Skip to content

Fit Darwinists Discuss Not Reproducing

A fascinating discussion about children on an atheist website.

What happens among fit Darwinists when there's not really a struggle for life?  Is there an (evolutionary) imperative to reproduce?

Of course for unfit humans ('unfit' defined by the strong!) the consistent answer must be No.  They should not reproduce.  (Never forget the subtitle for Origin of the Species: 'On the preservation of favoured races...')

But what about the fit?  Especially when their self-preserving instincts tell them this...

I enjoy my freedom and the amount of $$$ I spend and time to raise a child would not equal the joy I would get from having a child

Therefore the overwhelming sentiment of the discussion is summed up in this comment:

This site does a better job than I ever could of explaining the plethora of reasons to *not* bring another eating, pooping carbon footprint into our already bloated planet

I think you'll agree this is an excellent summary of how to view, not only children but any unproductive member of the human race, through Darwinian eyes.

Of course they express disappointment that they are being outbred by the religious.  But self-preservation seems to be a far greater motivation than preservation of their own kind.

One commenter found the courage to call planned childlessness "selfish and very self-absorbed."  For him, 'spreading our seed' is 'our only real chance at eternal life'. He was quickly rounded on by another commenter:

Chance for eternal life? There is no such thing...  Reality is a hard pill to swallow, but intellectual honesty demands it. Your desire for eternal life & your fluffy idealism of parenthood & children doesn’t change it.

Anyway... a fascinating insight into a subculture and into the future (or otherwise) of an idea.

.

0 thoughts on “Fit Darwinists Discuss Not Reproducing

  1. Si Hollett

    Because Darwinism's universe goes from nothing to nothing, directionless and quasi-random, it makes no difference whether you or your offspring are in it, or if someone else and their offspring are in it. The answer must be "up to you".

    So, while it doesn't demand consistency (if Darwinism is true, it makes no difference whether I believe in it or not: if reality is a hard pill to swallow, why should I swallow it? It doesn't matter if I believe the truth or not, because nothing matters!) it is the case that it doesn't matter if the favoured race is preserved or not, or that unfavoured races die out. So the policies of supporting lots of Aryan babies being born and killing off the disabled, blacks, Jews and gipsies, etc in concentration camps weren't pure Darwinian. However, criticising them isn't either - if Darwinism is true, then the Holocaust doesn't matter - neither a good thing or a bad thing.

    PS I like the hypocrisy of the person saying it's selfish and self-absorbed not to have children, and wanting to have them only so they can have 'eternal life' via them.

  2. knight

    I wrote something about how atheism was self-defeating, due to aborting their kids, and not sure I mentioned this but attracting the hate of theists, but I don't think I mentioned along with the first: abstinence. Maybe it was because Michael Savage already made many people aware that the whites of Europe were being replaced by the Arabs, and I got lazy, feeling everyone already knew abstinence was part of the problem (I mean procreation within marriage, but also their not being competitive reproduction-wise apart from marriage is also contributing to their failing racial battle.) The atheists aren't the only contraceptive users and abortion committers: Catholics also commit many abortions. It's good that you reminded though of how Darwinism is self-defeating, (as opposed to just atheism). Belief in Darwinian theory makes people more likely to be atheists or doubters of God's existence though, so figuratively speaking, they can almost be spoken of as the same group, but probably not a good idea to lump them in together lest Christians or theists be accused of inaccuracy and the D's and a's also are mislead by false assumptions that every Darwinist is an atheist, which would make theism look worse in their eyes.

  3. Glen

    Hi Si,

    I think it's a short step from 'the fittest do survive' to 'the fittest should survive' especially when we're talking about the mechanism that drives life itself. If you want *any* kinds of 'oughts' (and who can live without them) then you're going to try and derive them from the naturalistics 'is's right?

    It's interesting that vorjack should have phrased it as an imperative: Do we *owe* it to the world to have kids? These guys are generally that very modernist breed of atheists who still want their moral absolutes.

    Hi Knight,

    Welcome to the blog, nice to have you :)

  4. Si Hollett

    Glen - of course - it's also the fallen desire to have an eschatological Kingdom without Christ and try and get it without him either. Build a 1000 year Reich for the master race, build a tower to reach God, build a vision "where the world can live as one", personal kingdoms of wealth and happiness. The image of God in us can be warped and twisted, but not destroyed - we still want the happy ending. If you look, the reasons as to why not to have kids given are all out of wanting to build a kingdom for themselves, or for others (not adding to the carbon footprint and draining earth's resources, or annoying neighbours).

    And yes, it does flow naturally from "survival of the fittest", to "the fittest must survive" to "the weak shouldn't be helped to survive" to "the weak mustn't survive" to this bunch's "I mustn't survive (for survival is reproduction) - it would mean looking after a weak one until they can look after themselves".

  5. DUANE

    Hi Glen,
    I would think, for the honest Darwinist, if he actually "values" evolving, would be a proponent for unfettered reproduction, and almost pure capitalism. Theoretically, the more competition, the more the fittest would gain ascendancy, and should reproduce more.
    Having rejected macro-evolution, I argue that I would not be surprised that God in His economy put the brains, motivation and other necessities in the children that are going to be aborted. Thus civilization judges itself by killing off the cure to aids, major energy technology, and political geniuses and economic, and myriads other contemporary needs. The people who would have given us technology for the next industrial, computer and science leap may be mouldering in a biological waste bag as we speak.

    They do not have a clue the harm they do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer