Gone

[Minister of Truth]

Well, actually, in game theory tests for the most efficient algorithm for iterated prisoners delimna, tit-for-tat almost always comes out on top. It does not surprise me at all that evolution has evolved humans to, act in a similar manner. In actuality such a move is somewhat selfless, because it is for the good of the tribe at large, and we pursue it even when it would have no real benefit to ourselves. This is further proof to me that group evolution sometimes comes into play with species.

The only real exceptions to this rule would be creatures like ants or bees, in which only the queen and a few drones are actually involved in mating and the rest do whatever is best to keep the queen alive. An ant has absolutely no regard for its life because for millions of few ants have been evolved in reproducing. Why would you value your own life if you didn't reproduce? They are the ultimate communists.

You realize that plenty of human beings choose not to reproduce and yet value their own lives, right? I think that more and more, young people are growing up with the attitude of never having kids, unless they decide to adopt at some point. In fact, part of this sentiment is rooted in a new sense of individualism where care of dependents is perceived to detract from one's individual liberty and drive for success.


Oh, and in case there was confusion in my previous post, I meant to write "haven't any" instead of "have..."

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You realize that plenty of human beings choose not to reproduce and yet value their own lives, right? I think that more and more, young people are growing up with the attitude of never having kids, unless they decide to adopt at some point. In fact, part of this sentiment is rooted in a new sense of individualism where care of dependents is perceived to detract from one's individual liberty and drive for success.


Oh, and in case there was confusion in my previous post, I meant to write "haven't any" instead of "have..."

A human who cannot reproduce is an accident and still has the same genes as a human who can.

An ant does not. It was born by the queen as a tool to further her reproductive goals. If a worker ant could reproduce, it would eventually evolve to value its own life.

 

[Minister of Truth]

A human who cannot reproduce is an accident and still has the same genes as a human who can.

An ant does not. It was born by the queen as a tool to further her reproductive goals. If a worker ant could reproduce, it would eventually evolve to value its own life.

You said "didn't," not "can't." I might be more inclined to agree with you in that case. On the other hand, if you couldn't reproduce and didn't want to, you could have better sex, because no need to worry about birth control...