Would you give up your reproductive rights for love?

Post Reply New Topic

We all know that a central tenet of Evolutionary theory is that *almost all* organisms are mainly interested in the reproduction and passing on of their genes, and this manifests in the primal sexual drive that exists in the majority of human males. This primal drive and interest in fathering ones own offspring even seems to exist among those who would be widely considered by society to be "evolutionary deficient", such as autistics and schizophrenics, despite that their reproductive fitness is historically pretty low (There's more hope for financially successful autistics).

But, let's you were hypothetically evolutionarily disadvantaged and let's say you were desperate for love... and possibly sex. Would you give up your reproductive rights for the sake of love if you had the option (And, by that, I mean "true love" in your future would be guaranteed and I don't mean you'd find it 2 years before you die)? I mean, with how overpopulated the world is and the many chinese orphans out there in need of a caring family, you could just as easily have a family if you wanted without the guilt-inducing action of reproducing, so there'd be "no real tradeoff" of giving up your reproductive rights other than the knowledge your children wouldn't be as genetically and, probabilistically speaking, behaviorally and cognitively similar to you.

Last edited by swbluto on 20 Apr 2011, 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That's an extreme over-simplification of maybe half of evolutionary theory.
The vast majority of organisms are capable of physical reproduction-
producing offspring is a FAILURE if none or few of those offspring survive until reaching reproductive maturity themselves.
Such is why love and attachment chemicals are a powerful component of sex,
and why people mate with those who seem to have access to resources-
parenting and strong parental bonds are extremely important in terms of evolutionary success.

And females.

Only because Autistics and schizophrenics are, obviously, different from the statistical norm, and there's a strong positive assortative mating tendency in humans.
As we can see in many IT and scientific fields, this results in people with Autistic traits often having offspring with EACH OTHER instead.
Parental fitness, apart from those who are extremely low-functioning and arguably might be excluded from mating in the first place,
is a different matter.


...why would that be required?



That's a very big tradeoff for some people, and the "overpopulation" bit could be said about anyone. People with family histories of heart disease, diabetes, depression, etc, are obviously not often deterred from reproducing because of a chance their offspring MIGHT develop something. I don't know who you're referring to who thinks reproducing should inspire "guilt".

I'm not going to waste keystrokes on explaining that it was an obvious simplification.



Really? Since I intuitively understood only my gender best, I thought I'd play it safe.



I agree with the "deviation from the statistical norm and strong positive assortative mating" hypothesis, but the causal paths are a little more indirect than that even though the root cause, deviation from the norm, is the same. Those who sufficiently deviate from the norm are excluded from society and its typical benefits, such as employment, which leads to a loss of procuring resources which leads to a loss of ability to attract a mate. This is why autistics in IT typically fare better in modern times and often attract mates who *aren't* neurotypically similar to them, contrary to what positive assortative mating would predict: they have money.

Insufficiently employed autistics typically see no similar fortune.

LOVE, though, is definitely associated with positive assortative mating. The mutually requited type, anyways. Those who aren't strongly fundamentally psychologically similar in marriages are probably over-represented in the "loveless marriages" category.



It's a wistful "What if were an option?" question, similar to the fanciful thinking embodied in the question "What if you had a million dollars?".



The guilt inducement comes from knowingly aiding the overpopulation 'problem'(Ultimately depending on your perspective of whether or not it's a problem), plus possibly those who have a greatly heightened likelihood of producing children who wouldn't fare well in this world. Most people don't think about it when having children, but it seems like a problem that the LGBT community often prides itself in solving, lol.

Last edited by swbluto on 20 Apr 2011, 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

So...Autistic people should feel guiltier than others about reproducing because their offspring *might* have Autism, which is apparently so horrible non-existence would be preferable?

That question sounds like a PR trap. Luckily, I worry not about my public relations.

No, only possibly those who predict their offspring would likely endure pain and suffering in this world. Whether or not someone autistic endures "pain" and "suffering" depends solely on them -- if they are perfectly fine not getting along with society and are happily employed in IT or whatever, then their progeny would likely be similar to them and enjoy a possibly similar regard and perception for/of life and possibly a similar outcome. If they're the bitter types, autistic or not, then possibly not. Of course, women excel at detecting bitterness, so that's not really a problem, usually. lol

Is that not a false dichotomy? Being "bitter" (not sure what that has to do with functionality) versus working in some stereotypically "Autistic" field? And what about the implication that an Autistic person will inherently "not get along with society"?

No dichotomy was intended, as I'm evaluating "autistic" and "bitter" people categories separately. There's going to be overlap in this world, though, as there appears to be many aspergers individuals who are embittered by society (I might be one of them, lol.).



What about it? I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it as there are many people who experience/enjoy life just fine who don't "get along with society". If you're questioning the assumption there are negligibly few autistics who fit perfectly right in, then ... what's the problem? I seriously don't see too many rain men being the life of the party.

I don't understand this post.

I expected a crazy hypothetical where one must choose between love and their choice of what to do reproductively their bodies. Not some "you have autism and china babies are thrown in dumpsters so you don't feel guilty anyway" kind of really weird thing going on here.

Most people don't really care if their child doesn't share DNA if they love that child. I didn't adopt. I made my own. Four of them. They're perfect, including their diagnoses. I would love to foster if we move into a home that's big enough. Our family has a lot of love to give children who need homes, especially during confusing and heartbreaking times. There was nothing irresponsible in me having children because I have Aspergers Syndrome. Even if I had known about AS beforehand, I still would have had children.

Things that should make parents think twice about having children is cystic fibrosis and other very serious conditions like that. A friend of mine has a child with CF. He's an awesome kid and I'm so glad they brought him into the world, but they have refrained from having more children because of the likelihood of CF.

I agree with you. I don't "get it". I have three biological kids, and they too are perfect, including their diagnoses. I'd adopt a couple more if I had more resources. I'd love adopted kids just as much. I too would have had my children if I'd known about my AS ahead of time. I had them knowing about my husband's ADHD and that they could have that, so why not? For the love of Mike, AS isn't a progressive, fatal illness!

~Kate

Of course I would. I have no interest in having kids anyway.

Yes, I would.

This.

You do realise what you are stating makes no sense whatsoever right?

Adoption is there for couples who cannot conceive their own children for various reasons (either biological, or because it's a same-sex couple etc) there is nothing to be guilty about for people pro-creating their own offspring regardless of their neurology. F**king hell (excuse my language) I cannot believe that somebody on here is trying to guilt trip other members on here who don't have any kids of their own into never having any children, seriously just get out!

Your preposterous suggestion is the equivalent of selling your soul at the crossroads just so someone could have what they really wanted. Nobody in this sort of situation would be able to love an adopted child the same way as if they had created one of their own, because it wouldn't be genuine or real in any sort of manner.

The world might be over-populated, but that does not justify this bonkers idea at all.

Last edited by Daemonic-Jackal on 20 Apr 2011, 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think we should carry on as if the post actually reflected the subject and ignore the content of the whackadoo post.

The three individuals suggesting "my post doesn't make any sense" all have AS, 2 of which went on to defend their prior choices in life of reproducing and then the other one implying I'm trying to guilt-trip people into not having children. Ok, so it looks like the "doesn't make any sense" response might be more related to ruffling a few feathers more so than something that's *strictly* illogical in a schizophrenic/wacky kind of way. Of course, maybe something that's illogical could *also* ruffle a few feathers. Hmmmm....

Any ways, it was a hypothetical "What if you could?" question *assuming* that your chances of engaging in a lovey-dovey relationship in the future at this point in life is pretty much zero. This implies -- For females, no worries, whether or not you're going to engage in a relationship is essentially a "yes" or "no" choice so the question doesn't apply to you. For males, where the girls are conversely quite choosy and your prospects might seem kind of dismal (Maybe because you're a poor college student with a poor self-esteem and confidence and are pretty unpopular), the question then applies to you.

Personally, I'm going with a ... I don't know. I'm thinking my genes are perfect, but if it turns out that I am, indeed, permanently genetically disadvantaged, then I would certainly take the deal if it were available. If I want a family, it doesn't necessarily have to be of my own genetic descent.

Unless there's some instinctive desire for someone to "have children"(Which I might possess judging from my view "my genes are perfect"). Judging from the relatively uniform response from the females in this thread, I'm guessing there's a near universal desire to have children among females (Which, since I'm a guy, I wouldn't know anything about.).

Last edited by swbluto on 20 Apr 2011, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.