'NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU *****!'
...Yes. Anyway. :P
This. This is what I've been trying to get a handle on from the start. tl;dr: I honestly don't think that it is a transformation.
OK. For the sake of argument, let's say that transformation is 'a metamorphosis during the life cycle of an animal' (ta, Google). And what's a metamorphosis? 'A change of the form or nature of a thing or person into a completely different one, by natural or supernatural means.' This is what you're telling me babies cause, right? (I hope so, lol. :P)
I've been banging on since the start about how I'd consider bonding more of a patch than anything else. And while I'm happy to add 'two new drivers and an improved battery life with a back-up generator powered by your newfound loooove' to that description, since I think that's a fair and accurate expression of its intensity, I genuinely cannot believe that people are changed into 'completely different' beings when they have a kid. I just can't. Your (hilarious) anecdotal evidence, while brilliantly funny and obviously incredibly irritating to undergo, is just that: anecdotal evidence.
And, all together now: 'in science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:
"information that is not based on facts or careful study"[4]
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[5]
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific
analysis"[6]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented
scientifically".
(Ta, Wikipedia.) And it lends itself to the crux of my point.
Much - in fact, possibly all - of the evidence you've presented has described parents shortly after birth. And, yes, of course, during the year succeeding that event, the baby is going to be their lives. There's no way it couldn't be. Just about everything changes - when you sleep, what you eat, what you do, what you spend your money on - and that has to change in order to produce a healthy baby. Like it or not, parents cannot be wonderfully, gorgeously selfish anymore, because (as we both agreed) neglect is wrong.
Previously 'fascinating, intelligent, insightful conversationalists' are going to turn into 'insufferable bores'. Yeah. Sorry. That's going to continue until they realise how boring they're being - which will vary, depending on the person. But realise eventually they will. Parents with teenage kids never ever spend their nights out talking about them - it's a welcome break. Parents with five-year-olds have usually (not always, but often) realised that non-parents just don't get why they find their baby so important, and they've already shut up about it. Because they've seen just how much it gets on everybody's tits.
Thought experiment: imagine you had a child. (Yes, I know. Just go with it. :P) Can you bring yourself to believe that you, personally, would become that kind of insufferable bore? Having expressed lucidly and intelligently exactly why others can't stand them? I don't believe you would. Humans are too strong, as I said before - yes, we have base instincts, but we wilfully ignore them in order not to descend into chaos. It's why we're the dominant species. We have the capability to recognise when we're being biologically slanted, and the capacity to reject that. We do. Honest. :P I don't believe you could ever be 'pushed down into complacent submission by the love-induced endorphins, progesterone and other override protocols'; they'd just form an addition to the awesomeness that is you already. Have a little faith in yourself, dude. ;) Humans are pretty damn epic; as the Doctor himself says, 'Look at these people, these human beings. Consider their potential! From the day they arrive on the planet, blinking, step into the sun, there is more to see than can ever be seen, more to do than—no, hold on. Sorry, that's The Lion King. But the point still stands: leave them alone!'
Moving on... your contrasting of 'the two options open to you' really has made me think. But I think my point is essentially this.
You say that 'post-transformation [we] do like [our newly transformed self] whether the person we were before would like it or not, as they get pushed head-first down into the depths of our memory'. I'd counter that this is not biological, but a conscious decision. While we may think beforehand that a baby will screw up our nicely comfortable existence and dread its arrival, we can never actually know what it will feel like to love it. Because it doesn't yet exist.
And this is all I think it honestly boils down to: love. When you love someone, your priorities do shift. Yes. They do. And, sure, that's biological, but I wouldn't change it for the world. It just helps both parties to be less selfish and thus make each other happier - it works both ways, and it's evolved because it works. When you love someone truly, madly and deeply, you'll do just about anything for them with a smile on your face. (Which is exactly what you've been characterising as grotesque for the past 1K words, right?) And the reason that people generally don't object to this is that it, quite simply, makes them happy. It's not a transformation - they're still the person they were beforehand. Just happier.
And if we view all human life - hell, all life - as a neverending quest for happiness, it makes sense to embrace love when you're lucky enough to feel it. Those parents may irritate the living crap out of you, but they're happy. And I'm happy for them.
--
...I've had to come back to this, lol, because I realised I didn't answer all your points. So without further ado:
'I must counter that if we spend all our time worrying about the future, when are we going to enjoy the present?' Very Yoda, my friend, but I don't think anyone would suggest that we should spend all our time worrying about the future. There has to be a balance. Essentially that's all my point boils down to - ignoring the consequences of your actions is dangerous and foolish, but painstakingly trying to predict is futile and soul-sapping.
'Children are not the most important thing in society. Not even close.' I'm intrigued - what would you consider the most important thing in society? (Or if there isn't a set list, at least something that surpasses them.) Since the way I see it, children themselves are just humans like the rest of us. It's the love we feel and the happiness they bring that everyone sees as important solely because - as I said - life is an endless quest for happiness. Kids have come to symbolise those things because they're the harbingers of them.
'What I'm talking about is how the child affects you, not how you affect it. And this is the problem... nobody thinks of that.' They do. As far as parents are concerned, they love their child and doing nice things for them makes them both happy. End of story. Parents do think about how their child affects them - it's just that the effect is positive!
'It's gotten to the point where we've seen protection of children come at the expense of the freedoms of adults. Some examples of this include the lack of an R18 video game rating in my state, authorities instead preferring to ban the games that would fit into that category; the proposed SOPA and PIPA acts (as well as the current CISPA), which are designed in part to protect children from online predators yet had the potential to filter out many legitimate sites, including porn; and the Parents Television Council, made up primarily of women who are so into their children that they aim to get any and every non-family friendly TV show cancelled just to accommodate their little cherubs.'
YES YES YES. A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Of course these idiots are misguided and stupid and wrong; of course they are. But it's wrong and prejudiced to characterise all parents based on the actions of a few.
Are all parents members of the PTC? Not bloody likely. They have 'a membership count of less than one hundredth of one percent of the U.S. population' - tiny. And there are thousands of parents who strongly disagree with their views - my own are a great example. Take my little brother: if a movie or game comes along with an age certificate stamped on it, that's fine and it's no problem. They've judged him mature enough to know what will and won't affect him, so they'll go to the counter themselves with his money. No problem. (Also, just quickly, I don't have a problem with age ratings in general. It's not rocket science that you don't want your seven-year-old playing Manhunt. What I have a massive stonking great problem with is when censorship comes into play and adults are banned from playing what they want to play because there's a chance that little Terry might steal a copy. Sorry, it's down to his carers to stop him from doing that if they don't want him playing it. And if they can't then it's their problem and no one else's.)
SOPA, PIPA and CISPA are moronic pieces of legislation drafted by the type of person who still reckons he can get all those wacky internet people together in suits in a room and tell them off - they're so flawed that obviously the noble goal (and it is a noble goal) of protecting kids from predators was always going to be crappily implemented. No one complains about other legislation that deals with predators, for obvious reasons. Blame the method rather than the aim, in this instance.
'After the parenthood software is installed, many people who used to be pro-choice become pro-life, many who used to be pro-freedom instead begin to fight for the protection of the innocence of children above all else. We are losing soldiers in the fight for liberty. Every day we lose more. There is too much of people saying "I can't do that, I'm a parent now".'
Please, show me this research. If it's true then that's a hell of a problem. But I can't honestly believe that intelligent, educated people who've fought for years against censorship and all the rest are brainwashed by love. I think the two are kept relatively separate. People who initially harboured a few vague suspicions about abortion but kept them to themselves - yeah, I can see them springing to the defence of the pro-lifers once they have a child. But people who've thought about it long and hard and recognise how important freedom of choice is - they won't change their minds. I truly believe that. (Also, the abortion debate is probably a skewed example since - and I haven't researched this, just reckon it's likely - the people fighting for the right to choose are probably less likely to have kids just by virtue of the fact they don't want them, so the pro-lifers are likely to have more parents in their ranks. Doesn't mean other parents don't hold pro-choice opinions - they may just not care enough because it doesn't affect them enough to join a campaign.)
...There. I think that's everything. Are we setting a record for longest VMs? xD I await your response eagerly.
andy! you never followed my tumblr! ;;
my father
Unlikeable? You're one of the friendliest, most likeable people I've ever met, dude. :P Never. I'd confidently wager it even smells nice up your wazoo.
That's a great picture of Nica how dare you