Progress

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Continuous technological innovation is fuzzy apparently.

Ahh well.

Absolutely fuzzy.

First, what do you mean by continuous? Do you mean 'perpetual'? Because if so then I utterly disagree. The idea that humans will continue to gain more and more control over material environment forever into the future is not a hypothesis, but a religious doctrine. But doctrines always seem like self-evident truths to the faithful, so I don't expect you to agree with me.

Second, I think I understand what you mean by 'innovation', but I can't understand why you equate it with progress, except that it is part of your religion. Like people who believe that God is good, a priori and without qualification; when asked about God's goodness when he causes children to be raped villages to be smashed by earthquakes, any number of logical hoops must be leaped through in order to maintain the one unquestionable truth of God's goodness. So why do you equate technological innovation with progress? Men once went about the earth on horseback, but then the automobile was invented. Is this progress? Why? Because it's faster? Do we measure progress by man's manipulation of matter to extend his physical powers; so telescopes and eyeglasses extend our vision, cell phones and radio extend our hearing, powered machines multiply the power of our limbs, and this is progress? OK, but I can't agree with the idea that this process will go on forever until men are omnipotent. My feeling is that we are closer to the limits of this project than we are to the beginning.

Or does innovation represent progress because it extends man's control over his environment. On this, I've already expressed my doubts, but I'll repeat them in summary. First, I don't believe that our victories over nature are permanent. Evolution is nature's answer to our technologies, and on every front it is busy developing entropic counters to our defenses. Second, there are few, if any, technological innovations that represent unqualified advances in our control over the environment: we pulled metal, rubber, and fuel from the earth and fashioned them into machines that allowed us to traverse the environment more quickly, in this way gaining a measure of control over the environment. But what we gained on one end, we lost on the other: the proliferation of automobiles is causing ecological collapse that was beyond our ability to predict and is seemingly beyond our ability to control. Overall, I simply fail to see temporary and tenuous new levels of control over the environment as indications of progress; as a mutual friend observed, "Planting a lawn in Phoenix doesn't change the climate."

Or do you mean that innovation represents progress simply because it brings something new into the world? Here we are simply back to where we started. We have a word for things becoming different. That word is change. We have a word for things moving toward some destination, usually a better place. That word is progress. That change and disruption and novelty represent progress is not a fact, but a doctrine, and an historically recent one, for the most part. Whether or not the doctrine is valuable is not my point. I am simply trying to make clear that it is a doctrine, and not a self-evident historical truth. And a doctrine, not simply a model for looking at history, for it implies all sorts of moral values, good guys and bad guys, right and wrong beliefs, etc. I do not call it the cult of progress to be flippant.

[Enki]

Absolutely fuzzy.

First, what do you mean by continuous? Do you mean 'perpetual'? Because if so then I utterly disagree. The idea that humans will continue to gain more and more control over material environment forever into the future is not a hypothesis, but a religious doctrine. But doctrines always seem like self-evident truths to the faithful, so I don't expect you to agree with me.

Ok, I would say that the end of innovation is beyond the horizon then. The continuous innovation cycle is obvious to me because I can think of inventions based on current cutting edge tech. So I can see a long view on the innovation cycle because there are things that currently do not exist that I can imagine existing. And many innovations that are coming out today I have thought of in the past. So we still have a long way to go, not because I see that we will always be learning to split atoms or discovering higgs bosons, but because I see our current level of technology as being primitive as compared to what we can possibly do given our current level of technology. 4D printers are not science fiction because they are simply an engineering problem.

Second, I think I understand what you mean by 'innovation', but I can't understand why you equate it with progress, except that it is part of your religion. Like people who believe that God is good, a priori and without qualification; when asked about God's goodness when he causes children to be raped villages to be smashed by earthquakes, any number of logical hoops must be leaped through in order to maintain the one unquestionable truth of God's goodness. So why do you equate technological innovation with progress? Men once went about the earth on horseback, but then the automobile was invented. Is this progress? Why? Because it's faster? Do we measure progress by man's manipulation of matter to extend his physical powers; so telescopes and eyeglasses extend our vision, cell phones and radio extend our hearing, powered machines multiply the power of our limbs, and this is progress? OK, but I can't agree with the idea that this process will go on forever until men are omnipotent. My feeling is that we are closer to the limits of this project than we are to the beginning.

Well there is the idea of social progress as in 'progressivism'. This is the idea that we can get to a point where no one is a slave and everyone is provided for by society. I do believe that this is technologically possible now. It is only held back by politics, which is an expression of the level of knowledge of the political participants. i.e. we kill people because we are too genuflecting stupid and uncreative to come up with a better solution. But the idea that human life is the most precious thing in the universe is certainly a cornerstone of my 'religious' belief.

As for technological progress. It is specifically about e/t + e/s. E = Effort. T = Time and S = Space. So if we can cover more time cover more space and time with less effort the ability to do things is increased. So the less effort it takes to execute our essential needs the more time we have to devote to other things. In reality this means that the less effort it takes to accomplish an essential, the more essentials we can accomplish in the same amount of time. The fact that we still die demonstrates that we have not reached any sort of 'omega point' on this one. But most people die of things that we absolutely have the technology to cure. Getting shot in the leg in the Amazon means you're probably going to die. Getting shot in the leg in Brooklyn, you probably won't. So Progress is our ability to expand the comforts of Brooklyn to the Amazon. Some people would say we should bulldoze the Amazon and build a modern city, others would say we should create technologies that make field medicine more effective. We do both. We have also reached a point of transcendence where our technology has made certain political realities immanent for the first time in history ever. I do business with people in Bogota for instance. So I literally do business from New York with people in the Amazon. This is limited by the latency of Skype, not by my ability to board passage on a steamer to Panama City and get onto a caravan that will take me to Bogota.

Or does innovation represent progress because it extends man's control over his environment. On this, I've already expressed my doubts, but I'll repeat them in summary. First, I don't believe that our victories over nature are permanent. Evolution is nature's answer to our technologies, and on every front it is busy developing entropic counters to our defenses. Second, there are few, if any, technological innovations that represent unqualified advances in our control over the environment: we pulled metal, rubber, and fuel from the earth and fashioned them into machines that allowed us to traverse the environment more quickly, in this way gaining a measure of control over the environment. But what we gained on one end, we lost on the other: the proliferation of automobiles is causing ecological collapse that was beyond our ability to predict and is seemingly beyond our ability to control. Overall, I simply fail to see temporary and tenuous new levels of control over the environment as indications of progress; as a mutual friend observed, "Planting a lawn in Phoenix doesn't change the climate."

Yes, basically. Evolution is not nature's answer to our technology. Evolution is nature's answer to it's environment. Our technology is part of the environment, but no species are evolving to take down a Black Hawk. I do believe that a Coruscant style planetary mechanized city is possible though undesirable. A lot of my wife's work relates to cultural preservation of the Amazon for instance.

Or do you mean that innovation represents progress simply because it brings something new into the world? Here we are simply back to where we started. We have a word for things becoming different. That word is change. We have a word for things moving toward some destination, usually a better place. That word is progress. That change and disruption and novelty represent progress is not a fact, but a doctrine, and an historically recent one, for the most part. Whether or not the doctrine is valuable is not my point. I am simply trying to make clear that it is a doctrine, and not a self-evident historical truth. And a doctrine, not simply a model for looking at history, for it implies all sorts of moral values, good guys and bad guys, right and wrong beliefs, etc. I do not call it the cult of progress to be flippant.

This also. Progress is directed change. The more control we have over the outcome of change, the more progress we have made. Small p progress, like, I am near the completion of the progress of writing this post can translate to large P Progress which relates to the survivability of the human species. It is possible that our technology will kill us all, but I don't think that's a predetermined outcome at this point.

I think that Progress is prescriptive more than descriptive. It is true because I MAKE IT SO.

[Marcus]

I think that Progress is prescriptive more than descriptive. It is true because I MAKE IT SO.

Might be more to that than is immediately apparent, Tinker:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

—from Genesis 11

The question remains . . "prescriptive" toward what end?

[Enki]

I think that Progress is prescriptive more than descriptive. It is true because I MAKE IT SO.

Might be more to that than is immediately apparent, Tinker:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

—from Genesis 11

The question remains . . "prescriptive" toward what end?

I think we might be coming to a pretty clear delineation of our differences in faith. I see humanity as God's agents in the material world. i.e. We ARE God's immanence. Alignment with the Lord's will is a matter of a Cancerous growth versus a healthy cell. The healthy cell is in line with God's will. The Cancerous growth is corrupted, i.e. sinful. Salvation in this metaphor would be DNA repair to bring the Cancerous cell back into harmonious functioning with the whole. How do we know that we are in alignment? Well, I guess we don't. Those who are may know it. But those who aren't may think it anyway.

[Marcus]

I think we might be coming to a pretty clear delineation of our differences in faith. I see humanity as God's agents in the material world. i.e. We ARE God's immanence. Alignment with the Lord's will is a matter of a Cancerous growth versus a healthy cell. The healthy cell is in line with God's will. The Cancerous growth is corrupted, i.e. sinful. Salvation in this metaphor would be DNA repair to bring the Cancerous cell back into harmonious functioning with the whole. How do we know that we are in alignment? Well, I guess we don't. Those who are may know it. But those who aren't may think it anyway.

Yes, we're kinda close, Tinker, but close only counts with hand grenades.

I too see humanity as God's agents—or better said, "vice-regents"—in the material world, His derived "immanence" but not His immanence in essence.


Best,
John

[monster_gardener]

I think we might be coming to a pretty clear delineation of our differences in faith. I see humanity as God's agents in the material world. i.e. We ARE God's immanence. Alignment with the Lord's will is a matter of a Cancerous growth versus a healthy cell. The healthy cell is in line with God's will. The Cancerous growth is corrupted, i.e. sinful. Salvation in this metaphor would be DNA repair to bring the Cancerous cell back into harmonious functioning with the whole. How do we know that we are in alignment? Well, I guess we don't. Those who are may know it. But those who aren't may think it anyway.

Yes, we're kinda close, Tinker, but close only counts with hand grenades.

I too see humanity as God's agents—or better said, "vice-regents"—in the material world, His derived "immanence" but not His immanence in essence.


Best,
John

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Marcus.

FWIW I see our relationship with G_d as being more being like His pet dogs and cats or maybe even monkeys , pigs , rabbits, turtles , parrots etc....

Or maybe at best the rather slow brothers & sisters of Jesus Who actually became one of us dogs, cats, monkeys, pigs etc.........

And slow we certainly seem to be.........

Trying to build a space elevator with bricks at Babel Shinar as part of the first Space Program is the least of it....

Though G_d later seems to have decided to give the blueprints to Jacob at Bethel............ *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_Ladder


G_d took generations to drill the Law into the Jews but once He did that caused problems of its own as seen with the problems Jesus had with the Scribes and Pharisees..

Somewhat reminds me of a somewhat vulgar cartoon seen many years ago about a man trying to teach his dog by example to not to urinate inside the house : the dog learns the lesson wrong.......

Even the best of the Disciples, like Peter, were often very dense and hard to teach...........

Perhaps why Jesus seems to have resorted to beaming the instructions down to St. Paul once He had ascended........

but close only counts with hand grenades.

Or when playing horse shoes

Or remembering Bishop Fulton Sheen & C.S. Lewis in "The Last Battle" ......... If G_d is Merciful..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeth

Not that one should rely on one's understanding of that......



*So IMVHO we should keep trying.......

G_D may find it cute and amusing...........

Sort of like a Parent watching his kid build a home-made telescope when he can buy a far better one.......

[Enki]

I take 'made in God's image'. Not to mean, "Fashioned in the likeness of God.", so much as, "God used himself as the raw materials for creation." i.e. We are LITERALLY made inside God's image.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I take 'made in God's image'. Not to mean, "Fashioned in the likeness of God.", so much as, "God used himself as the raw materials for creation." i.e. We are LITERALLY made inside God's image.

This kind of syncretism is popular among those who want to see western religion as just a misunderstood form of eastern religion, but IMO one of the primary differences is that the Abrahamic faiths are pretty explicit about the fact that God is outside the world, and fashioned it like a craftsmen. The Old Testament version is taken from Babylonian and other Near Eastern myths that talk about the creator god overcoming the chaos of the watery abyss, often symbolized in the serpent/sea monster (Tiamat, Leviathan, etc), and constructing our world out of her corpse... that is, imposing order on chaos out of the raw materials of nature.

In the east, on the contrary, the typical myth is one such as that found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in which the singular infinite lonely "god" thinks everything into being and brings it forth out of its own essence, realizing after it is finished that he has poured it out of himself.

In the west, the theme is almost always (even outside the 3 main monotheisms) that the god(s) have left us in some way, or we have been exiled from them, and that there are various ways to be redeemed and reunited. The goal is relationship with the god, not identification with the godhead (as in the east).

Naturally, the western faiths can be read in that manner, and have been by a few, but these are secondary elaborations, whereas in the east they are fundamental.

[monster_gardener]

I take 'made in God's image'. Not to mean, "Fashioned in the likeness of God.", so much as, "God used himself as the raw materials for creation." i.e. We are LITERALLY made inside God's image.

This kind of syncretism is popular among those who want to see western religion as just a misunderstood form of eastern religion, but IMO one of the primary differences is that the Abrahamic faiths are pretty explicit about the fact that God is outside the world, and fashioned it like a craftsmen. The Old Testament version is taken from Babylonian and other Near Eastern myths that talk about the creator god overcoming the chaos of the watery abyss, often symbolized in the serpent/sea monster (Tiamat, Leviathan, etc), and constructing our world out of her corpse... that is, imposing order on chaos out of the raw materials of nature.

In the east, on the contrary, the typical myth is one such as that found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in which the singular infinite lonely "god" thinks everything into being and brings it forth out of its own essence, realizing after it is finished that he has poured it out of himself.

In the west, the theme is almost always (even outside the 3 main monotheisms) that the god(s) have left us in some way, or we have been exiled from them, and that there are various ways to be redeemed and reunited. The goal is relationship with the god, not identification with the godhead (as in the east).

Naturally, the western faiths can be read in that manner, and have been by a few, but these are secondary elaborations, whereas in the east they are fundamental.

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Juggernaut.

The goal is relationship with the god, not identification with the godhead (as in the east).

Recalling C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters" stating his opinion that G_d is out to make little Christs of men and women while Satan is out to absorb them and all else into himself......

Which might be viewed as similar to an negative Eastern Godhead...........

[Enki]

This kind of syncretism is popular among those who want to see western religion as just a misunderstood form of eastern religion, but IMO one of the primary differences is that the Abrahamic faiths are pretty explicit about the fact that God is outside the world, and fashioned it like a craftsmen. The Old Testament version is taken from Babylonian and other Near Eastern myths that talk about the creator god overcoming the chaos of the watery abyss, often symbolized in the serpent/sea monster (Tiamat, Leviathan, etc), and constructing our world out of her corpse... that is, imposing order on chaos out of the raw materials of nature.

I look at it more like there is one truth and all religions are a method of describing it.

If God is outside of the world, is he outside of Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy or the Universe?

In the east, on the contrary, the typical myth is one such as that found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in which the singular infinite lonely "god" thinks everything into being and brings it forth out of its own essence, realizing after it is finished that he has poured it out of himself.

Right.

In the west, the theme is almost always (even outside the 3 main monotheisms) that the god(s) have left us in some way, or we have been exiled from them, and that there are various ways to be redeemed and reunited. The goal is relationship with the god, not identification with the godhead (as in the east).

Seems to me that it's difficult to have a relationship with God if your doctrine proscribes ascribing him any properties that are relatable.

Naturally, the western faiths can be read in that manner, and have been by a few, but these are secondary elaborations, whereas in the east they are fundamental.

Yea.

[monster_gardener]

This kind of syncretism is popular among those who want to see western religion as just a misunderstood form of eastern religion, but IMO one of the primary differences is that the Abrahamic faiths are pretty explicit about the fact that God is outside the world, and fashioned it like a craftsmen. The Old Testament version is taken from Babylonian and other Near Eastern myths that talk about the creator god overcoming the chaos of the watery abyss, often symbolized in the serpent/sea monster (Tiamat, Leviathan, etc), and constructing our world out of her corpse... that is, imposing order on chaos out of the raw materials of nature.

I look at it more like there is one truth and all religions are a method of describing it.

If God is outside of the world, is he outside of Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy or the Universe?

In the east, on the contrary, the typical myth is one such as that found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in which the singular infinite lonely "god" thinks everything into being and brings it forth out of its own essence, realizing after it is finished that he has poured it out of himself.

Right.

In the west, the theme is almost always (even outside the 3 main monotheisms) that the god(s) have left us in some way, or we have been exiled from them, and that there are various ways to be redeemed and reunited. The goal is relationship with the god, not identification with the godhead (as in the east).

Seems to me that it's difficult to have a relationship with God if your doctrine proscribes ascribing him any properties that are relatable.

Naturally, the western faiths can be read in that manner, and have been by a few, but these are secondary elaborations, whereas in the east they are fundamental.

Yea.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Tinker Enki.

If God is outside of the world, is he outside of Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy or the Universe?

The claim I have heard is that G_d is outside of Time.......

[Enki]

People are so determined to define God as impossibly remote that I think they create their own separation from the divine. God is outside of time, but so are we. I do not see a paradox between God being outside of our 'world' and our souls being directly connected to God.

But back to Progress.

A good example of my definition of progress would be the current Campesino demonstrations in Colombia. They are standing up against GMOs and chemical agriculture. Something I heard from someone high up in the Colombian elite as an answer to the question of 'Why now?' is that the Campesinos for the first time in history were able to see what their goods were being sold for at retail in the cities as opposed to what they were getting paid. And under Uribe in living memory Campesinos were pushed off their land at gunpoint. Like with the Arab Spring access to information has given them a higher level of knowledge of the remote conditions that contribute to their proximal condition. Also information technology allows these massive protests to be organized whereas they never could in the past. Technological progress in this case directly influences the social progress. From what I am hearing about Colombia the next Presidential election is going to be between two Santos's, I hope Juan gets re-election because it sounds like his cousin is of the Uribe school. But I am not that knowledgeable of the situation. Uribe was the one who put Colombia into all of the globalization treaties and like Obama with Bush, Santos inherited the results.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

People are so determined to define God as impossibly remote that I think they create their own separation from the divine. God is outside of time, but so are we. I do not see a paradox between God being outside of our 'world' and our souls being directly connected to God.

But back to Progress.

A good example of my definition of progress would be the current Campesino demonstrations in Colombia. They are standing up against GMOs and chemical agriculture. Something I heard from someone high up in the Colombian elite as an answer to the question of 'Why now?' is that the Campesinos for the first time in history were able to see what their goods were being sold for at retail in the cities as opposed to what they were getting paid. And under Uribe in living memory Campesinos were pushed off their land at gunpoint. Like with the Arab Spring access to information has given them a higher level of knowledge of the remote conditions that contribute to their proximal condition. Also information technology allows these massive protests to be organized whereas they never could in the past. Technological progress in this case directly influences the social progress. From what I am hearing about Colombia the next Presidential election is going to be between two Santos's, I hope Juan gets re-election because it sounds like his cousin is of the Uribe school. But I am not that knowledgeable of the situation. Uribe was the one who put Colombia into all of the globalization treaties and like Obama with Bush, Santos inherited the results.

Ugh. Why does progress always have to be a protest of some kind?

[Mr. Perfect]

Random thought, stupid people go on strike, smart people buy shares in companies with rapacious profits. Just food for thought.

[Enki]

People are so determined to define God as impossibly remote that I think they create their own separation from the divine. God is outside of time, but so are we. I do not see a paradox between God being outside of our 'world' and our souls being directly connected to God.

But back to Progress.

A good example of my definition of progress would be the current Campesino demonstrations in Colombia. They are standing up against GMOs and chemical agriculture. Something I heard from someone high up in the Colombian elite as an answer to the question of 'Why now?' is that the Campesinos for the first time in history were able to see what their goods were being sold for at retail in the cities as opposed to what they were getting paid. And under Uribe in living memory Campesinos were pushed off their land at gunpoint. Like with the Arab Spring access to information has given them a higher level of knowledge of the remote conditions that contribute to their proximal condition. Also information technology allows these massive protests to be organized whereas they never could in the past. Technological progress in this case directly influences the social progress. From what I am hearing about Colombia the next Presidential election is going to be between two Santos's, I hope Juan gets re-election because it sounds like his cousin is of the Uribe school. But I am not that knowledgeable of the situation. Uribe was the one who put Colombia into all of the globalization treaties and like Obama with Bush, Santos inherited the results.

Ugh. Why does progress always have to be a protest of some kind?

It doesn't. The protest is a result of the progress. The material exploitation of these people is being protested as a result of the progress that information technology gave them.

It's interesting how those on the right side of civilization think that civilization is working just fine even when several orders of magnitude numbers of people tell them differently.

Progress in a social sense is the improvement of people's living conditions. It often involves protests because those who have power as a result of the status quo arrangement resent that others may want more and it might come at their expense.

[noddy]

hmm. lots of techno progress but im a tad suspicious of various tales of social progress.

we react to the generation before us and i doubt their is much that hasnt been tried and failed in our history - our memories dont go back far enough and our ability to sustain things is too weak.

golden ages are never permanent.

[Mr. Perfect]

To me the greatest metric of social progress is the formation of healthy nuclear families. I think everyone knows how well that's going.

[Torchwood]

OK, so progress is a dirty word, and there is indeed eschatological religion, all very Judeo Christian including the secular apocalypse “ And I shall promise thee all the fruits of the Earth, but shall chastise thee if thou art not carbon neutral. And God spake forth: The Great Permian Extinction? You ain’t see nuthin yet!”

It is indubitably the case, however, that there is a qualitative difference between scientific/industrial and agricultural civilisations, as big as that between neolithic hunter gatherers and agricultural. And who says progress is always benign? It hasn’t been to the non-human inhabitants of the biosphere (well, the rats and cockroaches have done OK). It’s not just technology, social attitudes do change – see the qualitative difference between the old and new testaments as ethics, with a lag, caught up with the new mass societies. If you read old sci-fi, most of the technological predictions are either too optimistic (“we were promised jet packs”) or missed all together (the internet). Yet galaxy wandering space travellers still come home to 1950s families.

Progress is not linear, it goes in fits and starts, our energy technology is still largely Victorian, even nuclear power stations use steam turbines.

To me the greatest metric of social progress is the formation of healthy nuclear families. I think everyone knows how well that's going.

We have not yet adjusted to the fact that women do not have to spend most of their lives bearing children, just to maintain the species because of high infant mortality and yes, so far it has gone so far the other way that the family is neglected as a core institution.

[Mr. Perfect]

Does anyone ever really have children "for the sake of the species". Personally, it never entered my mind.

[Torchwood]

Does anyone ever really have children "for the sake of the species". Personally, it never entered my mind.

No, of course they don't. They do it because they want them, but also because it is expected. Now women are predominantly expected to have a career, children are an afterthought

[Enki]

Does anyone ever really have children "for the sake of the species". Personally, it never entered my mind.

No, of course they don't. They do it because they want them, but also because it is expected. Now women are predominantly expected to have a career, children are an afterthought

Isn't 'For the Sake of the Species.', what all that biblical, "be fruitful and multiply", stuff is about?

[Mr. Perfect]

Does anyone ever really have children "for the sake of the species". Personally, it never entered my mind.

No, of course they don't. They do it because they want them, but also because it is expected. Now women are predominantly expected to have a career, children are an afterthought

Some women. And I don't complain about that. I'm very happy about which women are not reproducing, very happy.

[Mr. Perfect]

Does anyone ever really have children "for the sake of the species". Personally, it never entered my mind.

No, of course they don't. They do it because they want them, but also because it is expected. Now women are predominantly expected to have a career, children are an afterthought

Isn't 'For the Sake of the Species.', what all that biblical, "be fruitful and multiply", stuff is about?

That's more about what God's view of the matter is than a necessary command. Throughout human history it doesn't appear anyone ever really needed a command.

[monster_gardener]

Does anyone ever really have children "for the sake of the species". Personally, it never entered my mind.

No, of course they don't. They do it because they want them, but also because it is expected. Now women are predominantly expected to have a career, children are an afterthought

Isn't 'For the Sake of the Species.', what all that biblical, "be fruitful and multiply", stuff is about?

That's more about what God's view of the matter is than a necessary command. Throughout human history it doesn't appear anyone ever really needed a command.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Throughout human history it doesn't appear anyone ever really needed a command.

With all due respect, surprisingly actually often there has been a problem that way.....

Recalling that the Roman emperor Augustus had to pass a law to encourage marriage & children......

To encourage population expansion, the Leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed disabilities upon the celibate. Augustus instituted the "Law of the three sons" which held those in high regard who produced three male[citation needed] offspring. Marrying-age celibates and young widows who wouldn't marry were debarred from receiving inheritances and from attending public games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Julia

Also there is the conflict between the religious life of celibate priests, monks & nuns be they Christian or Buddhist etc. and parents who want grandchildren......

From a biography of St. Rose of Lima.......

As a young girl—in emulation of the noted Dominican tertiary, St. Catherine of Siena—she began to fast three times a week and performed severe penances in secret. When she was admired for her beauty, Rose cut off her hair and smeared pepper on her face, upset that suitors were beginning to take notice of her.[2] She rejected all suitors against the objections of her friends and her family. Despite the censure of her parents, she spent many hours contemplating the Blessed Sacrament, which she received daily, an extremely rare practice in that period. She was determined to take a vow of virginity, which was opposed by her parents, who wished her to marry.[1] Finally, out of frustration, her father gave her a room to herself in the family home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_of_Lima#Biography

[Nonc Hilaire]

Marrying-age celibates and young widows who wouldn't marry were debarred from receiving inheritances and from attending public games.

Possible source of the "Rudolph" mythology. . .