Why do people make children?

[Koldo]

You breath based on instinct, not reason.

Your heart is beating on instinct.

Nothing to debate, living systems once started INTEND to continue.............. naturally.

Source?
You probably mean that natural selection benefits living "systems" that behave in ways that preserve their existence, right?
Speaking of intention is fairly restricted to some lifeforms.

and procreating is how a life, lives into the next generations.

Is it?
This is philosophical, rather than scientifical.
But the mechanism that seeks preservation is not the same that seeks reproduction.

 

[Bthoth]

Source?

Science! Biology, basic common sense.

You probably mean that natural selection benefits living "systems" that behave in ways that preserve their existence, right?

No..... natural selection is not a term or philosophy that i use to rationalze that the heart beat is instinctive or naturally operating.

Speaking of intention is fairly restricted to some lifeforms.

I coined the paradigm that living systems, once started INTEND to survive.
Apparently you have never bumped into a person that has done this kind of homework/research for a living

Is it?

See nature............. that is how all living forms here and now on this earth are here and now.

This is philosophical, rather than scientifical.

IN a sense, the perspective does combine the philosophical approach

But the mechanism that seeks preservation is not the same that seeks reproduction.

Sure it does, do you think bugs and birds are thinking about it while their plummage, songs and sounds evolved to support the reproduction process. Even the idea of natural selection is based on the life changing for the best survival and reproduction capabilities without nature ever making a choice.

 

[blü 2]

I think heterosexuals immensely envy homosexuals, since the latter have sex all the time, without any concern for unwanted pregnancies.


Interesting.

There are also women who don't want to lose their silhouette and would dump a man just because he wants to make a baby with her.


Honestly I have heard of women who regretted having children.
Not regretting not having them.

Yes, there are all kinds of variation on the theme of having or not having children. A few decades ago our neighbors were a pair of gay men, successful, cheerful, a bit more private perhaps, who ─ I confess it was to my surprise ─ decided to become parents, and arranged for one of a lesbian pair of friends of theirs to bring it into the world for them to raise, all of which happened. So I recall my neighbors walking the child in a pram. We moved about a year later, so I don't know more of the story than that.

 

[Koldo]

Science! Biology, basic common sense.

No..... natural selection is not a term or philosophy that i use to rationalze that the heart beat is instinctive or naturally operating.

I coined the paradigm that living systems, once started INTEND to survive.
Apparently you have never bumped into a person that has done this kind of homework/research for a living

See nature............. that is how all living forms here and now on this earth are here and now.

It looks like you need to go back to school then. It is incorrect to say that living systems in general intend to survive. That would entail both having an internalized objective to survive and the capacity to understand (and hold) the concept of survival in the first place. Many life forms merely respond to stimuli, such as pain, which in turn results in a higher survival rate.

IN a sense, the perspective does combine the philosophical approach

Sure it does, do you think bugs and birds are thinking about it while their plummage, songs and sounds evolved to support the reproduction process. Even the idea of natural selection is based on the life changing for the best survival and reproduction capabilities without nature ever making a choice.

This answer simply doesn't address what I have said. Do you think birds reproduce with the aim to preserve their own lives in the form of their offspring?

 

[Bthoth]

It looks like you need to go back to school then. It is incorrect to say that living systems in general intend to survive.

How is it incorrect? Please be specific.

That would entail both having an internalized objective to survive

That is what instinct reflects.

and the capacity to understand (and hold) the concept of survival in the first place.

Why would it, does a lions think about killing the previous kings cubs because he is thinking about putting the lioness into estrus?

Many life forms merely respond to stimuli, such as pain, which in turn results in a higher survival rate.

So you still base life on reactionary? Do skin cells divide because of pain? Plants grow from pain?

This answer simply doesn't address what I have said. Do you think birds reproduce with the aim to preserve their own lives in the form of their offspring?

Try specifics. Birds are not thinking about it, the natural instinct to reproduce is based on the living process intending to survive.

It's been a long time, since i have gone over the separation of just chemical markers and the basic character of life intending to survive but every species of life forms, has the same intent; to continue living. That bridge from instinctive to learned capabilities is a tough spot that then brings dna/rna sequencing into play which create the chemicals/proteins to impose the reactions.

Huge topic.

 

[Koldo]

How is it incorrect? Please be specific.

The rest of the post is there for that...

Why would it, does a lions think about killing the previous kings cubs because he is thinking about putting the lioness into estrus?

How does that oppose what I am stating?

That is what instinct reflects

So you still base life on reactionary? Do skin cells divide because of pain? Plants grow from pain?

Do skin cells intend to survive? Do they even possess the cognitive capacity to do that?

Try specifics. Birds are not thinking about it, the natural instinct to reproduce is based on the living process intending to survive.

On what grounds are you making this statement? Reproduction simply doesn't increase the survival rate of individuals in many species. Actually, the instinct to reproduce works against the survival of the individuals in many cases. If both instincts were one and the same then we wouldn't ever see the instinct to reproduce resulting in a lower survival rate of individuals or even death.

It's been a long time, since i have gone over the separation of just chemical markers and the basic character of life intending to survive but every species of life forms, has the same intent; to continue living. That bridge from instinctive to learned capabilities is a tough spot that then brings dna/rna sequencing into play which create the chemicals/proteins to impose the reactions.

Huge topic.

Then you definitely wouldn't have a hard time substantiating your claim that all life forms possess the intent to continue living.

 

[Bthoth]

The rest of the post is there for that...

Not even close, just like this one, you skip so much and yet write one line without comprehending what is means in the next

Do skin cells intend to survive? Do they even possess the cognitive capacity to do that?

No, that is/was MY point but they do it naturally.

On what grounds are you making this statement? Reproduction simply doesn't increase the survival rate of individuals in many species.

Sure it does, as the life is giving a portion of itself that will live into the next generation. That's a part of living systems that you apparently miss completely.

Actually, the instinct to reproduce works against the survival of the individuals in many cases.

see previous; giving of itself, to live into the next generation is the LIFE surviving.

If both instincts were one and the same then we wouldn't ever see the instinct to reproduce resulting in a lower survival rate of individuals or even death.

If the life procreates it is surviving, even if the old body dies immediately

Then you definitely wouldn't have a hard time substantiating your claim that all life forms possess the intent to continue living.

The instinct to reproduce is evidence in itself. But you do not see the process as relevant to the life itself.

For a simple version observe cell division. The intial life giving a portion of itself, to live into the next generation.

You will not find that referenced in ANY book as I am well aware that I wrote it.

 

[Koldo]

Not even close, just like this one, you skip so much and yet write one line without comprehending what is means in the next

No, that is/was MY point but they do it naturally.

Sure it does, as the life is giving a portion of itself that will live into the next generation. That's a part of living systems that you apparently miss completely.

see previous; giving of itself, to live into the next generation is the LIFE surviving.

If the life procreates it is surviving, even if the old body dies immediately

The instinct to reproduce is evidence in itself. But you do not see the process as relevant to the life itself.

For a simple version observe cell division. The intial life giving a portion of itself, to live into the next generation.

You will not find that referenced in ANY book as I am well aware that I wrote it.

And why do you think you don't have any reference to cite if you are talking about basic biology?

 

[England my lionheart]

Would you encourage poor people to have children?

Interjecting here, I’d encourage them to use a condom,stop an unwanted baby and as a bonus STD’s but of course many poor people live under rich religions so that’s taboo ;-/

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would you encourage poor people to have children?

I was born to poor people. Most people are born to poor people. Not very many of us wish our parents hadn't had children.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, there are all kinds of variation on the theme of having or not having children. A few decades ago our neighbors were a pair of gay men, successful, cheerful, a bit more private perhaps, who ─ I confess it was to my surprise ─ decided to become parents, and arranged for one of a lesbian pair of friends of theirs to bring it into the world for them to raise, all of which happened. So I recall my neighbors walking the child in a pram. We moved about a year later, so I don't know more of the story than that.

That's exactly what I was talking about.
I mean...life is complicated with heterosexual parents, imagine with gay parents.

Gay parenthood is 100 times more unexplainable.

 

[Estro Felino]

I was born to poor people. Most people are born to poor people. Not very many of us wish our parents hadn't had children.

...in a first world country.
That changes.

 

[Estro Felino]

and procreating is how a life, lives into the next generations.

ah...so it deals with atheists who believe that they will be eternal, that is, they will live through their offspring?

Since I am a Christian, and I believe in an afterlife, in a Kingdom of Heaven, people are already eternal without making any children.

 

[Bthoth]

And why do you think you don't have any reference to cite if you are talking about basic biology?

Because i did the work myself.

Comprehending that living processes intend to continue, is by natural observation not references. i consider it basic common sense, to observer natures processes.

your problem is, you do not see that I could be observing nature as it is and capable to contribute without scientific approval.

 

[Bthoth]

That's exactly what I was talking about.
I mean...life is complicated with heterosexual parents, imagine with gay parents.

Gay parenthood is 100 times more unexplainable.

No such thing as procreation with same sec parents.

Kiss

 

[Bthoth]

ah...so it deals with atheists who believe that they will be eternal, that is, they will live through their offspring?

That is how you are alive. procreation of combining sex, not same sex intercourse.

Since I am a Christian, and I believe in an afterlife, in a Kingdom of Heaven, people are already eternal without making any children.

so why consider procreation? making babies. Are you upset about the concept or just against the process that male and female are how procreation exists in natural processes?

Keep in mind that same sex couples can exist and can make a difference, but the living process cannot convey into the next generations (make babies). It's ok but maintaining the honest frame is more important than what people enjoy.

 

[Estro Felino]

And there's a chance that a child can fix the things ours and past generations have screwed up in this world.

I mean, when I was born, the world population was 4 billion. Now it's 8 billion.
The third world and the fourth world procreated so many children ...the first world will have to take care of.

That's why I advise people not to make children. Children cannot live in this nightmarish, overpopulated world.

Almost all of my ex classmates think the same thing as I do. As far as I recall, in the last high school reunion, most of them were married. But only 5 babies or so were born. 5 out of 25 people in their thirties.
And the weirdos were the parents. They kinda made fun of them, something like: oh my God, poor yous...with the children.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is how you are alive. procreation of combining sex, not same sex intercourse.

Exactly.

so why consider procreation? making babies. Are you upset about the concept or just against the process that male and female are how procreation exists in natural processes?

No...I respect the process. I am happy if rich people make children, because they can provide them with a safe future.
I am just disoriented by the fact that non-rich people make them.

Keep in mind that same sex couples can exist and can make a difference, but the living process cannot convey into the next generations (make babies). It's ok but maintaining the honest frame is more important than what people enjoy.

Let's not forget that if most people were homosexuals, the world wouldn't be overpopulated.

 

[blü 2]

That's exactly what I was talking about.
I mean...life is complicated with heterosexual parents, imagine with gay parents.

Gay parenthood is 100 times more unexplainable.

Imagine four gay parents, as in effect that kid had. Happy landings to them all!

 

[Estro Felino]

Imagine four gay parents, as in effect that kid had. Happy landings to them all!

I will never understand lesbians, honestly.
Because I am into men, and I like anything in a man.

If they dislike men, why do they want to conceive children in their own womb putting men's genetic material?
It's beyond me.