transhuman parrents? | Eclipse Phase

Sun, 2013-04-28 09:04

#2

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

Baalbamoth wrote:and watched

Baalbamoth wrote:
and watched the new "Vice" HBO show about how china now has 50,000,000,000 single men and how its effecting their soceity.

50 billion?!?!... Did you make a typo? Anyways, I would watch it if I got a web link (or maybe I'll search for it later).

Baalbamoth wrote:
we saw what happened with "the lost" so assuming growing your kid in a tank and giving em a VR upbringing leads to psychotic psychics, I cant assume thats how the kids are grown, right now I'm assuming some kind of nanny bot/wet nurse run by an infomorph in indentured servitude?

If I recall correctly, the lost were infected with a strain of TITAN nanoplague, which makes you go crazy to begin with. Further more the lost were also put through an accelerated simulspace environment, with the intent to get a new generation of people made yesterday, which probably didn't help their mental state much either. ---- Anyways, why do you *need* children? Yes, before the amazing tech that Eclipse Phase has to offer, reproduction was the only means to keep society and the species going. Now with amazing technology, its possible to keep generations of people immortal. You only need to occasionally breed (one way or another), as population loss is likely to still occur on occasion (you can't rule out every possibility that may lead to death and loss of back up). I think it will become more likely that many places will enforce population growth restrictions because their habs don't have infinite room to accommodate everyone if the population keeps growing. Basic biomods does include mods to prevent pregnancy during sex. Plus, with so many people in cold storage still, having children is often seen as a wasteful luxury. Its like choosing buy a Ferrari instead of donating to feed the poor. One the charms of Eclipse Phase *I think* is, a lot of people out there have access to all the tools needed to try just about anything. There is no artificial setting restrictions, such as bizarre laws of physics that says anything we would consider weird would not work, or technology is somehow so secure that it could not be hacked so you couldn't try something different to begin with. So odds are, if there is a way to solve this children problem, someone has likely tried or is trying right now. Obviously, you can grow children in a tank and supply them with AR stimuli... all the way to adult hood. You could raise them the traditional way. You can grow them in a tank for 9 months and take care of them then. You could fork people and not merge them (they'll become different people after a while). You could instead rely on AIs for most work. You could raise AGIs instead. You could raise Uplifts instead. You could try to create a seed AI if you dared...

Mon, 2013-04-29 08:03

#3

Smokeskin

DivineWrath wrote:

DivineWrath wrote:
Anyways, why do you *need* children? Yes, before the amazing tech that Eclipse Phase has to offer, reproduction was the only means to keep society and the species going. Now with amazing technology, its possible to keep generations of people immortal. You only need to occasionally breed (one way or another), as population loss is likely to still occur on occasion (you can't rule out every possibility that may lead to death and loss of back up).

Wow. Do you think people have children because they need to, or because society needs to? Seriously? People don't *need* sex, or to eat delicious foods, or enjoy movies or music. They want to, and what we want is a MAJOR part of our lives. Almost all people want to have children, and for those people it becomes a major desire overriding almost anything else. People who have reproductive problems spend large amounts of money and time and endure a lot of discomfort to get them, and they are quite depressed until they succeed. Heck, that's how having children is too ;) We have two kids and it is a lot of work, a lot of worry, a lot of lost sleep and time spent taking care of their needs rather than our own - and even then my wife talks soooo much about when we should get our third. You either need some very, very solid roadblocks to stand in the way of people's desire for children, or there's going to be children. Don't forget that your world should be filled with people rather than mindless society-optimizing NPCs.

Mon, 2013-04-29 08:12

#4

Smokeskin

Baalbamoth wrote:

Baalbamoth wrote:
Ultimates, dont seem to have these cultural issues, but worse, they put such importance on self improvement and development I dont see them as putting much time or value into raising children.

I don't think Ultimates are that one-dimensional. I also vaguely recall that they're quite into mentoring? That mentality fits nicely with raising children.

Baalbamoth wrote:
The most technically advanced or wealthy fractions I think would share this pro-achievement/anti-family outlook which leaves me wondering...

Why? I'd say that the most advanced and wealthy fractions have the means to support children so you'd see more children. In many rich nations we say a U-shaped curve for number of children as a function of income. At low incomes people don't have the self control to limit the number of children, at the middle/upper level they have an "optimal" number of children that allow them to have a career and/or afford a proper upbringing and education for them, and then the wealthy have the freedom to have any number of children they want. This isn't statistically significant in any way, but the 3 top people that came to my head as pro-achievement were Jack Welsh (4 children), Warren Buffet (3 children), Bill Gates (3 children). Far above average.

Mon, 2013-04-29 14:28

#5

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Wow. Do you

Smokeskin wrote:
Wow. Do you think people have children because they need to, or because society needs to? Seriously?

Err... a little bit of both. Societies that did not reproduce no longer exist do they. Having natural selection produce creatures that likes sex and likes to have children improves the survival odds of a species. So an instinctive desire for children does exist. In fact, I very much expect there to be no shortage of species that favors sex and children. Likewise, in places like China, they have the point of view that the eldest son is supposed to take care of their parents when they get old. Take a guess how they expect to get sons. Likewise in Europe, in centuries past, there was a tendency to marry off their children as part of a process to form alliances and such. The life of peasants and commoners was hard, so having children would provide extra pair of hands to do some of the hard work. In such instances, having children can be a logical choice. ---- Anyways, did I come across to hard (right word?)? I tend to have a very logical point of view, and anything I write tends to reflect that. I'm very much aware that most people have different mental states than my own, some of whom even have mental states that seem to be incapable of (relatively) intelligent or logical thought.

Tue, 2013-04-30 02:11

#6

Smokeskin

DivineWrath wrote:

DivineWrath wrote:
Anyways, did I come across to hard (right word?)? I tend to have a very logical point of view, and anything I write tends to reflect that. I'm very much aware that most people have different mental states than my own, some of whom even have mental states that seem to be incapable of (relatively) intelligent or logical thought.

You didn't come across too hard, you came of as quite irrational. What you wrote about human behavior didn't seem to have anything to do with actual human behavior. Your theory of mind appears to be deeply flawed. When the model doesn't fit the observations, the model should be discarded. That's logical. I'm sure you feel the same when you listen to homeopaths or creationists. Psychology is no different.

Tue, 2013-04-30 03:09

#7

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

is an instinctual drive a need or a want?

When a famon is going on the human sex drive sky rockets right along with birth rates as a means of survival. In my opening paragraph I noted "biological imperitive" a natural instinctual drive to reproduce. This is reflected in the sexes with males seeking multipule sexual partners and being more likely to leave a troublesome family unit, females being more geared towards cooperation than competition, and forming a much deeper bond with their offspring than what is shared by males. females actively seek out males who display good genetics (healthy), can provide for their mates and children (wealthy), and who seem less likely to abandon them or their shared offspring (mentally stable). This is why pretty much all human behavior revolves around sex and families. Humans NEED to reproduce. In poorer populations where retirement is either not funded by the government, or only partially supplimented, having many children is seen as the only secure means of supporting the elderly, dont want to be poor sick and alone in your old age? better get to birthin, and getting started younger is better than older. Thats why in China 50,000,000 (yes it was a typo, its 50 mil not 50 bil) is a huge problem, older males are not having children (cant find mates) and in large families that means the children born 30 years ago are being forced to support too many seniors, soon that whole system of elderly support will come crashing down. but what happens if you remove all that, give people immortality, allow them to edit their sexual drives or ability to reproduce, create medicine and operations that prevent any unwanted pregnancy. what happens to society? what happens to all those so called imperitives? what happens to romantic social norms and expectations? what happens when everyone puts their own financial an personal interests above the desire for parenthood? how many people would get married? how many would start families? If sex is something easily gained (free or dirt cheap) with pleasure pods, VR or say memory editing why get married? why form long term romantic relationships? to me there are a lot of assumptions we as 20th-21st century humans are making about transhuman society. They simply wouldnt have our sexual roles, identity, or social structure. we are seeing a TON of evidence of that change going on right now with people forming hang groups where individuals select from multipule partners rather than form formal 1-1 relationships.

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Tue, 2013-04-30 05:29

#8

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

@Smokeskin

@Smokeskin So I came across as wrong and irrational? With both my posts? Since you are telling me I'm wrong, why don't you provide me with some links to things that you think are right?

Tue, 2013-04-30 10:48

#9

Ilmarinen

Baalbamoth wrote:

Baalbamoth wrote:
This is why pretty much all human behavior revolves around sex and families. Humans NEED to reproduce.

While that's true, reproductive instinct is pretty easy to fool. It hasn't even figured out [i]condoms[/i] are a thing, much less half the stuff in Eclipse Phase.

—

[------------/Nation States/-----------] [-----/Representative Democracy/-----] [--------/Regulated Capitalism/--------]

Tue, 2013-04-30 15:02

#10

Smokeskin

DivineWrath wrote:@Smokeskin

DivineWrath wrote:
@Smokeskin So I came across as wrong and irrational? With both my posts? Since you are telling me I'm wrong, why don't you provide me with some links to things that you think are right?

You didn't really comment on your previous post. And you are the one claiming that perpetuation of the species is the major motivation for having children. Burden od proof is on you.

Tue, 2013-04-30 15:04

#11

Smokeskin

Ilmarinen wrote:Baalbamoth

Ilmarinen wrote:
Baalbamoth wrote:
This is why pretty much all human behavior revolves around sex and families. Humans NEED to reproduce.
While that's true, reproductive instinct is pretty easy to fool. It hasn't even figured out [i]condoms[/i] are a thing, much less half the stuff in Eclipse Phase.

Reproductive instinct isn't fooled by condoms. It can be (more or less) satisfied by adoption though.

Tue, 2013-04-30 15:38

#12

Smokeskin

Baalbamoth wrote:

Baalbamoth wrote:
what happens when everyone puts their own financial an personal interests above the desire for parenthood?

Who says this would ever happen? Even extremely poor people unable to afford children still have them.

Quote:
how many people would get married? how many would start families? If sex is something easily gained (free or dirt cheap) with pleasure pods, VR or say memory editing why get married? why form long term romantic relationships?

Long term relationships seem to be very common in all cultures at all times, and it seems to be about much more than sex. There's some variety to it though, like polygamy to serial monogamy. But the long term relationship seem to be universal. Sexwise, there's a lot more variety to it. Geishas, mistresses, prostitutes, swingers, etc. But that's generally a complement to and not a replacement of relationships.

Tue, 2013-04-30 15:48

#13

lets adapt lets adapt's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Ilmarinen

Smokeskin wrote:
Ilmarinen wrote:
Baalbamoth wrote:
This is why pretty much all human behavior revolves around sex and families. Humans NEED to reproduce.
While that's true, reproductive instinct is pretty easy to fool. It hasn't even figured out [i]condoms[/i] are a thing, much less half the stuff in Eclipse Phase.
Reproductive instinct isn't fooled by condoms. It can be (more or less) satisfied by adoption though.

So you're saying that the sex drive is completely sated when one adopts?

Tue, 2013-04-30 16:40

#14

lets adapt lets adapt's picture

Ilmarinen wrote:Baalbamoth

Ilmarinen wrote:
Baalbamoth wrote:
This is why pretty much all human behavior revolves around sex and families. Humans NEED to reproduce.
While that's true, reproductive instinct is pretty easy to fool. It hasn't even figured out [i]condoms[/i] are a thing, much less half the stuff in Eclipse Phase.

Nothing is being fooled in this example. The act of ejaculation is what resolves things, be it condom or not. Your reproductive instinct/sex drive doesn't know whether or not your sperm is on its way to an egg. All your body knows and cares about is that you sent your genes out into the world. Also, since it looks like people are trying to divorce the desire for children versus desire for sex, know that while yes, we can (and do) desire sex without desiring children, the two desires are completely linked. In fact, simply looking at a ovulation in human women and the desire for sex during that time should tell you all you need to know.

Tue, 2013-04-30 17:02

#15

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

fact, long term marriage on its way out...

you should also look at how in America were changing... back in the 40's divorce was so rare women who divorced and their children were strongly stigmatized and discriminated against, in the 50s that changed a slight bit, 60's divorce and the sexual revolution both altered society in ways we are still struggling to understand, 70's sexual liberation altered just about every aspect of social discourse, 80s we got off the coke and casual sex and moved towards longer lasting relationships... but it didn't last, 90's and 2000s... right now divorce sits at about 45% of all married couples, having kids lowers your chances of divorce but the younger you get married the more likely divorce is (and were seeing more and more people getting married at much later ages, IE after 35), once you divorce your chances of having a longer lasting marriage get incrementally lower and lower. shown here. http://www.divorcerate.org/ all across the globe have been rising rapidly owing to certain problems like incompatibility between couples, infidelity issues, lack of trust and understanding, and financial pressures. It is sad to observe that the rising divorce rates across the world and see marriages breaking. 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri. I think its pretty clear long term marriage is more of a social institution than natural drive and instinct. As time goes on I expect the modern relationship to more accurately reflect our actual drives (marriages as contracts to last a term of years with back out considerations and options for renewal, etc.)

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Tue, 2013-04-30 18:34

#16

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

Smokeskin wrote:DivineWrath

Smokeskin wrote:
DivineWrath wrote:
@Smokeskin So I came across as wrong and irrational? With both my posts? Since you are telling me I'm wrong, why don't you provide me with some links to things that you think are right?
You didn't really comment on your previous post. And you are the one claiming that perpetuation of the species is the major motivation for having children. Burden od proof is on you.

Of course I didn't reply. I'm not convinced we are having a proper conversation. The OP seems to have been asking for ideas as to how a society might attempt to tackle reproduction. I provided ideas. You accused me of having a point of view really out there using word like "Wow" or "Seriously?". I attempted to defend my point. You then told me that my arguments didn't conform to psychology. So I then asked for data on this so I could evaluate my arguments to the model you are using (I don't think there is just one), but then you said that the burden of proof belongs to me. Right now, it seems that you are using some trick to make my arguments to look weak or wrong to readers, without actually properly refuting them. I've attempted to stop derailing this thread by asking what when wrong with this "debate" we were having. When I asked for data, you refused to do so. It feels like I'm vulnerable because I've provided arguments and points of view which you are able to criticize, but you did not do the same so I'm unable criticize your arguments and point of views. I'm seriously considering ignoring you since you don't seem to be helping this conversation. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to evaluate the state of this thread and if this thread is still worth my attention.

Wed, 2013-05-01 01:54

#17

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

Baalbamoth wrote:The most

Baalbamoth wrote:
The most technically advanced or wealthy fractions I think would share this pro-achievement/anti-family outlook which leaves me wondering... who's giving birth to and raising the children? This is one of the big problems I forsee with being virtually immortal. without cortical stacks and sleeves, people saw their legacy as their children, with them whats the point of children? I'm not sure what fixes this issue for EP, any sources anybody could quote or any ideas on this?

I'm not sure what makes this an "issue" in the future or in EP. What, exactly, is the issue you propose? I, personally, don't see any point in having children today. Right now the US, Europe Russia and Japan have aging populations. IIRC the population of Russia and the former eastern bloc nations are shrinking. In a future where the issues of aging have been conquered there's no need to replace losses to population. In a future where the individual's creativity and productivity can be enhanced manifold there's no reason to train and educate new people to do old or new jobs. There might be an issue that an economy expands with expanding population. But if no new people need to be housed and fed the economy can still expand through better quality of life for people who already exist. That's certainly the case in EP AF-10 because most of the population has a relatively shitty quality of life. Most of us alive today have no purpose in society and very little utility to anyone but ourselves. That's even more true for our children. The only purpose we have is to fuck each other and clumsily try to produce the next Einstein or Bach through shot-in-the-dark (pun intended!) genetic combination. In the future there will be an App for that. The fact that more and more people in post industrial nations are choosing not to have children and chosing not to have as many children is a good and sensible thing. This will also be the trend in the future. Plus: I hate YOUR kids. :D

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Wed, 2013-05-01 04:05

#18

Castlereagh Castlereagh's picture

Has anyone considered that

Has anyone considered that the Pax Familia might be relevant to this discussion? There is a rather common itch to create something in your own image, and in this day and age it might best be achieved through procreating as well as raising a child. However, in the setting of eclipse phase that urge can be gratified with far less time and effort, by forking! Consider Claudia Ambelina. It appears that she felt the need to go forth and multiply, like so many people do. Who knows, nowadays she might have just been an octo-mom redux, but through the wonders of technology the Pax Familia was born! I suspect that Claudia feels just as proud of her multiples as any old 21st century mom would.

—

The lonely fox chases after the one eyed hound. [img=350x20]http://eclipsephase.com/sites/all/modules/custom_ep/profile_bars/tc_user...

Wed, 2013-05-01 10:07

#19

Lilith

Re: Pax Familia

While I do think the Pax adds an interesting angle to the discussion, I also think it's worth remembering that Claudia is, by-and-large, considered to be [i]fucking crazy[/i]. But then again, I suppose some would say the same about Octo-mom, soo ... yeah. Just a casual observation.

Wed, 2013-05-01 11:10

#20

Smokeskin

lets adapt wrote:Smokeskin

lets adapt wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Ilmarinen wrote:
Baalbamoth wrote:
This is why pretty much all human behavior revolves around sex and families. Humans NEED to reproduce.
While that's true, reproductive instinct is pretty easy to fool. It hasn't even figured out [i]condoms[/i] are a thing, much less half the stuff in Eclipse Phase.
Reproductive instinct isn't fooled by condoms. It can be (more or less) satisfied by adoption though.
So you're saying that the sex drive is completely sated when one adopts?

I'm saying that the sex drive and the reproductive instinct are two different things.

Wed, 2013-05-01 11:26

#21

Smokeskin

lets adapt wrote:

lets adapt wrote:
Also, since it looks like people are trying to divorce the desire for children versus desire for sex, know that while yes, we can (and do) desire sex without desiring children, the two desires are completely linked. In fact, simply looking at a ovulation in human women and the desire for sex during that time should tell you all you need to know.

If by "completely linked" you mean "both provided similar evolutionary advantages and are weakly correlated", you are right. But A LOT of people want to have sex while they have absolutely no desire to reproduce. And it certainly isn't unheard of that someone wants children but has no or little desire to have sex with the person. A personal anecdote, when my wife wants to get pregnant she's all business. It's just genetic material delivery, on command, at the right time. No sex drive involved at all, and her lack of passion was a complete turn off for me. It was probably the least romantic thing we ever did together. Luckily we succeeded the first month each time.

Wed, 2013-05-01 12:07

#22

lets adapt lets adapt's picture

I think we're falling into

I think we're falling into the trap most arguments on this forum fall into in that we are not on the same page regarding terms and their definitions. I will say that I think your "reproductive instinct" is probably what I'd call "parental instinct," as, like you said, you can sate this by adopting, fostering kittens, whatever. I'd then agree that the parental instinct is not linked to your sex drive. However, the sex drive is spawned from the desire to reproduce, regardless of whether or not one has sex to meet its intended end. *Edit: I should have said "the sex drive was spawned from" instead of "is," as it seems like we are progressing towards separating the two completely. You can have sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex. But! I stand by my statement that they are currently still linked, evidenced by ovulation and the increase of hormones, and, in turn, sex drive, despite your anecdotal evidence. :)

Wed, 2013-05-01 16:04

#23

Decivre

OneTrikPony wrote:Most of us

OneTrikPony wrote:
Most of us alive today have no purpose in society and very little utility to anyone but ourselves. That's even more true for our children. The only purpose we have is to fuck each other and clumsily try to produce the next Einstein or Bach through shot-in-the-dark (pun intended!) genetic combination. In the future there will be an App for that. The fact that more and more people in post industrial nations are choosing not to have children and chosing not to have as many children is a good and sensible thing. This will also be the trend in the future. Plus: I hate YOUR kids. :D

Public education programs dramatically improved the quality of intelligence with regards to people. It was only 200 years ago that the literacy rate was a fairly small fraction. Today it is around 4 out of 5 people worldwide. Pushing that sort of thing forward, so that people have free public access to college-grade education resources (alongside cognitive enhancement), and you might have a future generation where Einsteins and Bachs are a dime a dozen. That said, kids are awesome... but you can't think of them the way parents do. Babies and little children suck. You have to think of them more like RPG characters or pokemon: crappy when first acquired, awesome once you train them a couple decades.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2013-05-01 16:56

#24

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

refusal to breed is treason

one trik makes some good points especially regarding expanding economies. The planetary consortium has a main goal to increase economy, and turn mars into a new home world for transhumanity. Increasing the consumer base either through forks, children, uplifted, etc. only seeks to contribute to that goal. I would think not engaging in these activities, especially the creation and propagation of a family may be seen as a character deficit limiting upward promotion. For the largest and most powerful governments and factions, not having kids may be seen as refusal to follow the corporate agenda. In one section it mentions... "Ms. Hak promises to protect your rights and your freedoms to choose for your children what tracking path they are placed into during their primary mesh schooling." so, for some corporations/factions having children might be absolutely necessary, more kids hooking up to more mesh schooling means more consumers and more brainwashed livestock to throw in front of the approaching TITAN invasion. I am abso-frigging-lutely sure this is true with Disney... did you ever hear about Celebration Florida IE disneyville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida what they don't tell you in that article are about the CCRs of buying a house in Celebration... mandatory participation in events like 4th of july parade, Disney performers must be at your children's birthdays to a certan age, banning of more than two people sharing a bedroom.... etc etc.. its like 400 pages long and koo koo.. I will absolutely be creating a "Disney" hab along these lines with brainwashed "lost" generation as inhabitants. I also remember a super-punk game (forgot the name, off the edge or something like that) where they figured out that the average human spent something like $200,000.00 on hamburgers for their version of McDonalds... so McDonalds created a sort of brave new world Epsilon clone, a semi-retarded hard worker who has a genetic pre-disposition to McDonalds food. (PS. the average American spends 200.00 per year at McDonalds for them more people=more income) about the clanking masses... do you think it would cost more or less to birth and raise a new human or re-educate a reinstated and put them in a ruster? which do you think your employer would find as more valuable and more indicative of your fitness to advance?

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Wed, 2013-05-01 19:09

#25

Castlereagh Castlereagh's picture

Baalbamoth wrote:about the

Baalbamoth wrote:
about the clanking masses... do you think it would cost more or less to birth and raise a new human or re-educate a reinstated and put them in a ruster? which do you think your employer would find as more valuable and more indicative of your fitness to advance?

Imagine you run a cargo ship. You stop at a port and two men try to get on board, asking to join your crew. One of them says "I can start work on tuesday." The other man says "I can start in eighteen years." Because of Cognite's highly publicized disaster, the hypercorps have essentially poisoned the well when regarding time-accelerated childrearing. I don't think it'd be very likely for the option to be revisited for another few decades, the public outcry would be too strong. This means that unless transhumanity has starkly different outlook on the use of child labor, a new child born in Eclipse Phase is going to be useless and expensive for about two decades. If you take an infugee out of cold storage, they can start working immediately. If there are any expenses involved in training the infugee, you can deduct it from their paychecks. So long as there's even a single un-instantiated infugee left, having a child is an economic mistake. It's an even sweeter deal when you're able to pick and choose the infugees with desirable aptitudes. It would make sense for habitats to discourage or even prohibit newborn children, they same way they'd discourage an influx of unskilled labor.

—

The lonely fox chases after the one eyed hound. [img=350x20]http://eclipsephase.com/sites/all/modules/custom_ep/profile_bars/tc_user...

Wed, 2013-05-01 21:57

#26

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

Concerning expanding the

Concerning expanding the economy, infugees and the clanking masses are more effective drivers than children because they create more pressure for upward mobility. Having a child doesn't really produce a lot of economic benefit for the economy in a postscarcity economy for at least 20 years. The kid doesn't need its own space it doesn't require much in the way of resources that can't be covered by the parent's allotment of CHON and energy, it's sources of entertainment and education are relatively cheep. Before the recession I was building homes in the 1-2 million dollar range. My area the average price of a home is 300k so I was building people's second or third 'upgrade homes'. In 10 AF, Pretty much the whole of EP is in a similar building boom. Nectar on Luna is a great example of what's probably happening all over the system and on the nicer gate worlds. Things are settling down. Some people are making a lot of money and upgrading their habitable space. Poorer people are providing a seller's market for the older smaller spaces. Children are not a major factor and won't be for some time. In the mean time; Much of the population who might breed cant. You've got large fractions of the populous sleeved in info morphs, synths, pods or on places like Mars much of the biomorph poplulation has to worry about issues like GRM when they think about breeding, Read Jake Carter's piece of sunward about "owning your own genetics". On Extropian habitats you'll have to contract for basic services before you can even think about whelping a little nose miner (which should be the rule everywhere, always, IMHO). On Luna and cis-lunar orbit things are so crowded people are more concerned with owning enough space that they don't have to hot-rack and kids are an option for very few people who would even consider it in the first place.

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Thu, 2013-05-02 02:06

#27

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

welcome back!

prolly right about kids however, I wonder about infugees... "Hi, yes like the xp footage showed, your family and everyone you know is likely dead, earth is destroyed, the techno-alien-AI-monsters that destroyed it may return at any moment, theres about 10 revolutions that could boil out of control into nuke/netwar any day now, oh and this uplifted chimp is your new supervisor, dont make him angry he likes to fling poo... ready to jump into your used barely operable cold metal shell you'll likely never get out of and commit the rest of your almost immortal life to slave labor? oh one last word of warning, the last guy in this sleeve actually asked for a break once every 18 hrs, we sent him back into cold storage and he wont ever get out, his stack will probably get sold to the Ultimates for scientific expirementaton, welcome to your new life, good luck! kinda wonder if this isnt a worse idea than waiting the 18 years....

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Thu, 2013-05-02 02:46

#28

Smokeskin

lets adapt wrote:I think we

lets adapt wrote:
I think we're falling into the trap most arguments on this forum fall into in that we are not on the same page regarding terms and their definitions. I will say that I think your "reproductive instinct" is probably what I'd call "parental instinct," as, like you said, you can sate this by adopting, fostering kittens, whatever. I'd then agree that the parental instinct is not linked to your sex drive.

Exactly.

Quote:
However, the sex drive is spawned from the desire to reproduce, regardless of whether or not one has sex to meet its intended end.

Sex drive is absolutely not spawned from the desire to reproduce. The evolutionary benefit (increased reproduction) of a sex drive is almost certainly why we evolved it, but I'd argue that there is practically no link between sex drive and desire to reproduce in the human mind.

Thu, 2013-05-02 03:03

#29

Castlereagh Castlereagh's picture

Baalbamoth wrote: kinda

Baalbamoth wrote:
kinda wonder if this isnt a worse idea than waiting the 18 years....

You've got it all wrong! One of the best things about infugees is that if you hire one who's not particularly cooperative, you can just put the stupid berk back on ice and replace him with a different one. The agency you contracted him through might even be liable for damages if you can argue that there's been a contract violation somewhere!

—

The lonely fox chases after the one eyed hound. [img=350x20]http://eclipsephase.com/sites/all/modules/custom_ep/profile_bars/tc_user...

Thu, 2013-05-02 03:14

#30

Smokeskin

DivineWrath wrote:Smokeskin

DivineWrath wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
DivineWrath wrote:
@Smokeskin So I came across as wrong and irrational? With both my posts? Since you are telling me I'm wrong, why don't you provide me with some links to things that you think are right?
You didn't really comment on your previous post. And you are the one claiming that perpetuation of the species is the major motivation for having children. Burden od proof is on you.
Of course I didn't reply. I'm not convinced we are having a proper conversation. The OP seems to have been asking for ideas as to how a society might attempt to tackle reproduction. I provided ideas. You accused me of having a point of view really out there using word like "Wow" or "Seriously?". I attempted to defend my point. You then told me that my arguments didn't conform to psychology. So I then asked for data on this so I could evaluate my arguments to the model you are using (I don't think there is just one), but then you said that the burden of proof belongs to me. Right now, it seems that you are using some trick to make my arguments to look weak or wrong to readers, without actually properly refuting them. I've attempted to stop derailing this thread by asking what when wrong with this "debate" we were having. When I asked for data, you refused to do so. It feels like I'm vulnerable because I've provided arguments and points of view which you are able to criticize, but you did not do the same so I'm unable criticize your arguments and point of views. I'm seriously considering ignoring you since you don't seem to be helping this conversation. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to evaluate the state of this thread and if this thread is still worth my attention.

I'm not making claims about some exotic new discovery. We're talking basic demographic facts here. But ok, here's the US fertility rate over time: [img]http://www.prb.org/images09/US-TFR.gif[/img] From 1975 on you'd be hard pressed to claim that it is "rational" or provides an economic benefit to have children. Look at this article, page 5 http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf The table says on number of completed fertilities per woman: Annual Family Income: Under $20,000 . . . .................................... 1,265 $20,000 to $29,999 . . . . .......................... 1,445 $35,000 to $49,999 . . . . .......................... 1,274 $50,000 to $74,999 . . . . .......................... 1,953 $75,000 to $99,999 . . . . .......................... 1,417 $100,000 and over . . . . ........................... 2,017 As you can see, there's a sharp increase at the high income end. I see nothing about the high-achievement demographic that indicates an unwillingness to have children, on the contrary they have more children. From what I understand it, children are an economic burden in modern society (especially due to the parenting time they lay claim to), but with wealth you get the freedom to have more. Now, it is your turn. Please back your idea that achievement-focused societies won't want children.

Thu, 2013-05-02 07:09

#31

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

tee hee hee...

so jeff the slightly mental infugee, manages to get through the required psychosurgery and counseling before he finally snaps, highjacks a container shuttle and flys it right through the wall of a hamillton hab, killing tens of thousands and costing trillions of creds in damages... the corps then blame each other each saying the other didnt properly screen the infugee before allowing him into highly secure areas and the lawsuits start flying and will likely never end. Smokeskin- I think the error is looking at "family" income rather than say women who are committed to their carreers/education. I'm not really suprised if the trophy wife of a millionare can pump out the carpet critters, what I'm saying is a woman who is dedicated to personal improvement, accomplishment, etc,. is MUCH less likely to want to form a family and that really isnt represented in your figures... this is all the arguement I need... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Fri, 2013-05-03 03:57

#32

Smokeskin

Baalbamoth wrote:

Baalbamoth wrote:
Smokeskin- I think the error is looking at "family" income rather than say women who are committed to their carreers/education. I'm not really suprised if the trophy wife of a millionare can pump out the carpet critters, what I'm saying is a woman who is dedicated to personal improvement, accomplishment, etc,. is MUCH less likely to want to form a family and that really isnt represented in your figures...

Who says we're talking trophy wives? There really aren't that many of them around, and I'd argue that the trophy wife thing generally is second wife thing. Your first wife you meet in your 20s or early 30s before your career took off. She's most likely much closer to your own socioeconomic level and she's the one you have kids with. Most of the successful women I've heard about also have children. I can't be bothered looking up stats for it right now, but I'd really like to see you present some data on it. And how are you proposing that this massive shift would occur that caused women to give up children and start doing something else like exclusively focusing on themselves? Around 90% of all women have children, and that's counting everyone, including those who are barren, institutionalized etc., and that's after 2 generations of children not being necessary, during which time we haven't seen the rate drop. It all seems a bit arm-chair-psychology-in-the-future-people-will-stop-having-emotions to me. I honestly don't see any trend that supports the idea. There could be ways of course, say for example young and ambitious people have psychosurgery to make them work harder, give up their personal desires and remove their desire for children. Maybe corps won't hire people for career track positions who haven't had the "will never want kids" mind hack - it's such a waste to see them take maternity leave and afterwards using some of their waking hours on the kids. But it sounds more like something for a scifi short story than a realistic world, doesn't it?

Fri, 2013-05-03 04:53

#33

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

uh no...

90% uh actual figure is 80% and that rate is decreasing every year. in 1976 it was only 10% so that has doubled in the past 40 years. also the higher the education level, the less likely the women will have children. women with masters degrees go from 24-34% depending on year. to quote the authors.. Why has childlessness risen in recent decades? Scholars say that social pressure to bear children appears to have diminished for women and that today the decision to have a child is seen as an individual choice.2 Improved job opportunities and contraceptive methods help create alternatives for women who choose not to have children. "Why has childlessness risen in recent decades? Scholars say that social pressure to bear children appears to have diminished for women and that today the decision to have a child is seen as an individual choice.2 Improved job opportunities and contraceptive methods help create alternatives for women who choose not to have children At the same time, there has been a general trend toward delayed marriage and childbearing, especially among highly educated women. Given that the chance of a successful pregnancy declines with age, some women who hope to have children never will, despite the rise in fertility treatments that facilitate pregnancy. So.. better jobs, higher education, better contraceptive technology for women = less babies. thats all from here... http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-wom... so my views about the future continue that trend so 80 years from now, maybe only 20% have kids, and add in a bigger push that since everyone can reach immortality, leaving a legacy of children is unecessary and I could see that drop even lower.

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Fri, 2013-05-03 09:48

#34

Smokeskin

Baalbamoth wrote:90% uh

Baalbamoth wrote:
90% uh actual figure is 80% and that rate is decreasing every year. in 1976 it was only 10% so that has doubled in the past 40 years. also the higher the education level, the less likely the women will have children. women with masters degrees go from 24-34% depending on year.

I should have looked into the US figures, it is significantly lower in Denmark where I'm from (as they say in the article). And I think you're being intellectually dishonest when you say "24-34% depending on year". More on that later.

Quote:
At the same time, there has been a general trend toward delayed marriage and childbearing, especially among highly educated women. Given that the chance of a successful pregnancy declines with age, some women who hope to have children never will, despite the rise in fertility treatments that facilitate pregnancy.

In that case, this effect will be nullified and even reversed as medical technology improves, wouldn't it? It sounds like these women want to have children but are currently unable to.

Quote:
So.. better jobs, higher education, better contraceptive technology for women = less babies. thats all from here... http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-wom... so my views about the future continue that trend so 80 years from now, maybe only 20% have kids, and add in a bigger push that since everyone can reach immortality, leaving a legacy of children is unecessary and I could see that drop even lower.

Ok, so let us look at the numbers from your article: [img]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/legacy/758-2.png[/img] What I'm seeing is a VERY significant drop in childless women at the high end (down by a third for professionals!), and stable in the middle. I don't see anything in that data suggesting a trend that high achieving women are on a trend towards no children. It seems to be the exact opposite, and if you pressed me to guess I'd say that there's a convergence towards a 20-25% childless rate at all levels.

Fri, 2013-05-03 11:03

#35

lets adapt lets adapt's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Sex drive is

Smokeskin wrote:
Sex drive is absolutely not spawned from the desire to reproduce. The evolutionary benefit (increased reproduction) of a sex drive is almost certainly why we evolved it, but I'd argue that there is practically no link between sex drive and desire to reproduce in the human mind.

I think we're veering off into different territories again. My argument is focusing on the biological aspects and signifiers (ovulation!), not psychological, though the former influences the latter. You may very well be right if we're going to focus on the higher human mind as sexual desire can be triggered by a million things. It depends on the person, yes? You could say that there's no link between balloons and sexual desire but someone out there will prove you wrong by way of example. In regards to psychological triggers I don't think you can make that generalization completely as what forms psychological triggers for sexual desire has a incredible number of factors. For what it's worth, ultimately, I think we actually agree with one another.

Fri, 2013-05-03 13:33

#36

Smokeskin

Yeah I think so too. At the

Yeah I think so too. At the evolutionary psychology level, I agree with what you said. On the behavioral psychology level, which I was thinking of, we also seem to agree.