comment: >
  
  Another example of how just 2 or 3 generations in the bleak modern world absolutely killed the human will to survive.
context: My parents have special genes!
  They passed on history of heart problems, epilepsy, stroke, twins (both sides - doesn't skip a generation), anxiety, depression, breast cancer, leukaemia, arthritis, psoriasis... I mean there's more but I can't remember them off the top of my head. 
  I love to sit around and wonder which number on the hereditary lottery I will get next. >
  
  The heart problems, epilepsy, cancers and tricky mental health sound like a really rough game of russian roulette. Is the psoriasis a big deal? Just curious- I have it and it doesn't phase me, I never thought about whether any kids I have would feel differently >
  
  With the psoriasis my mum and sister have it extremely badly. I have a small amount but don't really mind it. My nieces full on freaked out when I told them I had it - for them it's a cosmetic thing. I'm just hoping I don't get it in my hair or like groin etc which would be the worrrrrst in terms of pain and annoyance. >
  
  Yeah, can confirm, those are a proper nuisance! Hope you never experience them >
  
  It's nice to see someone on the internet that has the honesty to say 'I'm not special'. >
  
  But you are special.  If you do the math, the probability that you even exist is infinitesimally small, next to zero.  And to get here, your ancestors needed to survive unfathomably difficult circumstances.  So you are the improbable product of generations after generation of the most bad ass survivors on the planet. >
  
  Just like everyone else >
  
  You are a unique and different snowflake... like everyone else. >
  
  Some of us choose to enjoy it instead of whining about it on the internet >
  
  can't tell if this post is whining or enjoying >
  
  Definitely enjoying,  sick of the reddit nihilistic loser mentality.   Everyone looking for a reason to be a victim and it is so gos damn annoying. Life isn't about being fair, it's about living. >
  
  Continuing a bloodline isn’t unique but ending one is! >
  
  Found itachi uchiha >
  
  What makes life remarkable or unremarkable. Is it material wealth, fame and socially constructed measures of success? >
  
  On an individual level? Nothing.
  I think life as a whole can be appreciated through how living things have formed and scientifically work.
  And they can be appreciated by how their societies operate. In particular, I think human life can be appreciated through what we have accomplished, i.e. medicine, art, engineering, music, architecture.
  Individuals should strive to contribute to the ongoing remarkability of humanity.
  But everything has a time limit. We'll die, and at some point sooner or later, no one will remember who we were. At some very distant point, even the accomplishments of humanity will be erased, most likely due to the sun dying out. I think humanity will be gone by that point, though. >
  
  You mentioned most people live unremarkable lives. So who exactly, is living this remarkable life that should be reproducing? >
  
  No one will live a remarkable life, in the grand scheme of things.
  Even Isaac Newton's name will be lost, given enough time.
  We shouldn't do things because we want to be well-known for future generations. Because I could choose a period of time in which your name will be forgotten.
  We shouldn't be motivated because we want to avenge something that happened in the past. Again, I could choose a period of time in which almost no life existed.
  We should be motivated only through our desire to contribute to the present status of humanity.
  I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the past or future. We need to study both in order to make more rational decisions, but the study of the past and future should solely be a tool that helps us in our goal.
  I think everyone who is living at this exact moment is participating in both remarkability (our collective achievements) and unremarkability (our collective mistakes).
  Let me give you an example:
  Let's say that someone killed my great-aunt 31 years ago. I should be motivated to find her killer, because he could presently be harming society by killing people. If he's dead, then I shouldn't seek further retribution because he is incapable of harming anyone else. I should only be motivated towards stopping people who could be presently harming others or planning to. >
  
  This can get quite cloudy and ambiguous because there’s a very blurry line between how much we should prioritize the present society and the future. Just take climate change for example and being environmentally friendly. >
  
  I would argue that the human causes of climate change are present unremarkable behaviors.
  Certainly, there are issues that may arise in the future, but those issues have roots in the present. If I'm presently doing something that will harm others in the future, I'm committing an unremarkable act in the present.
  We should be motivated to commit as many remarkable acts as we can in the present and the least amount of unremarkable acts. >
  
  It makes sense. Korean culture today is extremely superficial. Almost everything is about looks and how other people perceive you.
  Adopting a child would be an embarrassment, to them and many in this post, you’re a loser if your genes aren’t propagated.
  I was like this too before I decided none of it matters, there’s a great video on it about a man in the future working for an ancestry service and how he has to delete a database entry for a man who hasn’t been viewed in 30 years.
  Before deleting it, he thought to himself how he’d live his life differently knowing full well that no one would remember him. >
  
  Do you know what that video is called or can you please share it? >
  
  Why didn’t she just adopt? Adoption isn’t that simple >
  
  Neither is conception and birth but both can be done. I’m tired of that argument against adoption. As well as the whole IT TAKES SO MUCH MONEY TO ADOPT. 
  It takes a lot of money to have a child and take care of it too. One just has more of an upfront cost That’s then given back to you in time. Everyone just always wants to make an excuse as to why they won’t adopt but will make their own kid in a heartbeat without thinking at all. >
  
  
  As well as the whole IT TAKES SO MUCH MONEY TO ADOPT. It takes a lot of money to have a child and take care of it too.
  
  Yeah but nobody checks if you can afford the baby if you're giving birth lol >
  
  Yeah I know. Why do you think some end up in the system.  They should start checking. >
  
  I mean I like it on the "children must eat well" side but I don't love the "government gets to weigh in on your personal decisions" side >
  
  I could see that but I don’t think people should be so easily allowed to have children. Especially when they’re struggling already by themselves. And let’s be real people don’t need to be having 6 kids when they can’t even give a single one the attention they deserve. I don’t think it’s possible to give the attention and love all the kids need plus take care of yourself and your home when there’s that many. So you know how that takes a toll on the mom then she turns into a bitter Betty and then her kids come out shitty lol I’ve seen it so many times. >
  
  Biology allows people to have children. It's a bodily function and therefore a human right. We can't ethically regulate it. Look at the disaster China's one child policy was. >
  
  Human bodies are biologically capable of violence and theft, should these be human rights as well?
  China's one child policy was only unsuccessful because across the world, pension systems are set up like Ponzi schemes. They are fundamentally unsustainable without indefinite growth, and unfair to the younger generation. >
  
  Those are behaviors, not functions >
  
  
  why do people feel their genes to be special?
  
  Natural selection. Nature has selected against specimens that don't feel the need/want to reproduce. Or rather they selected against themselves. >
  
  like op >
  
  yes, obviously >
  
  Ok Snape >
  
  It's especially annoying when people have kids who have a high chance of genetic defects and are aware of it. >
  
  Darwin would like to have a word. >
  
  Evolution is more about a group or species than individuals. If every member of a group successfully procreates at the same rate, evolution won't occur. >
  
  Evolution aka. natural and sexual selection happens completely on the level of the individual. But the effects are seen on the species level. >
  
  What’s scary is how his post has more upvotes than yours currently. >
  
  My genes are terrible, so for that reason, I would never “continue my bloodline.” My bloodline has suffered enough, genetics are terrible in my family. We all have the same health issues that just keep happening over and over again, from generation to generation. I don’t value my genes at all, and if I ever wanted a child, I would adopt (assuming I could afford to do so). Reality is, it’s cheaper and easier to birth a child than it is to adopt one, that’s also a barrier when it comes to adoption. Not everyone can afford the process. >
  
  Yeah same, my genes are better out of the pool than in. Stopping generational suffering by refusing to pass this shit on ftw. >
  
  Same here. Fuck my genes. They feel like a curse sometimes. Mainly mental illness. My brother has major depressive disorder and is not functioning. My dad had bipolar disorder and was one of the saddest people I've ever known along with my brother. Alcoholism on my mom's side. Alzheimer's, parkinson's, cancer. I personally have Bipolar 1 disorder. I have not had a good time being alive and I certainly don't want to even possibly risk giving some other poor soul this same shit deal. My bloodline ends with me. >
  
  I think it’s kind of a genetic behavior that we are just programmed for. I overcame that programming lol. 
  However, what blows my mind is when people who have literal genetic disorders that cause fertility problems, but undergo tens of thousands in fertility treatment just to conceive their own biological child- who has a very good chance of inheriting those same shitty genes. That makes NO sense to me, but I’m an evil bitch if I ever say that to anyone. >
  
  I wonder what the eugenicists take would be on that? On one hand this person is literally unfit, they can’t produce viable offspring without help, eugenics should say that this person cannot/should not breed, right? But on the other hand, you have to spend a lot of money on those types of treatments, it’s not something most people can afford, so I guess it wouldn’t matter because wealth is “fitness” in modern society? 
  It’s interesting bc that’s probably the justification on their end. “I have worked hard enough, i need to pass on my legacy by any means, so I will pay copious amounts of money to ensure I can have viable offspring” bc as far as they’re concerned the objective truth that they can’t create viable offspring is offset by the wealth and success they’ve accumulated. 
  I guess ultimately the question is: what’s more unethical? an impoverished couple having healthy children or wealthy folks having children with fertility issues/other genetic disabilities? Who is actually the most fit? >
  
  I didn't sleep last night and only have a normal person's grasp of eugenics, so I feel I'm the right person to respond. 
  If we're talking survival of the species, then the genetically healthy offspring is better off. Regardless of life quality, they're more likely to create more genetically healthy offspring. If we're talking social fitness, I think either. the rich person will likely have a better life quality, but the the poor person will potentially provide more benefit in terms of labor. The rich often hoard wealth so unless they're generous they're not contributing a lot financially (this is, of course, at a certain level of wealth. Middle class would be just as if not more benefit than the poor). >
  
  Speak for yourself peasant! I'll have you know I've slain three dragons, and a wizard.  My bloodline needs to continue otherwise a certain klan might try to gain more power in the south. >
  
  Why would you slay a wizard? >
  
  Because dragons, and wizards are both  fantasy characters AND ranks in the kkk. So initially it looks like I'm living in a fantasy world when really I'm insinuating that I am killing klan members. >
  
  Dragons? I didn't know that was a KKK thing too. TIL. >
  
  I sometimes think people in the KKK would be better off playing DnD with some good friends instead of being racist, they'd get to keep the company and the cool fantasy names too, win-win, no? >
  
  Instinct son. We are just slightly more advanced animals. >
  
  Yeah, we're animals that are being carried by the achievements of a couple thousand people across all of humanity's existance.
  Because wayyy too many of us are just as shallow, tribal and dumb as the first motherfuckers who probably stoned the first person who rubbed sticks together. >
  
  There’s a wealth of anthropological data suggesting prior to the dawn of “civilisation” our ancestors were far more egalitarian. Obviously not perfect, but the human savagery we think of today is a relatively recent development in our history, worsening most of all in the last century or so. >
  
  There's that old meme quote that goes "you're the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success, act like it". I think it's cool to think about that.
  It's worth bearing in mind that you have millions of grandparents who may well have fought tooth and claw so they could have children and raise them successfully to "further their bloodline". And now it ends with you, you'll never be anyone's parent or great grandparent or hundredth ancestor.
  I'm not some weirdo who thinks it's a human neccesssity to have children and reproduce. There's nothing wrong with not doing that. But the idea of having kids and passing on your genetics certainly isn't silly. >
  
  That's one of my favorite part about The Doctor's personality in modern Doctor Who, and it's summed up in one quote:
  “Nobody important? Blimey, that's amazing. You know, nine hundred years of time and space and I've never met anybody who wasn't important before.” >
  
  One of My favorite doctor who quotes!!! >
  
  Probably because it's natural instinct to reproduce? That's how all of us got here. >
  
  I dunno about the rest of ya'll but I'm here because of my parents' "natural instinct" to have sex. I was an accident. An after thought. >
  
  The natural instinct to have sex is the natural instinct to reproduce. Just because a person doesn't consciously want to have babies doesn't mean that their body doesn't. That's what makes it an instinct. >
  
  That’s why I’m getting a vasectomy. >
  
  You and me both, brother. Do you think they do package deals? >
  
  Every vasectomy is a package deal. >
  
  Had an uncle ask me to un-change my name back to the family name to keep it going. Lol, why. Declined >
  
  I'm 18 and is that an argument againts my post? >
  
  Hell, I'm damn near 50 and I agree with your post.  I have never had any biological urge to have children whatsoever and have never had a problem with that fact.  Societal forces and incentives have developed throughout history to put a lot of pressure on people to get married and reproduce. >
  
  You're arguing against millions of years of biology. >
  
  She’s arguing against instincts. But we are humans and can control our instincts with our intelligence >
  
  Even then intelligence and conciousness is a byproduct of our biology... so it is natural to want to have children at some point >
  
  No because it's natural not to. Plenty of is have zero interest in it and find it to be idiotic. >
  
  
  No because it's natural not to.
  
  Those things can both be true. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean that it necessarily happens. >
  
  The specific notion of your bloodline is silly, but to answer your question generally...  
  As someone who is not particularly religious, the only real purpose of life is to keep life going. All biological creatures recognize the importance of breeding and having offspring. It is ingrained in us. Some species have mechanisms built in to protect the gene pool; social hierchies where only the "best" among them pass along their genes (usually expressed through strength and fighting ability, which also implies fewer health issues). It's not unreasonable that humans also seek out mates who can fulfill certain roles when it comes to offspring and providing, and its just that "providing" looks different than it did and does for other species.  
  We don't hunt, we don't gather, most dont build our shelter. We go to work and pay for it, and those skills now make us attractive mates. But the biological imperative is still there for most of us. I'm often more fascinated by those who DON'T  want to, and not in the "oh my God you're missing out by not having kids!" Bullshit. I just want to know. Does the constant existential crisis of watching the world fall apart around you override the drive? Is it something biological to implicitly protect the gene pool? >
  
  To your last point - yes. It takes a lot of work to develop, birth, and raise offspring to adulthood and sometimes it's better to hold out and wait for a less stressful time to reproduce. Some animals can delay pregnancy and even intentionally abort if times aren't good enough to make healthy offspring. >
  
  Abort implies during pregnancy, but they will also kill off progeny if resources are scarce. Survival of the species is number one. >
  
  Yes this too but I was more talking about how amazing it is that other species have developed reproductive mechanisms to ensure they will have offspring at an ideal time >
  
  Self preservation. Pretty primal instinct. Every living thing is fighting to pass down its genetics. We’re animals, bud. >
  
  I wish more people understood this. we are still animals, say it out loud if you have to. >
  
  Killing, eating, shitting, humping wildly while grunting, licking ass. 
  Disgusting animals! >
  
  The royals weren’t special either. Just rich people who tricked uneducated people that god chose them to exploit the poor and hoard the wealth. Nothing special to pass down and in most cases leads to inbred freaks. Fuck the aristocracy. >
  
  Yep, it's funny and stupid how OP goes on "raging" against continuing your bloodline and then throws in "you're not royal". >
  
  Depending on the country, adoption processes are long and intrusive, they rip everything apart, your finances, your family life, policing checks on you and all close family and house checks (all for good reason). You just don't have to do any of that when having your own child and I think it's a big factor, pepole get rejected for petty crimes in early life or even crimes othernpepole close to them have committed. The whole "it's not the same" is bs, if you raise a child, that child will love you back regardless of whether they have your genes. >
  
  If you think about it this way, then attempting to continue your bloodline does make sense. Every single living thing on this earth comes from an unbroken line that stretches back billions of years. Your ancestors continued their bloodline through every single disaster, every war, every ice age, every mass extinction…. If you don’t continue your bloodline, you will be the first of your lineage that ever does that >
  
  I like being unique 😎