Women looking at this meme: so am I supposed to be a lesbian?
It’s not necessarily a POV…
Yep. Sorry hetro women, the meme has spoken; you’ve got to be gay now.
Well, at least bi.
women? on the internet? looking at memes?
Old saying in is: In Internet men are men, women are men and children are FBI officers.
Edit: 4chan rules of the Internet:
Rule 29: On the internet men are men, women are also men, and kids are undercover FBI agents.
Sounds pretty gay.
GIRL
guy in real life
Lemmy silver 🥈
Is it colloidal?
?
The silver
Sorry I don’t understand
(English isn’t my primary language :/)
Yes.
At uni the biologist parties were always the ones with the most sex. So that checks out.
The least sex was electrical or mechanical engineering. Just the couple of ay dudes had some fun.
Weirdest sex was for sure psychology student parties.
I used to live with a biology student who would constantly have house parties. Those parties weren’t the most sex-filled ones I’ve ever been to but they absolutely attracted the wealthiest party goers.
And there was me, who entrapped himself in a terrible relationship and had neither sex nor fun
Agreed. I was at a party and I got blackout drunk and regained my awareness as I was sitting on a log barfing. To my right is a psychology student holding my shoulders and stroking my hair. She then walks me home, invites herself in, empties the entire contents of her purse in my shared living room, then takes me back to my room and rides me for an undisclosed amount of time.
Psychology student sex was weird that one time.
And don’t even get me started on civil engineers…
Comp sci?
LAN parties.
Getting your finger bitten off by a person who is wearing a lot of make-up? Pls explain, I’m not a biologist. /j
Yes, you nailed it. You really fingered the issue.
Pynchon from Gravity’s Rainbow:
“Don’t forget the real business of the War is buying and selling. The murdering and violence are self-policing, and can be entrusted to non-professionals. The mass nature of wartime death is useful in many ways. It serves as a spectacle, as a diversion from the real movements of the War. It provides raw material to be recorded into History, so that children may be taught History as sequences of violence, battle after battle, and be more prepared for the adult world. Best of all, mass death’s a stimulus to just ordinary folks, little fellows, to try ‘n’ grab a piece of that Pie while they’re still here to gobble it up. The true war is a celebration of markets. Organic markets, carefully styled “black” by the professionals, spring up everywhere. Scrip, Sterling, Reichsmarks, continue to move, severe as classical ballet, inside their antiseptic marble chambers. But out here, down here among the people, the truer currencies come into being. So, Jews are negotiable. Every bit as negotiable as cigarettes, cunt, or Hersey bars.”
It wasn’t until I got to the cigarettes and cunts as currency that I realized this was not a particularly hardcore monologue from Gravity Falls, a popular show I had not watched, but Gravity’s Rainbow. Great excerpt though.
…god wants dollars, god wants cents, god want pounds, shillings, and pence; god wants guilders, god wants kroner, god wants swiss francs and god wants french francs; god wants escudos, god wants pesetas, don’t send lira, god don’t want small potatoes…
Physicists: the meaning of life is to increase entropy. Global warming let’sssss goooll
That’s the meaning of the universe and everything, not specifically life. Easy mistake to make.
It’s not meaning. It’s just a mechanism. It’s the canvas to what we do and ascribe meaning to.
Then again, our “meaning” might simply be a mechanism to another system
Help, I made conscious life material in nature!
So I was setting up my constants but wasn’t paused so I added energy andand the universe exploded??? in this huge biiigi bang and it won’t stop! Pls help, it’s my first universe, it’s already like 15 billion years old and I can’t figure out how to fix the “material minds” they’re crazy! It’s so depressing.
Am a biologist, can confirm.
A biologist who ignores asexually reproducing organisms, clearly.
Humans have tried reproducing asexually. It’s called wanking. It doesn’t work.
I guess I was interpreting the meaning of life as life in general and not life for humans
Sponges and mushrooms don’t tend to ponder such questions.
make up is so sexually unappealing. it’s like wearing makeup to a 15k run.
Sex shouldn’t be that exhausting, you should probably consult a doctor.
Maybe you’re just not trying hard enough.
Bust a nut, pass your genetics and perish. Thats it. What you do in between that is up to you.
No, social behavior has always been a party of biology. Even after you reproduce how you care for your young and your extended family has a huge impact on the species. Herd animals or anything that flocks can’t function solo. If all the adults just left after they reproduced the species wouldn’t survive. Reproduction is key for the individual, but it’s never that simple. The version you’re told in school is always a highly simplified version of the truth.
We did evolve grandmother’s. That was an evolutionary pressure response. Deep knowledge and long growth have lead us through doors of perception far beyond the reach of all life we have yet precieved.
We did evolve grandmother’s.
Grandmother’s what? What’s implied by the “'s” after “grandmother”?
Apple pie.
The entire purpose of life and evolution up to this point was to evolve grandmother’s apple pie.
Tangential nitpick—the phrase “evolutionary pressure response” evokes the idea that there is an intelligent or benevolent purpose behind the process. When a beneficial trait randomly occurs and gets passed on, that is a release from evolutionary pressure, not a response to it.
Honestly the entire idea that the only purpose of humanity is to make the next generation or support that process in some way just feels gross in a very eugenics adjacent way. If you start with that premise, it’s just too easy to conclude that anyone who isn’t working towards that end is disposable.
From a biological point of view everybody is disposable
Not just humanity. That is the purpose of all living things, insofar as we can be said to have a purpose at all.
Evolution is just natural eugenics.
Is it though? Because evolution is only really concerned with a thing living long enough to reproduce. It’s not planned like eugenics would be.
That’s why there’s tons of examples of dumb as hell stuff in biology because as long as an organism is “good enough” to keep reproducing and spreading their genes that is fine and that species will continue to evolve.
Eugenics would be more like if evolution somehow could select only for specific traits and then made sure to only let things with those traits reproduce. Evolution is much messier than that.
Yes, but also it’s more complicated than that. Most species die off before being grandparents, and certianly they don’t participate in the rearing of grandchildren. We specifically live long enough and have emotional connection to keep being part of a family structure past that point. It helps retain and pass on knowledge that proved valuable for us. Likewise, younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual, and it’s hypothesized this was to build redundancy into family structures. If both parents die off in a hunting accident, you have a gay aunt/uncle who can step in; much better than being an orphan.
Yes reproduction is the GOAL as far as evolution is concerened, but contributing does not require direct participation.
How about I do something which will make life better for people who are actually alive already instead of increasing total human suffering by making new people.
Having kids can be extremely fulfilling, doesn’t increase human suffering at all. Having kids subjectively improved my life and the lives of many people adjacent to me, e.g. the lives of my family members and friends and my kids’ friends.
I don’t understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it’s pretty baffling.
I don’t understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it’s pretty baffling.
Because people who are chronically online are chronically online because they had shitty childhoods which gave them chronic depression. Thus they associate the creation of children with the creation of suffering.
Source: me
You say it’s improved your life and the lives of those adjacent to you, your family members, friends, and your kids’ friends. But you haven’t said its improved your kids life. I think that’s what the OP was talking about. A being who doesn’t exist doesn’t desire to exist so making new life isn’t doing them a favor and only exposes them to harm.
Don’t project your own depression onto others, and non-existent beings.
If you think existence “only exposes [living things] to harm” and nothing else, nothing even potentially good?
If you truly believe that, I’ve got no nice way to say this: You need therapy.
Virtually every sentient life experiences a non-zero amount of suffering. Progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t suffer; progeny that does exist is virtually certain to suffer to some degree. The hedonist argument that progeny may get to experience some joy falls apart because progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t experience any lack of joy (i.e. that would-be joy is not mourned by that which does not exist).
Ensuring the certainty of the sum total of suffering in another person’s life just for one’s own self-fulfillment is incredibly selfish. Procreation is a cycle of blithe selfishness that perpetuates universal suffering and is at best wrought by apathy for others’ suffering and at worst wrought by enthusiasm for others’ suffering.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Sure, life is imperfect, but is that really a reason to espouse something as radical as nonexistence? I find that the imperfection and thereby dualism of existence is part of what makes it beautiful; we get to experience both the good and the bad, pleasure and pain.
I guess in some sense what I understand you’re saying is that to you, being thrust into the pain inherent of becoming and being alive, is the consequence of a bad moral or ethical (selfish) action and therefore wrong even if the children are able to adapt, because there is always more potential suffering throughout the course of a life. I get that, I think most of us would love to be in situations where we could have no-suffering-guarantees for our children.
Maybe the point of friction is that it seems to me like you believe that there should be no suffering at all for it to be ethically permissible to have children (lest it be selfish) while many of us believe that the “base level” of suffering inherent to life (eg. death of parents, the setbacks of infancy, social interaction, etc.) is permissible, and it then falls on us as parents to make sure that there is no or as little additional or unnecessary suffering as possible by means of safe environment, education and tools to cope and overcome so that what could potentially be suffering doesn’t become so. When it comes to that I believe it to be more reasonable to discuss who ought and who oughtn’t be a parent than whether it’s ethical or not to have kids.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Maybe you should find the empathy to see that your experience is not everyone’s experience, then?
Refer to the first sentence of my comment.
Non 0 amount of suffering is a meaningless statement.
If reincarnation were real, I’d hope that people who think the meaning of life entails procreation end up getting stuck as mayflies forever
