evolved people don't procreate

Post Reply New Topic

So, what's your ideas about this?

I think that procreating is a sign of being unevolved.

If evolved people don't procreate, it isn't a very adaptive evolution from a survival standpoint.

With that said, it's totally OK for you to not wish to procreate. Hey, 7 billion and counting. Totally cool. There will be no forced march to parenthood.

I just don't think that it's OK to denigrate those who do wish to procreate, either.

Unfortunately I think there is some truth to it.

I don't know what "evolved people" are, but people that don't procreate didn't evolve at all because evolution requires reproduction for obvious reasons. Now that doesn't mean that the only way people could evolve is to be sex-maniacs. People that dislike regular sex (often calling themselves "asexual") can still have sex for the sake of procreation rather than for the sake of attachment. Thus, the neurodiverse profile with a lack of desire for sex for attachment still is evolutionary possible as you don't need to have sex every day in order to produce offspring. In fact, the trait to only have sex for procreation is the natural solution for controlled reproduction, which is a very advantageous trait in seasonal climates.

It's completely the opposed.

And "Evolved" doesn't necessarily mean smarter, it just means fittest to survive (and procreate).

If smartness/geekeness hinders reproduction chances then it is not evolutionary advantageous. Yes, in some societies, being a dumb sheep can be evolutionary advantageous too.

I think it's really not very healthy or helpful to think of people as unevolved, regardless of what your other perceptions of them are.

A lot of extremely intelligent people procreate. Stereotypes aside, the main demographic issues that determine birth rates are access and adoption of birth control and the level of education of women. Women who spend 13 years going to school don't procreate as much as women who don't. This is partly due to women wanting to stay in school and thus avoid getting pregnant or settling down, but it's also just a question of how much idle time a person has. Of course, if women aren't allowed to go to school, they're likely living in a culture where they're not allowed to decide whether to procreate. I don't think this makes them unevolved, either.

I'm more or less an asexual. I don't blame you if you think the whole thing is icky or stupid, but I've gone down a road that led me to hate people who weren't like me, and it's not pleasant and it's not healthy. It's just easy. Try not to judge people. If you succeed, you'll remove a huge burden from yourself.

I used to say I was asexual (I'm not really, but I won't go into why). However, being asexual in the sense of not bonding with sex, and generally disliking regular sex in a relationship, never meant I was against the idea of having sex in order to procreate. For me, having regular sex "for fun" is not appealing, but having sex in order to get children is very appealing. Also, in Aspie Quiz, I've shown that asexual relates to "intimacy" issues, and not sexual issues, and thus can be thought of as "I don't like the NT way of bonding" rather than having no sex-drive. I'm sure there are people that identify as asexual that have no sex-drive, but I'm not one of those, and neither are a majority of people thinking they are asexual.

Who said being evolved means you are the fittest to survive/procreate? I think the theory says the fittest to survive/procreate will do so, and thus keep evolving.

I think that this post makes absolutely no sense.

Each and every one of us evolved from something, so we're all evolved. The only "goal" of evolution, if you can even consider it a goal, is to maximize reproductive success. So by that logic, people who are "evolved" would procreate more than anyone else.

Being a sheep is actually required to procreate, especially in the looks and job department.

It's society's way or the highway.

You guys are taking it too literal. He's talking about spiritual evolution.

There is no spiritual evolution.

Given that procreating has been an essential step to evolving , the manner in which you posed the question makes it tempting to criticize your semantics.
Why do you ask? Did you meet some family who in your estimation did a poor job with the procreating 'thing'?

Guys, I think there are holes in your theories. Not sure what though but I will keep thinking about it.

I think I'm inclined to agree with you.

I think all evolution is part of one and the same big evolution, biological, technological, spiritual etc. I think it's all connected.

Please do put forward any criticism. Simply stating that you're tempted to criticize doesn't contribute much to the discussion. Criticism is welcome, as in any debate or discussion. Discussing merely with those that agree isn't rewarding.

I don't think there is a semantic error in saying that evolved people don't procreate. Procreation was what made the evolution possible yes, but I don't see how that nullifies the former.

Evolution isn't as black and white as you're putting it. It's a whole damn color spectrum. Know that I am an indifferentist to most things, and evolution and "survival of the fittest" are two subjects that we must try to grasp as indifferent beings in the universe.

Yeah in theory "survival of the fittest" is true, but our human grasp of that concept is super narrow, when in all reality it's very broad, and you have to considered everyone is going to have a different opinion on what is the "fittest" individual. As for having kids themselves, that's a complete act of chaos, by which I mean that one sperm that was somehow the "fittest" of your father's sperm making it to your mother's egg instead of any of the other sperm cells. Which won't completely account for it being the "fittest" cause of a funny thing called a "genetic X-factor" and disorders appearing in children completely out of the blue with no prior family history (not that the egg can't be defective as well though). How said kids turn out in life is even more chaotic. It's not just you who will be influencing your kids. What they read, watch, and who they hang out with also has implications on how psychologically "fit" a person is. I mean people are born in what some would describe as an "unevolved" family, but still somehow become what one would define as a "fit" individual, through sheer force of will, luck, etc.

So in my opinion, since individual perception is what a person uses to define some as a "fit" mate, then the notion of "evolved people don't procreate" is entirely flawed. In fact I find the whole concept of people being "more evolved than others" flawed, if not a horrid and volatile concept for one to adopt.

(edit: had to delete and recopy extra post)