Statheists

[ClaytonB]

But I do believe, in the long run, the chosen purpose of individuals cannot long be inconsistent with the physical necessity of survival and reproduction. Any disposition against nature in this regard will be weeded out within a generation.

This seems like a metaphor to me.

No, it’s not a metaphor, it’s an evolutionary argument. While I’m an individualist as far as the volitional choice of values/ends goes, I’m not an individualist on the wider scheme of things. I don’t think nature cares whether we’re self-actualizing or not. All that matters to nature is who reproduced.

Also some things to consider:

People in relevant countries on avg tend to produce less children and have more other stuff they want. We have all sorts of things to minimize reporoduction, and all seem to be used with a decent amount of frequency.

But if you look within a particular country, the correlation between wealth and fertility is strictly positive… more money = more children. This suggests to me that the differences in the fertility rates between countries are political, not a result of the supposed “wealth differences” between those countries. There is a chapter in Kanazawa & Miller’s book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters that discusses situations where it’s more advantageous (from the PoV of evolution) to cut loose the children that one already has and let them fend for themselves. I think this may be part of the explanation of the anecdotal correlation between impoverished countries and extremely high fertility rates. If most of your children die before they have children of their own, it’s better to have a lot of children to make up the difference. Those with the best genes are the ones most likely to survive to reproduce. Nature’s logic is brutal but there’s no point in wishing it away. I’m guessing here but the point is that anecdotal correlations (e.g. the stereotypical starving Ethiopians with high fertility rate vs. the wealthy Ivy Leaguers with one child) don’t give us a causal theory.

Conservatives who seem obsessed with the family and fertility seem to be off the mark a bit.

True. My views are not informed by conservatism, however. I believe that our biology informs our choice of ends so I believe there is a certain inevitability to the forms of satisfaction related to reproduction (family, etc.)

I wouldn’t be suprised if there were ways to create and develop bodies that were more convienet systems to our lifestyles in the near future. There seem to be some market and sociological indicators that there are. I would not look to reproduction, or have a “traditional” view of reproduction in this day and age as a way to devop much of a good world picture.

I’ll revise my views when things change that dramatically though I do think that surrogate motherhood is going to be a booming industry in the near future.

It doesn’t seem far fetched to say the traditional family model is a failed / failing/ or just one of several available options system. I don’t think statism is to blame either - but rather the fact that it is easier to interact with any social group at any time one prefers and better available options to follow one’s own will due to the unpreceedeted wealth, peace, and prosperity and technology of all previous times. While welfare and/or govt subsidies may add to things here and there to the poor, it says nothing of how the rich live there lives - which is still showing a decent enough rejection of the family model in favor of other matters of concern.

I think you have it exactly backwards. The family model is the most powerful. In fact, I think this is the defining distinction between the wealthy and powerful versus the “unwashed masses.” The rich and powerful, as a rule, keep it together (Hollywood airheads on the cover of Us Weekly are not “rich and powerful” in my definition). The poor are poor, in large part, because they descend from family conflict. Just read the history of European royalty and watch how one family would wait for another to get embroiled in family conflict so they could make a move on their territory. The Godfather is how the world works.

Furthermore what does and does not get breeded out just seems like a non issue to me. It ignores ontological reality - ad in doing so it ignores all reality that can be discussed in sociological inter-subjective situations.

It’s a non-issue with respect to volitional choice of means for the satisfaction of wants.

Clayton -

[vive_la_insurrection]

No, it’s not a metaphor, it’s an evolutionary argument. While I’m an individualist as far as the volitional choice of values/ends goes, I’m not an individualist on the wider scheme of things. I don’t think nature cares whether we’re self-actualizing or not. All that matters to nature is who reproduced.

I am still reading this as a metaphor. Science provides no “answer in itself”. It is a utility function for any specific ontological entity that can utilize it for their own benefit. Evolution does not select anythig, much less the “best thing”. Nature is not “mechanical” (it isn’t anything), ad life and death are just words to utilize ontological utility.

And in a very true sense of the word, you are biologicaly speaking a “mutant” and uniqe to yourself. You’re not really allowed to call things life, or dead thing as anything other than another aspect of a species. It’s just the “live” ones are a more rare specimen of a species. This goes nothing against neo darwinism as I understand it (I am a bio major, but it has been awhile since I have read this subject).

I believe that our biology informs our choice of ends so I believe there is a certain inevitability to the forms of satisfaction related to reproduction (family, etc.)

No, in so much as it does - it would be treated as a mechanic would look at a car. And even than it is still a model to form an ontological utility function

What has been tradtionally thought of as scientism is dead. It has been for some time, not that “post-structuralism” “ad hoc” bohemian “anti-concept” philosophies are an alternative…but science is no the answer.

I think you have it exactly backwards. The family model is the most powerful. In fact, I think this is the defining distinction between the wealthy and powerful versus the “unwashed masses.”

My thinking wasn’t that lofty - I was just talking about my deeply held intuition on 50K plus types of housholds. As far as the forbes 500 list dunno how much it confirms one way or the other. It wasn’t my main focus though. My over all saying is there seems to be a dramatic shift in family functions as the “tribal” society to the more peaceful, prosperous, “atomistic”, and specilized open society becomes more and more obvious within the human mental framework.

I’ll revise my views when things change that dramatically though I do think that surrogate motherhood is going to be a booming industry in the near future.

I say to a degree it has already happeed, and speculating about things that would once be radical concepts becomes a bt easier…though there is an obvious danger in speculating or taking a speculation to seriously

[Nielsio]

Clayton: It’s not just that they don’t believe in God but that they have emotional issues with religion.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

Atheists SECRETLY believe in Yahweh

Atheists SECRETLY believe in Yahweh