Discussion Is the biological imperative to reproduce absolute?

[endofdopamine]

I claim the answer is no.

A concept that I see come up repeatedly as a source for much of the suffering experienced by a lack of intimacy is the idea that the biological imperative to reproduce is absolute. In other words, there are no two ways around feeling the urge and genuine desire to reproduce.

This belief comes up in many RageFuel posts which show such intimacy or easy accessibility to sexual relationships by undeserving individuals, as most RageFuel produces rage through showing how substantial inequality in how one is treated comes from relatively unalterable factors such as one’s looks, height, or dick size.

The inability to escape the biological imperative to reproduce, then, often becomes the basis for what users see as coping. And this idea often becomes reduced further to mean that anything done that claims to be outside of pursuing the biological imperative in some conscious or unconscious way must be a cope for the lack of fulfillment of that biological imperative.

However, I want to challenge this idea of the absoluteness of the biological imperative to reproduce with another fact: the inevitability of death.

From the moment you are born, it is a guaranteed fact that you will eventually die - it’s over However, once people understand this idea, they usually don’t choose to immediately die (what’s the point if I’m going to be dead anyways?) and they usually do not characterize this inevitability as injustice

A similar sense of logic, though it may be a false equivalency, can be applied to sex, intimacy, and other matters.

For instance, there comes a point after the ingestion of the blackpill where one realizes, “It’s over” with respect to relationships. But since the start it has always been over with respect to the finite nature of your life. It is also over for most people who want to play in the NBA.

The conclusion I have come to is that whether it is over or not is irrelevant, since it being over (i.e. death) is a precondition for life. Everything is a cope in the context of death.

Ultimately, it falls to the individual to create meaning. Those who who create more useful, obvious, and pleasurable meanings are often seen as those with superior lives because they have superior copes for death.

However the superiority of a cope does not only have to be restricted to those copes that give the most pleasure, but those that are most meaningful to the individual.

For many, meaning is the same as pleasure, “What’s the point of life if you do not enjoy it?” But there is meaning to be found in hard work and dedication as well.

And that is sufficient to show that reproduction is not the end-all-be-all cope for death, so it is not absolute.

What are your thoughts?

 

[endofdopamine]

I'd say yes tbh. It's one of two driving forces of evolution.

Well maybe it is absolute for the species, but I mean is it absolute for the individual.

Evolution, as you know, does not take place at the level of individuals, but at the level of populations over time.

From an evolutionary perspective, although the species must reproduce to survive, I would say the individual does not have to reproduce to survive, or to even live a good life.

 

[Deleted member 23820]

I agree with your premise and my answer leans to a "no", too. The thing with the so-called 'biological imperative' is that it is not only biological, but it is also heavily influenced by social factors (and maybe to some extent cultural ones). But this is only my opinion on the matter.

 

[TINMAN]

Not really comparable. You are comparing an urge to something that is not an urge. It would be more suitable to compare the "urge to reproduce" to the "urge to NOT die", in other words "reproductive instinct" and "survival instinct".

Death is actually the reason why "survival instinct" and "reproductive instinct" exist in the first place. Humans are hardwired to struggle against death. There are two means by which we do this, first by struggling against death in the short term, and second by reproducing so that our genes survive in the long term.

It doesn't make any sense to equate something like the urge to reproduce with the very thing that it is trying to prevent. This would be like saying that firefighters are equivalent to fires, or that men are equivalent to women's rights.

 

[endofdopamine]

Not really comparable. You are comparing an urge to something that is not an urge. It would be more suitable to compare the "urge to reproduce" to the "urge to NOT die", in other words "reproductive instinct" and "survival instinct".

Death is actually the reason why "survival instinct" and "reproductive instinct" exist in the first place. Humans are hardwired to struggle against death. There are two means by which we do this, first by struggling against death in the short term, and second by reproducing so that our genes survive in the long term.

It doesn't make any sense to equate something like the urge to reproduce with the very thing that it is trying to prevent. This would be like saying that firefighters are equivalent to fires, or that men are equivalent to women's rights.

I can acknowledge that the comparison is a bit of a false equivalency. But then I think you will have to acknowledge by the same inability to compare sex and death that it is not entirely accurate also that humans are hardwired to struggle against death by using reproduction as a method to stave off death.

If you say that humans are hardwired to struggle against death by reproducing, then isn't what you're saying the same thing as what I'm saying: that reproduction is a cope for death?

Maybe I'm not being precise enough with what I was originally saying.
I want to compare: "If you know you're going to die, then why live?" to "If you know you're never going to have sex, then why live?"

 

[TINMAN]

I can acknowledge that the comparison is a bit of a false equivalency. But then I think you will have to acknowledge by the same inability to compare sex and death that it is not entirely accurate also that humans are hardwired to struggle against death by using reproduction as a method to stave off death.

If you say that humans are hardwired to struggle against death by reproducing, then isn't what you're saying the same thing as what I'm saying: that reproduction is a cope for death?

There isn't some profound reason for us to struggle against death, we are that way because it was more likely for ancestors who had that trait to survive. The ones who didn't have this urge to survive and reproduce obviously had their genetic line die out in the distant past, for obvious reasons, so we are all that remains now.

Humans can try to come up with all sorts of reasons for their existence, but in reality it just comes down to this, a long chain of coincidences, random mutations and random events all the way back to the first lifeform that ever existed and reproduced, which was also created through coincidence. Reproduction isn't a cope for death, reproduction isn't anything, it's just a mechanism, it's like the operating system on a PC, except that it wasn't designed, but learned through randomness combined with evolutionary pressures. A comparable analogy would be if we had computers that could build copies of themselves, and they were programmed to do so, that is basically what humans are.

 

[Iwanttolive]

Same, no.

At conventional level of thinking, yes.

 

[modern_grendel]

I claim the answer is no.

A concept that I see come up repeatedly as a source for much of the suffering experienced by a lack of intimacy is the idea that the biological imperative to reproduce is absolute. In other words, there are no two ways around feeling the urge and genuine desire to reproduce.

This belief comes up in many RageFuel posts which show such intimacy or easy accessibility to sexual relationships by undeserving individuals, as most RageFuel produces rage through showing how substantial inequality in how one is treated comes from relatively unalterable factors such as one’s looks, height, or dick size.

The inability to escape the biological imperative to reproduce, then, often becomes the basis for what users see as coping. And this idea often becomes reduced further to mean that anything done that claims to be outside of pursuing the biological imperative in some conscious or unconscious way must be a cope for the lack of fulfillment of that biological imperative.

However, I want to challenge this idea of the absoluteness of the biological imperative to reproduce with another fact: the inevitability of death.

From the moment you are born, it is a guaranteed fact that you will eventually die - it’s over However, once people understand this idea, they usually don’t choose to immediately die (what’s the point if I’m going to be dead anyways?) and they usually do not characterize this inevitability as injustice

A similar sense of logic, though it may be a false equivalency, can be applied to sex, intimacy, and other matters.

For instance, there comes a point after the ingestion of the blackpill where one realizes, “It’s over” with respect to relationships. But since the start it has always been over with respect to the finite nature of your life. It is also over for most people who want to play in the NBA.

The conclusion I have come to is that whether it is over or not is irrelevant, since it being over (i.e. death) is a precondition for life. Everything is a cope in the context of death.

Ultimately, it falls to the individual to create meaning. Those who who create more useful, obvious, and pleasurable meanings are often seen as those with superior lives because they have superior copes for death.

However the superiority of a cope does not only have to be restricted to those copes that give the most pleasure, but those that are most meaningful to the individual.

For many, meaning is the same as pleasure, “What’s the point of life if you do not enjoy it?” But there is meaning to be found in hard work and dedication as well.

And that is sufficient to show that reproduction is not the end-all-be-all cope for death, so it is not absolute.

What are your thoughts?

The hunger for sex driven by testosterone begs to differ. We can resist it and try to satisfy our lives without sex, but without castration, it's impossible to kill the innate urge for sex. We can just 'rationalize' it away.

 

[endofdopamine]

There isn't some profound reason for us to struggle against death, we are that way because it was more likely for ancestors who had that trait to survive. The ones who didn't have this urge to survive and reproduce obviously had their genetic line die out in the distant past, for obvious reasons, so we are all that remains now.

Humans can try to come up with all sorts of reasons for their existence, but in reality it just comes down to this, a long chain of coincidences, random mutations and random events all the way back to the first lifeform that ever existed and reproduced, which was also created through coincidence. Reproduction isn't a cope for death, reproduction isn't anything, it's just a mechanism, it's like the operating system on a PC, except that it wasn't designed, but learned through randomness combined with evolutionary pressures. A comparable analogy would be if we had computers that could build copies of themselves, and they were programmed to do so, that is basically what humans are.

Well I agree with you that there is no inherent meaning to any of reality or life.
But the paradoxical aspect of it is that out of a reality that has no inherent meaning, humans were able to create their own self-contained meanings that allow us to manipulate reality in a certain way (i.e. mathematical ideas).
And I think that meaning which is created by humans isn't trivial.
Sure, reproduction isn't anything in the context of objective reality, and yeah, it's just a process that appeared out of coincidence. However, reproduction and everything else that we can perceive and think about means something in the context of the meanings that humans ascribe to it, and that's why we're talking about it.

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

No. Centuries ago, the strongest male would kill all the weaker men and procreate with all the women that were left. A study claimed that for each man, there were 17 sexual partners: all of them would end up pregnant. Therefore it is safe to say that there were plenty of surviving men were lone wolfs.

 

[endofdopamine]

The hunger for sex driven by testosterone begs to differ. We can resist it and try to satisfy our lives without sex, but without castration, it's impossible to kill the innate urge for sex. We can just 'rationalize' it away.

Well, I am not saying that we have to ignore it completely, I just mean that it does not have to be at the center of what gives our lives purpose. Phrased a different way, is it possible to live a fulfilling life without frequent sex or without sex at all? Maybe you can just get yourself off to reset the urges. Then the only problem becomes how you conceptualize the difference between actually having sex and masturbating. Maybe there is evidence your body knows the difference? That would be interesting.

 

[Swimcell]

I don’t agree with your argument, but I wanted to commend you for putting effort into this post. Interesting stuff.

 

[modern_grendel]

Well, I am not saying that we have to ignore it completely, I just mean that it does not have to be at the center of what gives our lives purpose. Phrased a different way, is it possible to live a fulfilling life without frequent sex or without sex at all? Maybe you can just get yourself off to reset the urges. Then the only problem becomes how you conceptualize the difference between actually having sex and masturbating. Maybe there is evidence your body knows the difference? That would be interesting.

I agree with this. Fuck the no faopers, cooking lets me get on with my life and do things that are more deeply satisfying. We just need to find whatever works.

 

[TINMAN]

And I think that meaning which is created by humans isn't trivial.

This is something that I would actually say is cope.

Literally none of that actually matters. You want proof? Look at how foids behave. They can ascribe all sorts of meanings to their mating preferences or whatever (personality, sense of humor), but in the end none of it makes any difference, because rationalizations lose priority to instinctive behaviour. A foid can never make herself be attracted to a non-chad, no matter how much she rationalizes it. Your desires will never have anything to do with your rationalizations. As much as you may tell yourself that you should be happy and satisfied for a list of seemingly perfectly valid reasons, none of it will ever matter because those are not things you instinctively care about.

Someone may come up with a counter-point of men having honor, and being willing to die for honor, but in reality this actually proves my point even more, because this is an instinctive behaviour in men. Humans are conditioned to have men be willing to die to protect things, because it improves the survival of the species. When is the last time you saw a woman die for the sake of honor? It never happens, because it's not an instinctive behaviour. This is the extent to which the "meaning" created by humans reaches, never actually having an impact on anything.

 

[endofdopamine]

This is something that I would actually say is cope.

Literally none of that actually matters. You want proof? Look at how foids behave. They can ascribe all sorts of meanings to their mating preferences or whatever (personality, sense of humor), but in the end none of it makes any difference, because rationalizations lose priority to instinctive behaviour. A foid can never make herself be attracted to a non-chad, no matter how much she rationalizes it. Your desires will never have anything to do with your rationalizations. As much as you may tell yourself that you should be happy and satisfied for a list of seemingly perfectly valid reasons, none of it will ever matter because those are not things you instinctively care about.

Okay, I think I see your point.
But I think this reductionist view that you have of human behavior as not having any meaning except in the context of instincts or desires is a bit bleak, and perhaps not entirely accurate.
Your desires will sometimes have something to do with your rationalizations, such as when a woman rationalizes why she likes an abusive man or why she likes Chad.
I think a lot of the lives of people such as doctors, whose entire careers are basically self-sacrifice for the group (for most doctors at least), are not following an instinct directly... the problem here is if you are saying that they do follow some sort of altruistic instinct, then we have just shown that the biological imperative to reproduce is not an absolute reason for living.
Why do your reproductive desires and instincts have to be satisfied and followed in order for you to find meaning in life?

 

[TINMAN]

I think a lot of the lives of people such as doctors, whose entire careers are basically self-sacrifice for the group (for most doctors at least), are not following an instinct directly... the problem here is if you are saying that they do follow some sort of altruistic instinct, then we have just shown that the biological imperative is not an absolute reason for living.
Why do your reproductive desires and instincts have to be satisfied and followed in order for you to find meaning in life?

These behaviours are also based on instincts, humans are social animals so we have developed instincts for social altruism

Your desires will sometimes have something to do with your rationalizations, such as when a woman rationalizes why she likes an abusive man or why she likes Chad.

I think you are misunderstanding something here. In this scenario, the woman's rationalizations have no actual impact. She will like chad regardless of whether she rationalizes it or not. In fact a lot of woman operate this way, no rational thought whatsoever, and if pressed for an explanation for their actions they won't be able to come up with anything substantial. Considering this, do you think her rationalizations matter at all? That they have any significance? They are like a pretty ribbon that you tie onto something, frilly but meaningless.

 

[endofdopamine]

These behaviours are also based on instincts, humans are social animals so we have developed instincts for social altruism

I think you are misunderstanding something here. In this scenario, the woman's rationalizations have no actual impact. She will like chad regardless of whether she rationalizes it or not. In fact a lot of woman operate this way, no rational thought whatsoever, and if pressed for an explanation for their actions they won't be able to come up with anything substantial. Considering this, do you think her rationalizations matter at all? That they have any significance? They are like a pretty ribbon that you tie onto something, frilly but meaningless.

Okay I have misunderstood - so you think rationalizations are always derivative from instincts and unconscious desires?
And then you are saying that meaning is irrelevant because it is a rationalization in the end?

 

[TINMAN]

Okay I have misunderstood - so you think rationalizations are always derivative from instincts and unconscious desires?
And then you are saying that meaning is irrelevant because it is a rationalization in the end?

I am speaking in the context of self-fulfillment as well as motivations behind human behaviour. In the end all of these are decided purely by instinct, no amount of rational thought can change them.

Certain behaviours may seem like they are based in rational thought, but underlying that thought there is always a desire of some kind, and that desire is based on instinct.

For example, suppose you are studying for an exam. This is surely a rational behaviour. You need to study to avoid failing. But why are you trying to avoid failing? So that you can make money in the future. Why do you need to make money in the future? So that you will have the ability to acquire food, shelter, and because you instinctively know that having more resources helps with attracting a mate.

Do you see how underlying everything you think and do, is an emotional impulse which is purely based upon your lizard brain instincts?

 

[Deleted member 21514]

No, i don't think it is, but i think the cope/rope thing comes from the fact that we will not only not reproduce we will also never be respected or treated good, we won't be rich or have a work that we like, we will never be happy, etc. All of that shit just for being born ugly

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

Never thought about it

 

[Yerberito]

Never thought about it