Great Question: "To what end??"

My Answer: "Who cares/it doesn't matter.  Just be."

Sorry for bringing religion into this discussion, but it was probably inevitable. :) The resulting conversation has been fascinating so far.

So what about people who don't want children?
Where do they fit in?

I'm talking generally obviously. Nobody can account for every single individual. Having said that, almost all of those people who don't want children are still driven by the desire to have sex, which comes from the instinct to procreate. So, while they may have seemingly conquered the urge to continue their genes, their bodies haven't.

I guess for them stuff like 'money', 'career' and the likes replaced the genes.

Another overgeneralisation.
I personally have no desire for children, but I'm not particularly driven by money (not any more than anyone else at least) or career.
I just don't need ' em.

There is a BIG difference between animals and humans in this respect. A human being can consider a myriad of consequences and ideals considering reproduction, while animals on the other hand will usually try procreate when ever the oppertunity presents itself - unless they are bound by nature in someway to only procreate during a certain period of time. Still, I believe the need to procreate is deep within every human subconsciously - we just have more checks and balances.

Reproduction is on even terms with eating and voiding, in the sense that no brain is required. Arguably, showering and brushing teeth are far more complex activities, since they do require a brain. So, in some sense we are similar to animals, from elephants to protozoa. I stated this because the need to procreate is not unique to the human brain nor even to those creatures without brains.

  As for checks and balances, we are far less hindered than most animals. Although generally not thought of as animals, bacteria have fewer checks and balances than us, since they are more robust. One can even scale up to scorpions and cockroaches and find life far stronger than humans. As one scales, one finds more weakness. But back to humans. Due to our intelligence, we may gain the strength of much smaller organisms. In fact, we have already demonstrated bacteria like properties, with our ability to construct spacesuits. Meaning, we are learning how to survive where we should not.

  It's through intelligence and the ability to preserve ideas that we may eliminate all checks and balances. Ultimate survival comes in the form of resistance to the most horrific known disease - humans. If we can defeat ourselves, which makes no sense and a lot of sense, then the universe will have something more interesting than bacteria as the inhabitants. Meaning - if we ever find a way out of our universe and find one full of bacteria, we'll have a pretty good idea of what happened.

How about sex?

That wasn't an offer.

LOL. Nice one

I enjoy sex, thank you very much, but I have the impression my libido is not quite as high as most men of my age, if I am to believe their stories anyway.
I definitely do not experience the urge for sex as a sign to procreate. If my girlfriend's period is even one day too late I start getting anxiety attacks (well not quite THAT bad, but you know what I mean), I have a desire for sex because it feels good and it's fun.

Still, as you said, I might be fooling myself into thinking this, whereas it might in fact just be remnants of a bodily urge to procreate, I cannot tell, so I won't deny it, but I simply do not experience it that way.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that secretly you want to procreate. I'm sure you are quite clear on what you want or don't want. But the desire to have sex (and the pleasure and sometimes bonding it brings) seems quite clearly to me to a biological trick to get you to have at it for that reason.

I don't think nature accounted for birth control.

That's the thing - we do seem to have been able to turn the need to procreate into an active choice, thus seemingly conquering that instinct. Yet so much of us still seems designed to do it anyway. Nature (evolution, biology, or any other scientific or non-scientific theory you might have) seems determined to get us (and every other life form) to pass on our genetic code.

It's weird to think that (if you believe in evolution), from the birth of life on this planet, every generation of amoeba, fish-thing, dinosaur-type thing, mammal, ape and then man all the way through evolution to me has successfully reproduced. Not one glitch in there in my (or your) lineage from the beginning of life to now. Being honest, whether that's through random biology, a scientific code or a god, I don't have the balls to be the one to break that line.

That's not quite true. I know that certain animals can actually abort their birth by reingesting the embryo when times are really tough and there's not enough food. This is in fact mentioned in Watership Down. Although WD is a "fantasy" novel, it does incorporate many scientific facts about rabbits, and Richard Adams himself said he spent a lot of time researching rabbit life and was surprised to learn that they can in fact abort their pregnancies under dire conditions. This of course helps keep the rabbit population in control, since they are prolific breeders and a huge population could lead to massive die-outs.

cheers,

-avatar!

Actually, what I stated was quite true (yeah, I'm just being pedantic).

But I didn't know that about the rabbits. That's very interesting. It does open up a slightly different can of worms in this discussion in that it seems to me (in mammals anyway, I don't know enough about anything else and even my mammal knowledge is shaky) that males have a greater need to spread their own genetic code than females. For whatever reason, females seem a little more satisfied with the survival of the species thing and are happier to bring up someone elses child. The reason I consider it to be a can of worms is that, if you take the idea that there will be a time when our genes count, it would seem this is less true for females. Are females simply vessels for the man's genetic code? Imagine the trouble that line of questioning would get me into. Easier to lump us all together as a species.

<3<3<3 bunbuns <3<3<3

Fubuki, Usako, & Rini
http://www.geocities.com/longhairmike/100_4262.jpg

So tell me, mike - do they really breed like, well, rabbits? Are they as sexually charged as the legends say?

You should also keep in mind that there are differences between domestic rabbits and wild rabbits/hares. I'm pretty certain the wild variety are much more reproductive than the domestic variety.

cheers,

-avatar!

all 3 are females and spayed

Ah, you're referring to the orgasm, the runner up of endorphin manufacture. The champion of endorphin release is none other than the Grim Reaper and he's fairly stingy, giving us only one shot. But one may bust a nut to nearly no end, whether alone, with a partner, or in a group; reality is generous with the orgasm. On a serious note, endorphins are usually released to mask pain, which helps to explain why it feels good to sneeze. Since the orgasm releases so many endorphins, what is being masked? The creation of life, like death perhaps, is painful? We start out in pain, end in pain, live in pain - we live for a reprieve from pain. Damn, we're pitiful things.

Tsk tsk... that's not a good way to look at life! If you didn't have any pain, you wouldn't have any pleasure either. Life, for most people (not all), simply depends on your outlook. Would you really be happy in Luilekkerland? I'm not so sure!

cheers,

-avatar!

You're so deep!

It's pretty obvious the idea of pain, emotional or physical, is not to enjoy it - however, I'm sure there are some people actually "get off" (for the lack of a term) on it or inflicting either kind. For example, people who relish the emotional pain of another are pretty "pitful" when you think about it.

However, from a physical standpoint nature usually tries to use pain as a deterant to avoid dangerous things. Like when you're young and you touch a hot stove even when your told is is hot - you'll touch it out of curosity regardless and go running to mommy. Because we explore the enviroment/world around us more when were younger we probably learn the most important ideas behind life at this time in development. Your less likey to forget coffee is usually hot than some verbatim fact you learned in high school to past the test at the end of a week.

As for emotional pain, well, if you go by religious ideals isn't the idea of that is to help us grow and mature as people by overcomming obsticles? I mean, isn't life itself basically a test to see where your eternal soul is going to end up after you pass? If we go to hell and are toutured for eternity, would our soul itself feel pain if it's an unconscious state of being?

He's also incorrect. I wasn't referring to simply an orgasm. It's not that basic. Our interactions, relationships, often dance around our sexual needs, desires and fears. Throwing things off into deliberately over-complicated tangents only reveals how you've over-simplified things.

This all seems fine and dandy...

but then someone like me comes along, someone who has pretty much no sex drive and no desire to do anything remotely sexual or sensual with another person of either gender.

Sure, I got married, but it was to a person who respects my lack of desire for physical intimacy, and so we have other ways to show our love.

No kids though, hell no.  I'm perfectly cool with the way that I am, and I reflect daily on how lucky I am to be this way.  A life without sexual attraction.  Can anyone fathom it?

http://www.asexuality.org for more info, for those who are completely perplexed.

Edit: I wonder sometimes why people like me exist, because we're really not doing anything to add to the gene pool - the survival of the species... I guess it's just like being born transsexual or homosexual or something like that.

at this rate this thread might outpost the one about the custom-specialists bootlegs.. lol..

As Jay pointed out, only to an extent. I can't possibly cover everything in the 10 or 15 minutes I sometimes dedicate to making a post. These are just quick probings from my mind and should not be taken that seriously. Essentially, I am here on an entirely impromptu basis. Much like real life conversation, in which little preparation time is allowed.

I've heard of people incapable of experiencing orgasms, but I believe that asexuality is different. Although I'm not asexual, I have wished for the ability to turn off my sex drive. It would definitely make my life more efficient, to have no sexual thoughts of any kind. In fact, sex is not necessary for most people, since there are so many others reproducing. Just China and India alone could supply enough humans to populate the planet without any problem.

WTF!?
Is that an accepted word in English, or are you just a Dutchman who wasn't paying attention?

On-topic:
Amber, like I said, I don't feel the urge to procreate either, and my sex drive is only average.
I know there's lots of women who don't enjoy sex or feel the need for it, so you're not as "strange" as you might think.

We all influence a great many in our lifetime. Everything counts for something, for good or for bad. But the asexuality thing is very interesting and definitely throws a spanner into my theories. I can't help feeling if you spread that around, you'd end up with quite a few red-blooded males trying to show that you just haven't done it right. You'd also get a bunch of shrinks arguing that it's a throwback to some childhood trauma. But I guess we are what we are. There aren't always reasons.

The bit that strikes me as odd on that website is that some 'asexual' people masturbate but don't want partnered sexual contact.  I can't help feeling there is a conflict there and there are other issues at work than simply being asexual. But I don't know enough about it to be honest.

Have to agree there.  That's a massive disconnect.  Not wanting sexual pleasure at all and not wanting sexual pleasure to come from the stimulation of another person but enjoying sexual pleasure when alone are two very different things.  I could certainly understand if the fomer was casued by some biochemical defect, but the latter sounds like a manifestation of a psychological problem.

Considering that sex is on even terms with eating and voiding in the sense that cognition is not a requirement, I can offer something to your point of view.

  Keep in mind that I'm not familiar with every related psychological problem, but here are a few:

  Anorexia - extreme caloric reduction
  Bulimia - intense caloric increase
  Paruresis - fear of urination in certain places or in the presence of humans
  Parcopresis - ability to defecate in certain places only

  What those 4 basic disorders have in common is that they negatively affect one's ability to carry out requirements for continuation of existence, which are eating and voiding. So, if something negatively affects sex, it is probably also a psychological problem. For an individual, sex is not as important as eating and voiding, but for a species, sex is the most important thing. I would argue that psychological problems related to sex are of minimal concern unless the birth rate declines sharply. In fact, psychological problems related to eating and voiding are also of minimal concern, since they affect so few people. It's not until a psychological problem becomes a full fledged disease that we have to worry. Imagine, for instance, if some microorganism caused anorexia in 100% of people it infected. I'm not saying this microorganism affects appetite. No, I'm saying it affects the brain, which in turn controls appetite. Luckily, no such creature exists, but it could. I seriously doubt that such a creature could occur naturally, so if some psychological problem starts affecting 100% of us, we can assume we are being attacked.

  I didn't mention the sharp difference psychological and somatological problems, so I'm doing this edit. Anorexia and the like occur entirely within the mind. There is actually some damage to the brain, which, in turn, harms the body. My point is that a psychological problem will always have a somatological effect, but it is easy to confuse the two. For instance, those with paruresis are often mistaken for having dysfunctional bladders, but the bladder works just fine; the part of the brain that controls the bladder is damaged. I don't know the full extent of psychological problems, but I imagine that each organ within the body can be coaxed into dysfunction merely by damaging the brain. Even further, the damage to the brain is not somatological, it is also psychological. So, there is physically NOTHING to repair! So where is the problem? This is why psychological problems are so fascinating to me.

Define "accepted"? Used, yes in certain circles. However, if you prefer you can substitute Lubberland, which is English, but just doesn't have the same appeal as Luilekkerland

cheers,

-avatar!

Well, being Dutch myself, I prefer as many Dutch words in the English language as possible, obviously
I was never aware that this one existed outside of Holland though.