Shining Raichu
Expect me like you expect Jesus.
- 8,959
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 33
- Australia
- Seen Nov 20, 2023
How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
Last edited by a moderator:
'It is mankind's main purpose to reproduce in order to continue the human race'
- Thread starter Shining Raichu
- Start date
Overlord Drakow
Banned
- 3,655
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Down Under
- Seen Nov 6, 2019
It is a man's main purpose to reproduce in order to continue the human race if necessary.
The above I can agree with. The world is currently overpopulated so I hardly see reproduction as the main purpose for the male species. If the human race was dying out for example, then reproduction to promote survival would be of greater importance. As things stand right now though, not really.
The above I can agree with. The world is currently overpopulated so I hardly see reproduction as the main purpose for the male species. If the human race was dying out for example, then reproduction to promote survival would be of greater importance. As things stand right now though, not really.
Barrels
The Fresh Prince of Kanto
- 82
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Three thousand miles from home
- Seen Nov 20, 2023
I disagree... strongly. Lemme explain why.
1) Biologically, successful species are those that survive1. And we've done that. We've definitely done that. Current estimates put the number of us ape-things at around 7 billion, which is gigantic. So, yeah, it stands to reason that if we want to continue our success as a species, we should keep on reproducing and reproducing, spreading to even more desolate corners of the Earth, flirting and fighting and foraging and forgetting each others' birthdays, just like every other human since the dawn of time. That's if we're using the biological definition of success.
2) But should we be? Because if we want to attain total biological success, we should be concentrating all our efforts on trying to make sure that every single human survives. Forever. (Yeah, it's a daft idea, but I'm thought experimenting. Just go with it.) And frankly that's not a good basis for a healthy society2. In addition, it's entirely possible to achieve that kind of biological success without making any kind of provision for quality of life: all 7 billion of us could be living in abject misery, but if we'd managed to stop anyone ever dying, we'd still be declared a triumphant success. (Which is kind of exactly like most definitions of hell, I've just realised. Eternal suffering. Nasty.) So perhaps we should only aim for biological success up to a point.
3) And here's the thing. We've already reached a pretty high point as a species. If three-quarters of the world's population decided right now that they were never going to reproduce, we'd still be overflowing with new humans in two years time3. Reproduction is no longer imperative: we're in no danger of becoming extinct if, say, fifty people get eaten by lions before getting a chance to reproduce. Our past success has given us the ability to choose our own purposes based on what makes us happy, without worrying first about the conservation of mankind.
4) Furthermore, our intelligence as a species opens up a whole truckload of other possibilities. If I have as many children as I can during my lifetime but someone else discovers a cure for a horrible disease and saves millions of lives... who's contributed more to our overall success? It's no longer so much a question of whether everyone should reproduce as whether reproducing is really the best way forward for mankind, now that we've got big brains and computers and clever people in laboratories and stuff.
5) tl;dr - if we're using the biological definition of success, conventional reproduction probably isn't a very efficient way to achieve it nowadays. And if we're not, well... you can pick your own purpose, and then decide which way you want to go about fulfilling it. Vive la humanity etc.
____________________________________________
1. Unless you want to get complicated, and even if you do, we're probably still the most successful species on Earth right now.
2. As wondered about by Russell T Davies last year, among others.
3. I think. It's been a while since I looked at exponential growth.
1) Biologically, successful species are those that survive1. And we've done that. We've definitely done that. Current estimates put the number of us ape-things at around 7 billion, which is gigantic. So, yeah, it stands to reason that if we want to continue our success as a species, we should keep on reproducing and reproducing, spreading to even more desolate corners of the Earth, flirting and fighting and foraging and forgetting each others' birthdays, just like every other human since the dawn of time. That's if we're using the biological definition of success.
2) But should we be? Because if we want to attain total biological success, we should be concentrating all our efforts on trying to make sure that every single human survives. Forever. (Yeah, it's a daft idea, but I'm thought experimenting. Just go with it.) And frankly that's not a good basis for a healthy society2. In addition, it's entirely possible to achieve that kind of biological success without making any kind of provision for quality of life: all 7 billion of us could be living in abject misery, but if we'd managed to stop anyone ever dying, we'd still be declared a triumphant success. (Which is kind of exactly like most definitions of hell, I've just realised. Eternal suffering. Nasty.) So perhaps we should only aim for biological success up to a point.
3) And here's the thing. We've already reached a pretty high point as a species. If three-quarters of the world's population decided right now that they were never going to reproduce, we'd still be overflowing with new humans in two years time3. Reproduction is no longer imperative: we're in no danger of becoming extinct if, say, fifty people get eaten by lions before getting a chance to reproduce. Our past success has given us the ability to choose our own purposes based on what makes us happy, without worrying first about the conservation of mankind.
4) Furthermore, our intelligence as a species opens up a whole truckload of other possibilities. If I have as many children as I can during my lifetime but someone else discovers a cure for a horrible disease and saves millions of lives... who's contributed more to our overall success? It's no longer so much a question of whether everyone should reproduce as whether reproducing is really the best way forward for mankind, now that we've got big brains and computers and clever people in laboratories and stuff.
5) tl;dr - if we're using the biological definition of success, conventional reproduction probably isn't a very efficient way to achieve it nowadays. And if we're not, well... you can pick your own purpose, and then decide which way you want to go about fulfilling it. Vive la humanity etc.
____________________________________________
1. Unless you want to get complicated, and even if you do, we're probably still the most successful species on Earth right now.
2. As wondered about by Russell T Davies last year, among others.
3. I think. It's been a while since I looked at exponential growth.
Shining Raichu
Expect me like you expect Jesus.
- 8,959
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 33
- Australia
- Seen Nov 20, 2023
Whoops; this was slightly bad wording on my part. I should clarify that I meant "a man" in the "mankind" sense of the word, so it can refer to both men and women.
It's not really that the world is overpopulated.
It's just that the population is highly concentrated in certian area's.
Population controls are needed though because the people in highly concentrated usually refuse or are not able to move to a lesser populated area.
It's just that the population is highly concentrated in certian area's.
Population controls are needed though because the people in highly concentrated usually refuse or are not able to move to a lesser populated area.
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
I would think of it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, sort of. It's one of the things the species might need, but it's one of the basic ones and it's not an issue right now so we're concentrating on higher things.
Tachikaze
九番隊 // Earth-Severing Wind
- 158
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Soul Society
- Seen Mar 17, 2012
Originally, when we were nothing more than cave-dwelling hunter gathers with very minimal culture and language, yeah. In the modern age, as sophisticated creatures with language, culture, advanced technology, etc, not so much. It's more on the back burner. Still important in a cultural, make-a-family-sense, but not a focal point.
Charlie Kelly
King of the Rats
- 76
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Your Grandmother's Basement
- Seen Apr 27, 2012
Reproducing is probably doing more harm than good at this point in time. We're burning through our resources pretty quickly.
[Snivy Baroque]
Shinigami Snivy
- 37
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 30
- Ameristrous
- Seen Mar 6, 2012
honestly, I can't believe man has a purpose directly, and if it were reproduction, it certainly hasn'r done the world any good.
OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
- 17,521
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Age 29
- Oregon
- Seen Sep 24, 2018
I also disagree with that given today's population and the problem's it's caused. Though there are still a lot of people who seem to think so...
The main purpose of mankind right now imo should proably be to balance our needs with the resources we have now.
The main purpose of mankind right now imo should proably be to balance our needs with the resources we have now.
Biologically defined, yes, the point of life is reproduction. And it's obviously important to reproduce; people can't just magically live forever. As Scarf said,
...but as population decline is certainly not an issue right now, it's not our top priority. We've got the ability and the need to move forward and that is much more important than just making more people but going nowhere. A balance needs to be struck between survival and further success, sustainability, etc. Overpopulation won't help us at all when we're apparently having trouble being a sustainable species as we are.
this. Whatever way you look at it, people need to reproduce. Unless you intend to bring about the end of mankind there's no two ways about it. If a species stops reproducing, it dies, and we don't want to die obviously. It's an absolute necessity to reproduce. That doesn't mean that everyone should do it, but it's important that enough people do it to prevent population decline.Scarf said:
...but as population decline is certainly not an issue right now, it's not our top priority. We've got the ability and the need to move forward and that is much more important than just making more people but going nowhere. A balance needs to be struck between survival and further success, sustainability, etc. Overpopulation won't help us at all when we're apparently having trouble being a sustainable species as we are.
Shining Raichu
Expect me like you expect Jesus.
- 8,959
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 33
- Australia
- Seen Nov 20, 2023
What does it matter if the species dies out though? I understand why we each wouldn't want to die or wouldn't want our families or friends to die, but are we somehow patriotic toward our species? Why is it important to us that the species continue after we die? What is there to be gained from it?
As much as I think each of us individually is more than our instincts, it's simple logic that those with a tendency to reproduce more are going to have more offspring to carry on that tendency. We're adapted to reproduce as much as possible and that's exactly what the bulk of us do.
It's our "genetic purpose," it's what we have adapted to do, but I think people are more than their genetics. Even if we tend to be good at that, we're more than just machines made to screw; we have higher thought processes and the ability to use them to pursue whatever end we want. I, myself, have the desire to reproduce, but it's not my primary goal in life by a longshot.
Controversial?
Bored musician, bad programmer
- 639
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- UK
- Seen Oct 11, 2020
So the meaning of life is sex?
- 3,509
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen Nov 5, 2017
It is for some societies and not others.
America is not overcrowded at all, there's no harm being done there if people are reproducing rapidly.
Africa is reproducing at a ridiculously high rate when it cannot even sustain the people already existing.
Japan is in desperate need of reproduction.
And so on so on. It's different depending where you are. They say the world has 7 billion people, but they aren't evenly distributed.
America is not overcrowded at all, there's no harm being done there if people are reproducing rapidly.
Africa is reproducing at a ridiculously high rate when it cannot even sustain the people already existing.
Japan is in desperate need of reproduction.
And so on so on. It's different depending where you are. They say the world has 7 billion people, but they aren't evenly distributed.
Awfully crudely phrased, but in a way, yes, biologically anyway. As twocows just said though, "we're more than just machines made to screw; we have higher thought processes and the ability to use them to pursue whatever end we want". We're talking about the purpose of life here, not the meaning. I think there's a line between the two which what I just quoted illustrates well. The 'mechanical' part is the purpose. There's more to life than that.
If you're no more intelligent than a dog, then yes.