lutzj wrote:I think that there is definitely a moral obligation to reproduce if you are one of the few remaining humans in a position do it. You owe it to the billions of ancestors and cousins whose creation of you was implicitly predicated on the notion that you would keep the genes moving, and to your billions of potential descendants.
. They aren't here; they're dead. I owe them nothing
. I am not obligated to fulfill the wishes of the dead, particularly when I did not promise or agree to any such nonsense.
Besides, we've already left our indelible imprint on the universe. We might not be carried into eternity through our genes, but our footprints, no matter how small, will continue to persist--whether those footprints be blown away by dust or sundered by earthquakes, the changes we've made to the universe remain irreversible. Just because our existence isn't carried on in a way we find sentimentally meaningful doesn't mean it isn't carried on; merely by existing, we've changed our world--and the future of the universe--irrevocably.
lutz wrote:The notion that a sane, fertile man or woman would refuse to reproduce to preserve humanity is, frankly, a bit absurd.
What if both partners are gay? What if just one of them is gay? What if both of them are anti-humanists (or are you positing that anti-humanism is insane?)? What if one of them is incredibly abusive and the other can't bear the thought of having children who will suffer under that abuse? What if both of them just really, really
don't like sex?
Case-in-point: If my wife and I were the last two fertile people on earth, we would refuse to repopulate the planet. Both of us have our reasons.
So, yeah. Either we're crazy or you're wrong. I'm going with "you're wrong".
lutz wrote:Two people capable of having sex and with no alternatives are almost guaranteed to reproduce eventually; instinct will take over. Even if one's natural drive is somehow suppressed, there aren't many codes of ethics that, taking the long-term view, seriously imply that wiping out humanity would be preferable to violating personal scruples or avoiding the pain and effort of child-rearing.
Humanity is already
wiped out. The question isn't "should we wipe out humanity", the question is "should we repopulate humanity now that it's been wiped out". See what happens when you reverse your statements? Suddenly, my obligation to 'save' humanity disappears; humanity was already destroy. Now it's just a question of whether or not I'm willing to work toward rebuilding it. And maybe I'm not.
lutz wrote:She'll probably not be interested immediately, but she's practically guaranteed to want to reproduce once the right conditions (i.e., long-term food and shelter, predatory threats eliminated) are present, especially if you expand the definition of "fertile" to "capable of wanting to have sex."
Yeah, this is also bullshit. I know several people who aren't interested in having children and wouldn't care if humanity ceased to exist via a voluntary system of self-imposed sterility.