Greetings... and a (potentially) sensitive question!

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I think it could be argued that we are somewhat obligated to ensure the continuation of our species. I'm not making that argument, but I think if someone wants to, it won't be too absurd. But that's definitely not the same as breeding. But why would average joes like you and me need to breed? I've been told that I should because of some traits I have that people think are desirable. But what about all the other problems I have? I'm short, quite athletically challenged, faint for no reason once or twice a year, I have alzheimer's in my family history. If we were to grant that as humans, we should ensure the wellbeing of our species, wouldn't my time be better spent doing something that would benefit mankind instead of making another person who is somewhat like me? People who make medical and technological breakthroughs save lives by the millions and billions. That's definitely much more productive (in terms of continuation of our species) then just churning out 2-3 children each.

How do you feel when someone with a genetic disorder has lots of children that share that disorder? I don't quite know how to feel when I read about cases like this, which happens very often. Once I read about this woman with cystic fibrosis who managed to live to her 20s and when she couldn't receive lung transplants, had a daughter, and then got a lung transplant because now her need is greater (because of her baby). But CF is genetic. Should she have done that? Who are we to say, really. Ultimately, having children is a very personal decision.

[bennyboy]

I see reproduction (and raising children with my views) as a kind of species vote. I'm voting on the future makeup of humanity. Do I want it to be more "average," or to include at least some people who are different from the average in the ways that I am?

I'm not saying I'm necessarily better than the average Joe. But I think humanity will be better if it continues to have people like me, rather than consisting solely of people closer to the norm. Given that, I take it as a duty for me to reproduce-- which I have.

[Zone]

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

No just apply this moral code "Don't be a cunt". If Moses came down from the mountain at Sinai with a stone tablet that's all that needed to be written on it.

[Walking Void]

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

Obligation, which is very comparable to a duty, is not absolute. It is relative between each cubic unit of matter. What makes a barnacle that much different from a rock? Not very much, in the grandeur of things. A species of animals or plants does however have a drive to preserve itself. By means of reproduction. Generations are naturally selected, but without a learning brain, unintentionally so. Necessities are not transparent, no, they are not limpid at all. Living, is simply simpler than dying. Living, is just the continuous process of absorbing energy to fuel the organism's basic functions. Protein production, sugar production, fat production. Dying, requires a lengthy process of negating these basic processes. Starvation is time-consuming, annihilation is socially or physically dependent on 3rd parties, poisoning requires the introduction of destabilizing agents, etc.

Your obligation, is yours to decide. Non-self preservational needs are a human invention.

[Zazzy]

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

Hi Steve- for me, it's always been simple:

In the very likely event that this life is all we get, only 2 things matter:
1.) Living that one life as fully and richly and sensually as possible.
2.) Trying really, really hard not to fuck up anyone else's one chance, which sometimes conflicts with #1, but is worth evaluating in the event of such a conflict.

Is this based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes/species? I don't know. I'm a highly social primate with fierce biological need for kin group preservation. We are tribal apes. Is my personal moral code as described above in line with that? Probably, but how can I know for sure? Since my genes will not be passed down, all I have to worry about is my tribe (and most primates aren't worried about species- they're worried about geographical or kin groups, which is pretty different). I don't think my behavior is weird for my phylogenetic group.