom come close to us -- are not that simple. You don't seem to know anything about human behavior.

"Uh-huh because I said" so doesn't work with me. So I consider the next point and the last one, for that matter, untouched.

The fact that you didn't consider whether the person you were reading knew a single damn thing about what he was talking about is exactly the problem.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but we have no alternate words for the concept, so can you just address it please? Ok, I guess not. That was easy.
 
Um, you don't design studies -- in ANY field -- to pre-emptively tell you something you want to hear. That defeats the entire point. So if sociological studies and surveys come to a conclusion that doesn't lend itself to over-simplification based on an entirely different field of science, that isn't science's fault. It means the over-simplifier is wrong.

Before you attempt to bull**** someone, master the subject matter you're going to lecture on, otherwise you look like a fool.
 
Before you attempt to bull**** someone, master the subject matter you're going to lecture on, otherwise you look like a fool.

What in the hell are you talking about? :lol:

Perhaps you ought to master writing first?
 
SmokeAndMirrors;1063066401 Just because Dawkins is famous and is qualified in the field he [I said:
actually[/I] knows something about (biology) does not make him an authority on all things. He is extremely ignorant about a great many subjects, regardless of how much he talks about them.


Not sure about Mo, but people truly interested in science read more than one author or source....for corroboration and verification (or not). As have I. Dawkins' work is well-supported.
 
Not sure about Mo, but people truly interested in science read more than one author or source....for corroboration and verification (or not). As have I. Dawkins' work is well-supported.

Having not read the book, I am not sure whether the conclusion put forth here is coming from Dawkins or Mo (the conclusion being unrelated to the biological research itself -- and I don't have reason to believe Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about as far as the biology). But whoever put forth that conclusion is conflating two fields that are different things, and has come to the wrong conclusion according to the evidence sociology puts forth (and biology has nothing at all to say on the matter).
 
Having not read the book, I am not sure whether the conclusion put forth here is coming from Dawkins or Mo (the conclusion being unrelated to the biological research itself -- and I don't have reason to believe Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about as far as the biology). But whoever put forth that conclusion is conflating two fields that are different things, and has come to the wrong conclusion according to the evidence sociology puts forth (and biology has nothing at all to say on the matter).

Whenever we study humans and their behaviors, psychology and sociology must account for the genetic confounds as they seek to understand the behavioral issues. Psychology is beginning to do this now, but most of sociology is still in witch-doctor mode and who trusts a witch doctor when he says anything. Sociology is built on the basis of environmental determinism, a false belief that 100% of behavior arises from environmental/cultural factors or individual choice. If they don't even bother to look at biology then they're willfully blinding themselves, which means that everything a sociologist tells you is likely inaccurate.
 
Whenever we study humans and their behaviors, psychology and sociology must account for the genetic confounds as they seek to understand the behavioral issues. Psychology is beginning to do this now, but most of sociology is still in witch-doctor mode and who trusts a witch doctor when he says anything. Sociology is built on the basis of environmental determinism, a false belief that 100% of behavior arises from environmental/cultural factors or individual choice. If they don't even bother to look at biology then they're willfully blinding themselves, which means that everything a sociologist tells you is likely inaccurate.

Decent sociology largely doesn't try to pin its conclusions to any particular thing, because it is clear that so much of human behavior is more convoluted due to our intellects, and thus biology has no answers, and neither does sociology itself as of yet. We may find an answer, and it may even be biological, but it isn't presently explained by basic survival theory. There's just too much we do that is either constantly changing, completely opposite from one place to the next, doesn't offer any survival benefit whatsoever, or all of the above.

So I don't think you actually understand what sociology is.
 
Art doesn't always communicate. So, wrong. Risk is not always for the thrill. For example, it probably is if it's easy to do like skydiving, but learning to be shot into space takes so many years or decades that anyone who does it has a different motivation -- probably just curiosity and want for knowledge, however pointless it is. So, wrong.

Not even close. Even the other highly intelligent species -- none of whom come close to us -- are not that simple. You don't seem to know anything about human behavior.
Of course art is communication, what's wrong with you?


Risk doesn't always have to be for the thrill nor did I say that. In your previous post you seemed to be listing what you thought of as non-survival behavior and I addressed that part of risky behavior. I just assumed (apparently an incorrect assumption) that you would see the obvious advantages of explorer types in the human population, so I felt no need to explain that side of risky behavior.



"Uh-huh because I said" so doesn't work with me. So I consider the next point and the last one, for that matter, untouched.
If you're talking about humans being transcendental/metaphysical you are more than welcome to attempt to prove that case - and good luck doing so. I've yet to see proof of spirits, souls, ghosts, or any other metaphysical crap. That ball is completely in your court to prove, not mine to disprove.



The fact that you didn't consider whether the person you were reading knew a single damn thing about what he was talking about is exactly the problem.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but we have no alternate words for the concept, so can you just address it please? Ok, I guess not. That was easy.
He knows a great deal about biology and animal behavior, which is what his science books are about. Sorry you don't see the connection between biology and sociology. Good sociologists don't seem to have a problem connecting those dots.


What word? Altruism? Too much ignorant, historical baggage associated with that term. I've already explained what the behavior that's mistaken for altruism is and you seemed to ignore it, which isn't surprising because it weakens your case.
 
We may find an answer, and it may even be biological, but it isn't presently explained by basic survival theory.
"Survival theory"? If that's the buzz-phrase in sociological circles I can understand their problem.
 
...The members of bigger, stronger tribes are more likely to survive.

There are "winners" and "losers" - the genes that continue through to the next generation are the winners.


You are not being fair. We are all winners, we don't keep score. ;)

From the PC dictionary.

Loser - uniquely fortuned individual on an alternative career path.
- 2nd place
 
"Survival theory"? If that's the buzz-phrase in sociological circles I can understand their problem.

No, just a simple summary of the concepts at hand, which are neither part of real biology, nor part of sociology. They are the pop culture nonsense of people who understand neither.
 
No, just a simple summary of the concepts at hand, which are neither part of real biology, nor part of sociology. They are the pop culture nonsense of people who understand neither.
I have no idea what you're referring to with "the concepts at hand", then. If you've somehow pigeon-holed my comments into that phrase then we obviously have a gross miscommunication or you have a very poor understanding of evolution.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.
I contributed less to society since I treated all 130 of my Chem/Physics students as my own children for 35 years.
And I continue to do this with needy students in retirement.
And after doing this for so many years, private citizens have only "inferior" and "contribute less" to offer me on dp.
One Hundred years ago, Teachers were expected to act like Priests and not even date .


Wait. You taught 35 years of chemistry and physics, and yet lack the mathematical acumen to comprehend the meaning of the phrase phrase "All things being equal"?



...Well. One more vote for spending the money on private school, I suppose.
 
I have no idea what you're referring to with "the concepts at hand", then. If you've somehow pigeon-holed my comments into that phrase then we obviously have a gross miscommunication or you have a very poor understanding of evolution.

I get the feeling she's a Diamond fan :roll:
 
Pfffffft. Cant wait for you kids to grow up, I will put them to work.

:shrug: I have no intention of waiting that long - I am having them start to learn good work habits at about age 4, when they first start getting basic chores, and earn points (later redeemable for dollars) for doing so.
 
I think it's time for you to find a new schtick, CP. You've tried the "maybe if I patronize them hard enough no one will notice I lost" thing on an awful lot of people, and it's almost invariably gone badly for you. The walloping you got when you tried it in Jetboogie was hysterical. :lol:

Now that's interesting. You deliberately warp the position of those you disagree with to present them as some kind of 2-D cartoon character, apparently confidently assuming that you understand what we believe far better than we could, and then try (and fail) to back it with data that is half a century out of date, and yet try to accuse others of being patronizing.

When you are ready to debate people rather than strawmen in this discussion, you're going to be a lot more effective. As for JB :shrug: if you could link that, I'd appreciate - I'm in the process of dramatically cutting down DP time, and it's quite possible I simply never got back to the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom