For people who believe in evolution, they tend to underestimate how little regard evolutionary theory has for them as members of their species:
I'd like to point out that arguments like this make Christian theology, with its "be fruitful and multiply" commandment look like a hard science by comparison.
Along with the emancipation of women, sexual liberation has become very much a part of politics around the world. To the conservatives, both these issues challenge 'family values'.Reproduction is bad because it promotes social classes, gender identity and allows those with some money to pass it onto their offspring. That is the entire blog post in the detail that it deserves.
But what if there were no families? What if we say no to reproduction?
My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent money the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.
I'd like to point out that arguments like this make Christian theology, with its "be fruitful and multiply" commandment look like a hard science by comparison.
These misanthropes should do the decent thing and off themselves for the sake of everyone else who actually likes life.
But then we would lose a beautiful example of how there is no such thing as the "transitive property of intelligence."
On a tangential note, this Friday I'm going to see Ravi Zacharias in an event concerning the atheism vs. Christianity debate (he is the latter).
Sounds like it could be an interesting and colorful event.
I imagine that feminists would be first in line for asexual reproduction, should such a thing be invented. For asexual reproduction is much more evolutionarily advantageous than the sexual kind. Howz that for evolution for ya?
The irony that their mommies and daddies had to have some whoopee for they to exist in the first place seems lost on them.
So they want to breed themselves and their ideology out of existence? I say let 'em.
I could only read about half of that post before I started to feel nauseated. Stuff like that shows their ignorance.
All I'm asking is that they themselves come to enforce the rediculous death-fetish edicts that they support, as I would like nothing more than to help them reduce the carbon-footprint burden of the planet.
Of course, things may not turn out the way they expect... Such is life.