If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I take issue with your phrase "freedom from biology," but didn't feel like getting into a little semantic pissing match.

 

[CiG]

Where did I say that phrase?

 

[Einherjar86]

Sorry, "liberation from biology"--but it means the same thing. To be liberated from something means to be freed from it.

 

[CiG]

It's not my phrase though, it's from the Tweet Dak shared that you then commented on, repeating the phrase, so I'm just playing into that conversation here. To allow women to intervene in the biological process ("family planning") is essentially to be liberated from biology, because the alternative is to be enslaved to a biological process of procreation (like an animal).

Not sure why you would be bothered by such a phrase.

 

[Einherjar86]

Again, I apologize, I'm just trying to avoid writing long responses because I don't want to spend time responding to others' responses to my long posts.

I take issue with the phrase "liberation from biology," as it's used in the original tweet and as it's continuing to be used. Every technology created liberates us from our biology. That's the point of technology. It's curious to me that our politics routinely demonizes birth control technologies while ignoring erectile disfunction medication.

The experience of selfhood isn't reducible to biology. There's nothing bad about technology that allows us to circumvent biological constraints. I know you've said that liberation from biology can be noble; in the case of birth control, it is.

 

[CiG]

Every technology created liberates us from our biology. That's the point of technology.

The experience of selfhood isn't reducible to biology. There's nothing bad about technology that allows us to circumvent biological constraints. I know you've said that liberation from biology can be noble; in the case of birth control, it is.

I agree on both. What I was trying to point out with my initial response to you was that you're missing the point of women's liberation if you think saying it was more a liberation from biology than men is incorrect.

On the one hand you say; "most of my female friends have married men and plan to have children" and then immediately go on to say "it's neither my experience nor my intellectual opinion that women's liberation means liberation from biology" when we both know that "plan" in this context involves methods that are synonymous with being liberated from biology via technology. It's surely not "planning" in the religious sense of abstaining from intercourse until you're ready to be pregnant and carry to term.

It doesn't mean that biology evaporates, it just means that the biological processes can be manipulated in ways that allow women to not stay shackled to a birthing bed.

Sorry for derailing and unnecessarily pressuring you to respond, but I can't understand how you don't see your own contradiction here. A married couple "planning" to have kids someday is liberation from biology in practice.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree on both. What I was trying to point out with my initial response to you was that you're missing the point of women's liberation if you think saying it was more a liberation from biology than men is incorrect.

On the one hand you say; "most of my female friends have married men and plan to have children" and then immediately go on to say "it's neither my experience nor my intellectual opinion that women's liberation means liberation from biology" when we both know that "plan" in this context involves methods that are synonymous with being liberated from biology via technology. It's surely not "planning" in the religious sense of abstaining from intercourse until you're ready to be pregnant and carry to term.

It doesn't mean that biology evaporates, it just means that the biological processes can be manipulated in ways that allow women to not stay shackled to a birthing bed.

Sorry for derailing and unnecessarily pressuring you to respond, but I can't understand how you don't see your own contradiction here. A married couple "planning" to have kids someday is liberation from biology in practice.

I see what you mean; that's a great point. And I didn't see that as a contradiction because I assumed that planning to have children in the future was still performing a biological function. But you're right, the planning in and of itself is a form of liberation.

I think my issue can be summed up as follows. The original tweet is insinuating that birth control is an undesirable form of liberation from biology because it's imposing sterility "upon the whole of humanity." So the implied argument seems, to my eyes, to be that birth control methods are bad elements of women's liberation because they allow women to avoid their biological responsibility to procreate (or something of the sort). I was confused because I didn't (and don't) see how simply postponing childbirth to a future date is circumventing childbirth (entirely, that is).

But again, you're right that even being able to plan ahead, so to speak, is due to technological advances.

 

[CiG]

The real downside I see to liberation from biology via technology is that we are slowly becoming more and more detached from our decisions.

I'm not really sure how to take that Tweet. On one hand I agree that women's liberation wasn't from men but biological processes that had shackled them to a singular kind of existence for a lot of human history, on the other hand I don't really even necessarily care if this technological liberation renders mankind sterile in the sense that given this new freedom, women will choose to have less and less kids, essentially rendering mankind as a non-reproductive species.

I may not be a Malthusianist but I'm also not a biological determinist, and part of me wonders whether this sterility referenced to won't leave room for another species to rise. I dunno, but breeding just for its own sake seems ridiculous to me, especially if we're talking about a sterility that won't truly impact the human species for thousands of years.

According to the IUCN, an endangered species is one that meets any one of the following criteria: a 50–70% population decrease over 10 years, a total geographic area less than 5,000 km2 (or local population area less than 500 km2), a population size less than 2,500 adults, a restricted population of 250 adults, or a statistical prediction that it will go extinct within the next 20 years.

I think we'll be fine.

 

[Dak]

The original tweet is insinuating that birth control is an undesirable form of liberation from biology because it's imposing sterility "upon the whole of humanity." So the implied argument seems, to my eyes, to be that birth control methods are bad elements of women's liberation because they allow women to avoid their biological responsibility to procreate (or something of the sort). I was confused because I didn't (and don't) see how simply postponing childbirth to a future date is circumventing childbirth (entirely, that is).

It isn't circumventing it entirely (well, until it is). Egg and sperm quality decline with age, and waiting until 30+ to have children leaves a narrow window for having children if you are still able to achieve pregnancy. So even if women decide they might want more than 1.7 children, they may be unable to.

I dunno, but breeding just for its own sake seems ridiculous to me, especially if we're talking about a sterility that won't truly impact the human species for thousands of years.
......
According to the IUCN, an endangered species is one that meets any one of the following criteria: a 50–70% population decrease over 10 years, a total geographic area less than 5,000 km2 (or local population area less than 500 km2), a population size less than 2,500 adults, a restricted population of 250 adults, or a statistical prediction that it will go extinct within the next 20 years.

I think we'll be fine.

The effect on the species will be much faster than thousands of years, because the ramifications extend beyond simply "less people are being born now than before."

 

[CiG]

The effect on the species will be much faster than thousands of years, because the ramifications extend beyond simply "less people are being born now than before."

Such as? I may have missed something.

 

[Einherjar86]

It isn't circumventing it entirely (well, until it is). Egg and sperm quality decline with age, and waiting until 30+ to have children leaves a narrow window for having children if you are still able to achieve pregnancy. So even if women decide they might want more than 1.7 children, they may be unable to.

Your main concern is isolated to what you perceive as the sub replacement fertility rates of educated, well-to-do families--hence your earlier comment about "quality of population."

If that's your concern, then why is adoption not enough to boost its (let's say) reproductivity rate? It strikes me that simply having a child, whether biologically or through adoption, adds to the potential for future fertility.

Also, I should just say that I don't believe in reproduction for reproduction's sake, like CIG said--especially if it impacts people's personal livelihood.

 

[CiG]

Note to our customers: please don’t throw our beer over fascists. Hit them over the head with a brick as is traditional.

Brewery company advocates political violence, gets blown out in the responses, tries to pull the "just a joke bro" move.

 

[Dak]

Your main concern is isolated to what you perceive as the sub replacement fertility rates of educated, well-to-do families--hence your earlier comment about "quality of population."

If that's your concern, then why is adoption not enough to boost its (let's say) reproductivity rate? It strikes me that simply having a child, whether biologically or through adoption, adds to the potential for future fertility.

Also, I should just say that I don't believe in reproduction for reproduction's sake, like CIG said--especially if it impacts people's personal livelihood.

How does adoption increase the population?

The bit about personal livelihood is a key point of criticism from the burgeoning nationalistic political movement towards the economy as so organized over the last ~100 years if not longer. It should not make poor economic sense to have children.

Note to our customers: please don’t throw our beer over fascists. Hit them over the head with a brick as is traditional.

Brewery company advocates political violence, gets blown out in the responses, tries to pull the "just a joke bro" move.

Pulling an AOC.

 

[Einherjar86]

How does adoption increase the population?

I'm specifically referring to your insinuation about increasing fertility rates in certain regions ("dirtworlders" was your term, I think) and decreasing rates in others. I'm saying if you want to even the rates, adoption is a perfectly viable way to do that.

The bit about personal livelihood is a key point of criticism from the burgeoning nationalistic political movement towards the economy as so organized over the last ~100 years if not longer. It should not make poor economic sense to have children.

You think it's not a key point of criticism from other cultural communities--say, academic intellectuals?

But you're going to wrap this into a commentary on the development of coastal urban centers and intellectual elites and how that entire lifestyle is to blame (at least in part) for sub replacement fertility rates, and that if people living there can't afford children it's because of the economic infrastructure/organization that's emerged "over the last ~100 years if not longer."

If coastal living is too expensive for young professionals to have children, objectors will say those professionals should move somewhere more affordable. When they insist that the careers they've prepared for and love aren't available elsewhere (or are severely limited), objectors will say that they should take other jobs. When they insist that they'll be unhappy doing other jobs, objectors will say "Have children. That's your ultimate purpose anyway."

And that's the crux of the issue for people like Zero HP Lovecraft.

 

[Dak]

I'm specifically referring to your insinuation about increasing fertility rates in certain regions ("dirtworlders" was your term, I think) and decreasing rates in others. I'm saying if you want to even the rates, adoption is a perfectly viable way to do that.

How does that even the rates?

You think it's not a key point of criticism from other cultural communities--say, academic intellectuals?

But you're going to wrap this into a commentary on the development of coastal urban centers and intellectual elites and how that entire lifestyle is to blame (at least in part) for sub replacement fertility rates, and that if people living there can't afford children it's because of the economic infrastructure/organization that's emerged "over the last ~100 years if not longer."

If coastal living is too expensive for young professionals to have children, objectors will say those professionals should move somewhere more affordable. When they insist that the careers they've prepared for and love aren't available elsewhere (or are severely limited), objectors will say that they should take other jobs. When they insist that they'll be unhappy doing other jobs, objectors will say "Have children. That's your ultimate purpose anyway."

And that's the crux of the issue for people like Zero HP Lovecraft.

Well that might be rather accurate. Urban centers as "IQ shredders" has been an NRx meme for a while. I don't see the problem as confined to the coast though, although it might be most concentrated there just be virtue of sheer numbers of people and hedonistic options.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

this^^^ makes me remember the fact that there were FEMALES that voted for Donald Trump

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

anybody want my thoughts on abortion
click here
Search Results for Query: mandatory abortion | Ultimate Metal - Heavy Metal Forum and Community

 

[CiG]

this^^^ makes me remember the fact that there were FEMALES that voted for Donald Trump

Big whoop. Bill Clinton is a literal rapist and the 90's feminist movement loved him. Politics aren't as simple as all that and not all women are as triggered as you evidently.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Hillary was the one doing everything while Bill was in office

 

[CiG]

Have to make good use of that coattail while you can.