Anonymous #1 4w

Now irrational? It makes sense to me that a couple would want kids to pass down their genes and continue their legacy through their kids.

5

Anonymous #2 4w

i think irrational in this sense would be more like most people can’t afford to take care of themselves so why have a kid now rather than humans having biological reasons for reproduction

1

Anonymous #1 4w

not sure I agree that human nature is consistently “rooted in selfishness”, but if you believe the species is innately self-centered as one of our core traits, then that sounds like another good argument against continuing to create more of us tbqh

1

Anonymous #1 4w

the rationality of wanting to “pass down their genes and continue their legacy” is debatable, but that’s Definitely a self-serving motivation

1

Anonymous #2 4w

innately made to reproduce? more than a little presumptuous to talk like you can be confident as to the purpose behind our species’ creation. so what you’re asking about is the human drive to endlessly proliferate, right? of course that’s not a rational motivation lol, it’s pure animal instinct. not even an instinct in the sense that hunger is, i.e. necessary for our own individual continued survival, either

1

Anonymous #3 4w

this is accurate too. although for what it’s worth, being that we do live in a time and place where reproduction is the norm, I think it’s fucked up that there aren’t more systems in place to protect impoverished parents / families

1

Anonymous OP 4w

All of life is inherently based on selfishness. Survival of the fittest. The wolf doesn’t share food with its rivals, it hoards it for itself. It’s biology

0

Anonymous #1 4w

well no, if refusing to share resources with other humans were a basic biological imperative then we wouldn’t have collectivist cultures. your generalization about human nature is based in a refusal to expand your perspective beyond what you’ve been taught by a highly individualistic capitalist society

1