I just last week saw a talk by Daniel Dennett which was about religion, but the key concept (well, there were many, but the one relevant here) was that humans are unusual (unique?) in the universe in that we sometimes choose to forgo genetic (reproductive) fitness for some other cause. That cause is often the reproduction of other things -- ideas, or principles, or salvation.
It was really very interesting. And well thought-out -- especially the idea of domesticated versus wild memes.
I would hope that those of us who choose not to have genetic reproduction will encourage the reproduction and practice of the beliefs that dominate our lives. I think _dkg_ would agree.
meh. there's always going to be this argument in all kinds of resource-depletion scenarios. If i (and presumably other good people like me) don't grab what we can now, then the bad guys will take all the resources, and become even more powerful! If you can ever accept this line of reasoning, what cause do you have to ever reject it? The real answer to conflicts over limited resources is for all parties involved to reduce their resource use, not to increase it. Sure, it may mean that the cheaters temporarily improve their individual lots, but the limited resources are still exhausted for everyone if there's a mad grab.
Some say that their religious or political belief system needs more members to make the world a better place, but there's no guarantee that offspring will follow the traditions of their parents. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the norm in modern societies. Besides, if the only people who will accept a belief system are those born into it,
( ... )
also, the relationship between birth rate and patriarchy is certainly not a clear, unidirectional relationship. From a MADRE position paper:
In poor communities, birth rates rise as women’s access to education, information, and reproductive healthcare diminishes. More children means greater dependency on male wages, which increases vulnerability to male violence.
doesn't that MADRE quotation suggest that diminished women's power (i.e., patriarchy) leads to higher birth rates?
oh -- are you talking about the causal directions? then i think I see what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the birthrate leads to sexist oppression, rather than the other way around?
not everything! when there are finally no more humans, human patriarchy (and the oscars, fortunately) will fade into the past. It's a solution to so many problems...
I'm not saying that it's the only way to fix things, or that we shouldn't bother doing anything in the meantime. But yeah: support people who aren't breeding, discourage breeding (especially among the wealthy and powerful, whose progeny are more likely to consume shared resources disproportionately), and help folks dig out from under the various kinds of oppression we lovely creatures have heaped upon them since birth.
for myself, i aspire to live up to the characterization a friend of mine offered me recently (though i suspect she was being far too generous). She said, for someone so completely without hope, you treat other people pretty well.
Or, as VHEMT puts it, Be good to each other, and the last one out, turn off the lights! It's simplistic, but i think it helps to focus on the humans (and other creatures) who are here now. Suddenly, our mutual plight becomes more immediately relevant. These people you see suffering today, those are the people you need to help.
not to stir the pot buttrocheeMarch 6 2006, 20:17:24 UTC
on reading that article, it does seem like quite an apologia for patriarchy.
He excuses everything but the very worst of patriarchy (which he defines away as "male tyranny").
Does he really think (he seems to imply) that the solution is for good people to breed? I'm made a little wary of the quotation of Roman generals at the beginning -- I ordinarily associate quotations of Roman consuls with articles that then tear away at the dissolution of the Republic into Empire.
But here -- by the time I was finished reading -- he seemed to be (sheepishly, perhaps) lauding the insight of this Censor.
I think maybe he's fallen in the trap that says "if there aren't enough of us, they'll win" -- but that seems to avoid faith in the ideas of democracy and shared tolerance. However, I agree that there are plenty of undemocratic and intolerant people out there. And since many of them see this as the End Times they're dangerous people. But I don't know what to do except to infect them with ideas.
Re: not to stir the pot buttrocheeMarch 6 2006, 21:22:31 UTC
I chose provocative language ("infect") because I was thinking about Dennett's approach. Not sure it really is the right way to look at it, but it is an interesting one.
and I do think that responding by engaging and sharing in dialogue is exactly what I meant by "infect with ideas". Of course, there's going to be "infection" in both directions, but that's not a bad thing. Is it?
Comments 17
I just last week saw a talk by Daniel Dennett which was about religion, but the key concept (well, there were many, but the one relevant here) was that humans are unusual (unique?) in the universe in that we sometimes choose to forgo genetic (reproductive) fitness for some other cause. That cause is often the reproduction of other things -- ideas, or principles, or salvation.
It was really very interesting. And well thought-out -- especially the idea of domesticated versus wild memes.
I would hope that those of us who choose not to have genetic reproduction will encourage the reproduction and practice of the beliefs that dominate our lives. I think _dkg_ would agree.
Reply
As the good people at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement say:
Some say that their religious or political belief system needs more members to make the world a better place, but there's no guarantee that offspring will follow the traditions of their parents. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the norm in modern societies. Besides, if the only people who will accept a belief system are those born into it, ( ... )
Reply
Reply
In poor communities, birth rates rise as women’s access to education, information, and reproductive healthcare diminishes. More children means greater dependency on male wages, which increases vulnerability to male violence.
Reply
doesn't that MADRE quotation suggest that diminished women's power (i.e., patriarchy) leads to higher birth rates?
oh -- are you talking about the causal directions? then i think I see what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the birthrate leads to sexist oppression, rather than the other way around?
Reply
That's the real problem.
Saw the Oscars ?
Ha.
The article is interesting but I tend to agree with Troke and Dan.
Reply
Reply
Reply
for myself, i aspire to live up to the characterization a friend of mine offered me recently (though i suspect she was being far too generous). She said, for someone so completely without hope, you treat other people pretty well.
Or, as VHEMT puts it, Be good to each other, and the last one out, turn off the lights! It's simplistic, but i think it helps to focus on the humans (and other creatures) who are here now. Suddenly, our mutual plight becomes more immediately relevant. These people you see suffering today, those are the people you need to help.
Reply
He excuses everything but the very worst of patriarchy (which he defines away as "male tyranny").
Does he really think (he seems to imply) that the solution is for good people to breed? I'm made a little wary of the quotation of Roman generals at the beginning -- I ordinarily associate quotations of Roman consuls with articles that then tear away at the dissolution of the Republic into Empire.
But here -- by the time I was finished reading -- he seemed to be (sheepishly, perhaps) lauding the insight of this Censor.
I think maybe he's fallen in the trap that says "if there aren't enough of us, they'll win" -- but that seems to avoid faith in the ideas of democracy and shared tolerance. However, I agree that there are plenty of undemocratic and intolerant people out there. And since many of them see this as the End Times they're dangerous people. But I don't know what to do except to infect them with ideas.
Reply
It makes it sound manipulative.
I am tempted to say I don't know how to do that without "trying to engage in a dialogue."
But that's me. Mrs Idealist who thinks that people are ultimately good.
Reply
and I do think that responding by engaging and sharing in dialogue is exactly what I meant by "infect with ideas". Of course, there's going to be "infection" in both directions, but that's not a bad thing. Is it?
Reply
Leave a comment