[ExI] Gene drift
atymes at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 05:39:21 UTC 2018
Same, from the male side. (Including the temperament.)
There were many points in my childhood where I could have just lapsed
into insanity. Statistically, if I were to have many children,
most...well, "regret having them" wouldn't be totally untrue if the
probable outcomes came to pass. Then again, that seems to come
inextricably with the genes for high IQ.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:31 PM SR Ballard <sen.otaku at gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m not in any position at the moment to have children, but mostly, even if I were, I likely would not have biological children. It’s not related to the IQ bit, but more the metal health bit. I would feel terrible knowing that I chose to have a child when I knew would suffer unimaginable emotional pain, just because of my own selfish desires.
> That said, if I were, by some miracle to become married. I believe I would raise (adopt) children.
> Or if gene editing were more developed at that point, I would be willing as well.
> That being said, I’m not sure I have the right temperament for motherhood. But that’s another discussion altogether.
> SR Ballard
> > On Nov 14, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> > Tara Maya wrote:
> >> Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no
> >> children means you don’t care if you destroy that future. That’s motive.
> > While I agree that it would be of benefit for mankind if smart people
> > bred, with or without the Singularity, I don't think it is fair to
> > characterize those who choose not to have children as misanthropes.
> >> Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come
> >> along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being.
> > A psychopath is a psychopath, with or without children. Plenty of
> > psychopathic children have killed the parents and vice versa. The vast
> > majority of people without children, smart or not, are not psychopaths.
> > People without children still share a lot of genes with the rest of
> > humanity not to mention extended family like nieces and nephews.
> > Crazy is what crazy does but I fail to see any rational upside to
> > destroying the human race ESPECIALLY if one does not have children.
> > Whereas if one does have children one could rationalize genocide as
> > clearing the field for ones children.
> >> I don’t trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a
> >> roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very
> >> suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which
> >> my children can thrive?
> > Assuming the roboticist is a man, how do you know that he is is not just
> > shy and awkward around women because of his small penis. How do you know
> > he doesn't have people in his life that he loves who might have children
> > of their own?
> > Neither Isaac Newton or George Washington ever fathered any children and
> > neither of them turned out to be monsters.
> >> He has zero stake in it. It’s even worse if his
> >> biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a
> >> robot parasite.
> > That parasite better be one damn cute and charming robot because he shares
> > more genes with complete strangers than he does with the robot. But that
> > does sound like the premise for a good story. ;-)
> > Stuart LaForge
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat