Why is reproduction considered a basic human need?

Usually, people say that sex is a basic need because human reproduction is a basic need. My question is: Why is it necessary for the species to consider living on? Someone might say, well they must continue living on or else they will die out, but I do not feel that that fully addresses the extent of my question. I suppose humans inherently have survival instincts and are afraid to die, but again, that answer still does not satisfy me. Does it really matter if there are humans or no humans? I guess, in my idea, it doesn't really matter. Value is a human-created concept. Our world is perceived within the extent of the bounds of our minds, which is fickle and fragile. Therefore, value does not exist outside of the human mind. As such, it means nothing whether the humans species lives on or not. My ideas may not be fully accurate, but I am curious to hear the perspectives of other lainons on this topic.

not with that attitude, but with that attitude there are no needs and nothing matters, and talking about basic needs is therefore absurd just in principal.

Rights stem from wants. Obviously anyone alive & normal has a strong offspring instinct because anyone who didnt died off generations ago.

>>78658 This. Everyone who was not interested in reproduction did not produce any offspring, obviusly. We can't not be interested in sex.

>>78656 > Why is it necessary for the species to consider living on? It isn't. Most species eventually die out as conditions change, and homo sapiens is no exception. > Does it really matter if there are humans or no humans? In a cosmic sense, no. At some point millions of years ago, some organisms randomly mutated to have a will to live and behavior that satisfied that urge. Those organisms had an advantage, so they were more likely to survive and procreate. It was such an important advantage that now it's almost universal among organisms with consciousness. We are one of them. We slavishly follow the dictates of this urge as though it has some innate meaning or value. It doesn't. Is that bad or good? No, it's just the way it is.

>people say that sex is a basic need because human reproduction is a basic need That's a weird justification, who says that and why do they say it? IMO sex and other human interaction things are basic needs because these are hardwired into our psychology, not because of reproduction. Kind of ambiguous what 'basic need' means though, like is that supposed to be about morality or just what our bodies and minds demand?

>>78658 That is a re-worded version of an example I already mentioned. >>78659 >We can't not be interested in sex. What about schizoids and "asexuals"? >>786600 I see. I guess I just see it as entertaining how having children is pushed onto people as if it matters. >>78661 By basic need, I mean something necessary to keep an individual alive. I suppose some examples of this include eating and drinking. I don't have any specific examples from where I have heard it from because I have read about it in multiple places. What is the purpose of it being hardwired into our psychology?

>>78662 >By basic need, I mean something necessary to keep an individual alive. then it is not a basic need for a human, but it is a basic need for a family, and it is a basic need for the species. Individuals are parts of these larger units, which have their own basic needs.

>>78656 It means nothing to whether the human species lives on or not TO YOU. You're trying to introduce some is/ought distinction, which is totally botched. We are involved in certain material processes. The other anon rightly pointed out that only those with a desire to reproduce exist, as a matter of obvious fact. If value is a "human-created concept", then any sort of lack of value is also a "human-created concept". Your viewpoint is just a kind of inverted moral idealism.

>>78656 >Usually, people say that sex is a basic need because human reproduction is a basic need. Do they? >that answer still does not satisfy me What kind of answer would satisfy you? Do you have any at least somewhat objective criteria for it? >Our world is perceived within the extent of the bounds of our minds >Therefore, value does not exist outside of the human mind. But an individual does always perceive the world through his mind, where those values exist. Therefore it does matter to him.

>>78662 Asexuality simply means a lack of sexual attraction, not a disinterest in sex. Every schizoid I've met is also horny as fuarrrk, although that's a personal anecdote as I'm not qualified to elaborate on why otherwise would be the case.

>>78728 >We are involved in certain material processes. Could you elaborate on this? >If value is a "human-created concept", then any sort of lack of value is also a "human-created concept". Ah, yes. You're right. This is an oxymoron. But, I guess, a lack of value, outside of the human mind, is the absence of anything, and we can not describe it because it is not perceived by the brain. >>78735 >What kind of answer would satisfy you? Do you have any at least somewhat objective criteria for it? I guess an answer that goes beyond the obvious reasons. >But an individual does always perceive the world through his mind, where those values exist. Therefore it does matter to him. That is true that it matters within that person's mind, but I mean outside of humans. There exists a world that is perceived outside of us; we are not the only creatures on the planet. As far as we know, animals are unconcerned with these meta aspects of life. Trees have no concern for whether the human race lives on or not. >>78744 >Every schizoid I've met is also horny as fuarrrk I don't know if all horniness translates to directly wanting to have sex with a human. People may find themselves aroused by things that aren't inherently sexual. Isn't not desiring sex within the very definition of schizoid?

>>78752 >Isn't not desiring sex within the very definition of schizoid? schiz as in schism oid as in factoid humanoid asteroid and femoid. A person who is a schizoid is a person who appears split apart and schismed, but isn't in fact. (The Guillotine does not make one a schizoid, but rather a true schizosomatic. Its possible causative effect on schizophrenia is less clear).

>>78752 >>78658 >>78659 this isn't how genetics works though. while evolutionary arguments have been made for self-sacrificing altruism (populations with *some* self-sacrifice such as if it was a recessive trait have theoretically greater fitness) or a declining birth rate (a species-wide adaptation to overpopulation) but there's no real way to prove that this happened because of genetics or evolution at all. my point here is that most of these types of arguments are just-so stories reduceable to "that's the way the cookie crumbled", and actually have nothing to do with darwinian processes. since it cannot be proven that there are genes or sets of genes corresponding to self-sacrifice, homosexuality, only having one child just as there is no proven genetic markers for heterosexuality, large families and warfare. these rationalizations belong roughly to the evolutionary psychology as such is considered both fringe to psychology as a whole and exemplary of psych's issues with testability and reproduction (of results). what's more, when the ecological processes they allude to are brought up as more than an attempt to tokenize legitimacy, that is when actual processes are brought up it is not typically as a matter of those processes themselves or ecosystems. they are once again tokenized as allegories between human affairs and wild misunderstandings of the animal kingdom, one of the most common being the family-as-species (and therefore race) argument which misses one of the most crucial aspects of how species function. Even outside of the matter of DNA and genetics, these sorts of assumptions about inheritance and expression of qualities fall on a side of the nature v. nurture debate left long ago by philosophy of science: contemporary understandings don't see it as a debate at all and instead an unfolding of discoveries as to the myriad ways in which things are both inherited from and nurtured by their environments, as well as etiologies lying outside of the 2 possible origins in the dichotomy. >>78663 I think the issue is that you're transforming descriptions into prescriptions. Species and family are units of organisms and humans respectively, with myriad definitions based on context and usefulness - in biology alone there are 17 functional definitions that are chosen dependent on what's being studied. >>78735 there is a kind of projection where the family, nation, country, and species are all seen as an extension of the individual, from which essential characteristics of the person are sort of assumed to extend to the unit in question unless it was made clear explicitly. what this means is that even if the specific identity of the individual is removed, the "generic person" will still essentially be the person thinking, additionally, all groups containing "generic persons" will be forms of the person. I can't help but see this as ugly ignorance made from a lack of self-awareness, wild assumptions, and failure to active listening. at the same time, it is deeply uninteresting because it is usually the loudest members of a community who act this way - men who don't want to think outside of their bubble and feel a need to talk over others to justify their activities' value. this is not to be confused with autists who generally mean well but struggle with all of the norms of engagement, and those who interrupt collaboratively - such as to assist with conversational partners finding a word, or summarizing ideas WITHOUT projecting, bringing attention to something time-critical, asking for clarification or so on. generally these are known as "cooperative interrupts" in linguistics. I'm talking about guys who see talking over others and "winning" conversations, or ending them before all participants have a chance to speak as the activity that *brings meaning* or perhaps value to their own ideas - that this "victory" in the "free marketplace of ideas" is what makes them true and worthwhile, a sort of self-justifying tunnel vision of dangerous arrogance. oftentimes, it might not even be ideas they came up with but ones they heard elsewhere, such as from andrew tate and likewise. you might understand this as guys who will steal the microphone to drone on about their own ideas because it gives them a sense of self worth, which this post certainly has none of. anyway the point of the post is that i pretty much agree with you, OP, and hopefully to provide some language you might find useful. >>78752 >Trees have no concern for whether the human race lives on or not. is true in terms of the fact that "the human race" is a phrase used in conversations about philosophy frequently, however, the survival of any individual tree as well as forests, which are distinctly autonomous from individual trees or collectives of them, species, have a vested interest in not being killed by humans and can even benefit from some human activity - I'm specifically thinking of humans' role as part nomadic, part stationary omnivores, but also their tendency to build larger systems and observe processes and wonder. things that contribute to ecosystems in subtle-but-helpful ways, such as controlled burns to prevent larger forest fires. granted, most of the problems ecosystems are now facing could be understood as consequent of the shortsighted arrogance of power groups of humans and the stunted and ugly systems they've constructed. but a huge part of that problem, too, is from humans and their systems - including their pets and inhuman machinery, systems, relations, etc. Which i tend to understand as humanity: the conditions in which all these processes "belong to" hierarchies of actors who define themselves / the world in the ways i have described. but this definition, although derived from humanity as a form of interpersonal understanding tends to contradict the ways in which humanity is defined in opposition to say, technology as well as contradicting the matter of humans as a type of biological organism participant in ecosystems

It's simple, really. Without food: nobody stay alive. Food is a basic human need. Without water, nobody stay alive. Water is a basic human need. Without reproduction, give it 100 years and nobody stay alive. Reproduction is a basic human need. You can argue that an individual does not need to reproduce and you would be correct, but at a collective scale it is absolutely vital. Medicine isn't needed at all to keep the community alive, only the individuals. Reproduction isn't needed at all for the individuals, only the collective. >>78744 As an authentic skizoid, I can give you my point of data: I have a very low sex drive. Of course I am not above the laws of chemistry, no one is and asexuality is a creation of the lgbt+++ community who tried way too hard to create labels for every possible cases without any concern about the reality of things.

>>78770 Second point of data here: I also happen to check all the marks for the squizoid label with the exception that i'm horny as fuarrrk. But i don't crave actual sexual interactions with other people. especially since that would demand interacting and maintaining a relationship with another person. my cravings are perfectly satisfied in my fantasy world and in my porn games.

>>78755 >I think the issue is that you're transforming descriptions... While I appreciate that the delineations between species and families are not precisely clear, that does not mean that they do not describe things both real and significant. For all normal use of the term 'species' to describe plants or animals, reproduction is imperative for its long term survival. There could be ten thousand definitions of the term and that wouldn't change this fact. >>78777 nice trips.

>>78753 By definition, I didn't mean the literal definition of the term schizoid, but the diagnostic criteria. >>78755 >is true in terms of the fact that "the human race" is a phrase used in conversations about philosophy frequently, however, the survival of any individual tree as well as forests, which are distinctly autonomous from individual trees or collectives of them, species, have a vested interest in not being killed by humans and can even benefit from some human activity That is true, but they do not process it on a conscious level that we know of. Although there may be some benefits and there may be some downsides, they can not rationalize it in the way we can. Again, what if the trees have their own value system, where things we consider "desirable" are "undesirable" to them? >>78770 That is a logical stance, and it is the one I already mentioned. However, why is it "bad" for humans to not stay alive? You did not directly mention that is "bad," but the post implied that not surviving is not desirable.

>>78778 >reproduction is imperative for its long term survival I think you're missing the point. *some* reproduction is necessary. but only enough that it neither completely disappears nor snuffs out the ecosystem: this is in constant flux, dependent on the habitat, and it doesn't always work perfectly either as species can become thretened or invasive. >>78781 >That is true, but they do not process it on a conscious level that we know of. Although there may be some benefits and there may be some downsides, they can not rationalize it in the way we can. Again, what if the trees have their own value system, where things we consider "desirable" are "undesirable" to them? I wanted to touch on that. forests do communicate, through their mycelial networks, as well as share resources, in fact the patterns that are used to communicate have been decoded in some fungi. cybernetics tells us that any informatic network could be understood as an information processor... an organism in the way that language, logic, community makes up the organic "we" that you seem to draw upon. it certainly takes some philosophical argument to get here - yet im not a cyberneticist, I think the connection is valid. it would be good for both things to be aligned in values. forests don't act against humans, at least not in a way thats detectable. hostility is not in their nature, especially not the kind that people tend to show. And I would say that a lot of indifference *is* hostility - an abundantly-endowed person is within their civil rights to refuse anything, even spare change, in their legal property to another, even in the somewhat uncommon circumstance it is seen as cruel or unethical. but natural resources, when abundant, are typically seen as both a gift for the taking, and while most people agree *some* conservation is necessary, it always seems like it doesn't occur. my point is that, by human standards, trees are very generous and passive. why should you get suspicious of them? is it *enabling* when the destruction of a forest cascades into ecological destruction, into the social food / other things supply chain?

>>78792 >I think you're missing the point. *some* water is necessary. but only enough that it neither completely disappears nor floods the earth and destroys all vegetation: this is in constant flux, dependent on the habitat, and it doesn't always work perfectly either as species can become thretened or invasive. True as that may be, water is necessary and without it we will die. Yes, too much is possible, too little is possible. But complete removal is death and hence it is necessary.

>>78777 I don't recall the absence of libido to be in the symptoms or description of the skizoid behavioral disorder. Desiring a sexual relationship with a person would contradict the diagnostic as it would make you seek an interpersonal relationship. Building imaginary universes with or without sexual terms and masturbating to it won't. If prostitutes were free, would you spend time with them? I know I wouldn't. If non professional women were constantly hitting on men, including you, would you reject or accept them? I know I wouldn't with any women who isn't one of the rare few people I can tolerate in my life. >>78781 >why is it "bad" for humans to not stay alive? Are you just enjoying the arguments? Why is it bad for cars to crash? Why is it bad for planes to implode? Why is it bad for buildings to collapse? Well, because then all the positive and potential positives aspects of life are gone. It work for individual persons and for the global entity that mankind is.

>>78792 >I wanted to touch on that. forests do communicate, through their mycelial networks, as well as share resources, in fact the patterns that are used to communicate have been decoded in some fungi. That's really cool. I didn't know that. I stand corrected. >>78809 >Are you just enjoying the arguments? My intent is not to be combative. I'm genuinely curious and don't quite understand it.

>>78798 >But complete removal is death and hence it is necessary. respectfully, this is a false equivalency. please read the rest of my post >>78755 , even the parts that aren't just a reply to you. the species is not the same thing as the person, "species death" and "person death" are not the same thing. the person is not an instance of the species - here is a silly example as to why, but if a person somehow experiences a genetic mutation causing them to no longer produce offspring, they don't stop being human as you understand it. >>78809 >I don't recall the absence of libido to be in the symptoms or description of the skizoid behavioral disorder its in there, pic related

>>78823 Yeah, it says that skizoids are /d/eviants who masturbate to weird fetishes.

because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS, OK???!?!

why is anything a basic human need. say water, you need it in order to exist, well without reproduction you wouldn't exist.

>>78656 >As such, it means nothing whether the humans species lives on or not. No. You can't discern the meaning. That doesn't mean that it is meaningless. >Our world is perceived within the extent of the bounds of our minds, which is fickle and fragile. If so then your entire argument is also a product of the fickle and fragile human mind. Equally useless. >Why is reproduction considered a basic human need? Better to say the instinct to meet the opposite sex, make contact, have sex, etc. is close to a "need". Some live perfectly well in isolation and asexually. But most will find themselves wanting the company of others and the opposite sex.

>>80328 Why is existence necessary? Other than fearing death, wanting to propagate one's lineage, not wanting to miss out on the "pleasant" things that life offers for some. Also not "because the species which did not see existence as necessary died out." >>80376 >No. You can't discern the meaning. How do you know there is a meaning? >If so then your entire argument is also a product of the fickle and fragile human mind. Equally useless. I never intended to imply my train of thought was anything but meaningless - that it had any value in the first place or that it took precedence over any other train of thought. It was merely a thought. Thoughts don't have to have meaning or be useful. Many times, they're merely just noise. It's a contradiction, I know, for a mind to state that the mind is fickle. Does a thought have to matter or be useful? Although it is an oxymoron, isn't it possible for such ideas to exist in opposition to each other? But, I never sought to convince anyone in the first place - I wanted to be the one who was convinced, the one who was "wrong." The entire premise of this thread was that I was wrong, in the first place, see: "My ideas may not be fully accurate."

Hi lainon. You're approaching this from an extremely detached, philosophical and analytical point of view. The reality is simple: some people (many, even!) want to have children. The desire can be analyzed, but the reality is that it's there. It also has some kind of root in instinct, hormones or whatever other somatic process that ISN'T related to purely social processes. I hope you appreciate my response and realize that it's not intended as dismissive.

>>78656 the reason any organic creature exists is to propagate itself. You wouldn't have reproductive organs if that were not the case

>>80328 I need to drink water to exist. I need someone else to have reproduced in order for me to exist. I myself do not need to reproduce in order to exist.

>>80328 comparing natural resources to an organism's normal desire for self-propagation is a bit of a stretch, but I get what you're saying

>>80451 yes, but at the same time you wouldn't be around to ask dumb questions if other people didn't, which you seem to enjoy, why deny other potential children this same pleasure by retaining your seed

>>78656 >he doesn't even care about expanding god's kingdom

>>80446 It doesn't sound dismissive, but it sounds like something a reddit user would write. I'm not insulting you, by the way. But yes, I know this. They want to continue their lineage. Perhaps get to see them grow up. "Joys" of parenthood. But wanting children ≠ needing children. >It also has some kind of root in instinct, hormones or whatever other somatic process What does it mean if someone doesn't want kids, then? What does it mean if a severely disabled person makes the deliberate choice to not reproduce because they recognize they have horrible genes and do not want to subject it onto a living being? >>80455 Please go back to 4chan. Also, why would I want to? >>80454 Why are you so mad at the idea that he wants to retain?

>>78656 If you don't want to reproduce, then you don't want to reproduce. A lot of people feel that way nowadays, and honestly it's fine. That doesn't mean it's not a "basic human need" for a lot of other people. You may be able to get by just fine, but there still exists an intense desire for essentially most people on earth to have and even raise children. IMHO it's easier to understand the discourse surrounding it if you step back and consider "need" to mean less a literal, basic necessity of-which without you will literally die and cannot live without, and more like a "human right" in the sense that it's socially necessary and beneficial to facilitate broader social conditions that allow people to reproduce and raise children in a safe and sustainable (read: affordable) manner.

>You may be able to get by just fine, but there still exists an intense desire for essentially most people on earth to have and even raise children. I understand that there is an innate desire, but what do you think of this? >A majority (56%) of non-parents younger than 50 who say it’s unlikely they will have children someday say they just don’t want to have kids. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ This wasn't the only article that said similar things, and it seems like a trend amongst young people. >The general fertility rate in the United States decreased by 3% from 2022, reaching a historic low. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm (I know these fuarrrker's can't fully be trusted, but I'm seeing an underlying theme across multiple sources.) >More than one third of young adults do not want to have kids https://www.ypulse.com/article/2022/11/28/young-people-dont-want-to-have-kids-right-now/ Again, these sources are far from perfect, but you get the idea. >IMHO it's easier to understand the discourse surrounding it if you step back and consider "need" to mean less a literal, basic necessity of-which without you will literally die and cannot live without, and more like a "human right" in the sense that it's socially necessary and beneficial to facilitate broader social conditions that allow people to reproduce and raise children in a safe and sustainable (read: affordable) manner. That seems cyclical: Essentially, it is necessary to have children so that more children can be produced, if I am understanding what you mean correctly. But I will try to think of it in a less literal way, and I will accept that. >socially necessary and beneficial In what way?

>>80496 It's socially beneficial and necessary because society/the socius (where "socially" is derived from) cannot continue to exist without human life. It's also essential for currently alive humans to benefit from society, since new working-age people need to be brought into the workforce as existing workers age out or get sick and need to be taken care of. >That seems cyclical: Essentially, it is necessary to have children so that more children can be produced, if I am understanding what you mean correctly. But I will try to think of it in a less literal way, and I will accept that. This is going to sound a bit like cope but honestly it's real: social dynamics like these are always going to be inherently cyclical. Language is very often cyclical. Words like "cool" or "gnarly" don't mean anything other than that something is cool or gnarly. There isn't a "real" (unless you're religious, which I'm not) reason to ensure the continued reproduction of humanity if you do not on some level accept some arbitrary social dynamic as worthwhile in pursuing. If you don't believe in maintaining society then that's that. None of this is universal, so if you're looking for an absolute truth that will say "it is objectively correct to produce children" then you won't get any, all there is to do is to ask yourself what benefit having children can give, both inter-personally and (if you at all care) as contributing to a wider social project. It's all contextual.

>>80520 >It's socially beneficial and necessary because society/the socius (where "socially" is derived from) cannot continue to exist without human life. It's also essential for currently alive humans to benefit from society, since new working-age people need to be brought into the workforce as existing workers age out or get sick and need to be taken care of. I will accept that as a valid reason. >This is going to sound a bit like cope but honestly it's real: social dynamics like these are always going to be inherently cyclical. Language is very often cyclical. Words like "cool" or "gnarly" don't mean anything other than that something is cool or gnarly. There isn't a "real" (unless you're religious, which I'm not) reason to ensure the continued reproduction of humanity if you do not on some level accept some arbitrary social dynamic as worthwhile in pursuing. If you don't believe in maintaining society then that's that. None of this is universal, so if you're looking for an absolute truth that will say "it is objectively correct to produce children" then you won't get any, all there is to do is to ask yourself what benefit having children can give, both inter-personally and (if you at all care) as contributing to a wider social project. It's all contextual. Actually, I like this. I want to thank you for all of the explanations. But it's less that I'm looking for an absolute truth and more that others and people in general describe it in an absolute manner. But, you still did not tell me what you thought of the provided statistics. If most people on earth want to have children, then why do the trends say otherwise?

>>80534 Taking your first link, it's "only" 25% of adults less than 50 who don't want children. That's still a lot, but it's just in the US, and in a soykafty economic context.

>>80534 >That's still a lot, but it's just in the US US isn't the only country that experiences this. >Singapore tops the list, with a childless rate of 23%, followed by Austria, the U.K., Finland, Bahrain, and Canada. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/03/in-terms-of-childlessness-u-s-ranks-near-the-top-worldwide/ >in a soykafty economic context. Why are the birth rates of soykafhole African countries the highest in the world if it has to do with an economic context? Also, fertility is declining worldwide, save for these African countries. >Fertility is declining globally, with rates in more than half of all countries and territories in 2021 below replacement level. Trends since 2000 show considerable heterogeneity in the steepness of declines, and only a small number of countries experienced even a slight fertility rebound after their lowest observed rate, with none reaching replacement level. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform

>>80546 theres a difference between childlessness and wanting no children. either can happen without the other.

>>80462 >What does it mean if someone doesn't want kids, then then he either hasn't grown into the idea of wanting kids or has something wrong with him. Effectively neutering yourself isn't natural for obvious reasons. >>80469 >A lot of people feel that way nowadays, and honestly it's fine. That's such a weak and pathetic argument; I hate seeing it applied everywhere. "just do what you want it's fine to spit in the face of reason and history because of how you felt for a week when you were in your twenties"

>>80578 >That's such a weak and pathetic argument; I hate seeing it applied everywhere. I hope to give you a better one to apply to the burned area. Reproduction is not human need, but the need of the whole. So long as the whole is perpetuating itself, the individuals are disregarded. If you feel like begetting a child, OK, you do it for the whole, if not, well, you do something else for the whole. It is not a basic human need. It is a basic need of the whole system.

>>80579 >Reproduction is not human need, but the need of the whole. It's a need of humans as they are defined as social animals. Being pendantic and overstating the obvious doesn't do anything here

>>80579 > So long as the whole is perpetuating itself At 0,78 kid per women, we are no longer in this situation. Ho, you want to say humanity as a whole is doing fine. But here is the trick: people with the qualities needed to create an advanced society build one and then reproduce less, because choosing to have a kid isn't a personal choice, it is one decided by your material conditions. The people who don't live in conditions that crate high fertility, in particular low education for women, promiscuity and no access to contraception. The result is called idiocracy. Humanity is doomed to suffer misery, violence, an economy based on theft and the constant terror of rape and murder because the people who would get all of mankind out of there create societies where breeding is discouraged by the material conditions and the artificial morality created by those economies.

>>80579 The system can fuarrrk off, I don't owe society anything. I will not give you (society) children.

>>78656 In brief: Life is that which attempts to replicate and perpetuate its own information. Humans are living organisms, and thus by definition must propagate their own information, usually by sexual reproduction. Human rights are abstracta which exist to serve human needs and define what a moral relationship between society and the individual is. Reproduction as a human right just means that a human who is prevented by society from reproducing is justified in resisting such a society.

>>82475 It doesn't matter what you owe or what you don't owe. The system will take what belongs to it, you either accept that or lament and hate.

>>82467 yeah, we all saw the same movie anon. It isn't anything new

>>82467 I've heard anti-feminists make an argument along these lines to make the case against equal rights between the sexes.

>>78656 sex and reproduction is not a basic need since a person can live without ever having kids or having sex in his entire life "basic need" is something that relates to a specific person not a civilization/species/whatever >Does it really matter if there are humans or no humans? sex or more importantly reproduction is not unique to humans it is basis of life and life as far as we know is the only source of neg-entropy in the universe so life and reproduction is in this sense is critical to our universe Reproduction is a responsibility of all that lives therefore. >Value is a human-created concept. ~ value does not exist outside of the human mind all living matter experiences values since all living matter can die/stop-being-living in other words time is the source of value and according to bibble (and other stuff in case you have allergies to bibble) it seems like time preceeded EVERYTHING(!!!) so i wouldn't be so sure about that i hope you are not justifying anything bad (like your insecurities or complexes) with this kind of thinking tho, reproduction is a responsibility of everything that lives. Suns energy IS finite so dont waste it on being gay and lame. also kids are cool the origins of "sex is a basic need" are murky and disgusting basically tldr is that ww1 and ww2 runied our relationship with sex and now we have deal with incel-tranny-nazi-whatever-users

>>82636 woah, a fascinating insight. Truly this thread still has more to offer

Different individuals have different needs and there are different ways to define what is a need and what is human . There is emotional need, there is physical need. Those these technically are same thing in their own way. Sometimes the need isnt for sex itself but sex is an end to a means for some and some mix their end and means to an end up forgetting they may have other options available. There is a need where someone would die without something, there is need in sense of being otherwise hindered without it and there is need down to simply desiring something. Any other declaration is just someone pushing propaganda by pretending to be smart.

>>78656 Sex is not a human need. However I suspect having sex at least once, or a few times, is. Otherwise, unless you're living in a monastery or something, being outside and apart from the world (daily life is intercourse with the world, which is one object, that is feminine) yet also forced to participate in it as a being that does not have intercourse, causes all sorts of issues via the note knowing aspect. Once you get to be around 30 it causes a certain damage to the psyche which sets in and crystallizes into a broader neurosis. Maintaining the internal indirection, other projects and drives, whatever in the face of this void and sense of "missed the boat" eternal childhood / living death / twilight limbo state, is very difficult. The body itself will amplify any underlying issues and functionality will decrease. So reproduction is not a need, nor is sex. Knowing it the need. Sex is knowing. Lack of sex is not knowing, hence creating / fabricating from within. Which again, will last for a while, but at a certain point is all tapped out, then collapses on itself. The age window at which this most occurs is 27 to 31.

>>83179 truly a remarkable series of points! are you saying that wizards shed their humanity and transcend to something greater ?

>>83180 I was a virgin until nearly 31. I think it depends on the person and context. In some cases yes, there is a destruction of the "human" parts of the self and if you realize and accept that this place is closer to a sort of dream (which is made far easier without bonds and things that make you want to believe it's all real), you will also further develop any latent magical powers you have. Though it doesn't come strictly from abstaining from this or that thing.

>>83179 Why so? What sort of damage does it cause? How is sex "knowing"? What is being known? >>82636 >reproduction is a responsbility of everything that lives. Why? Is it not irresponsible for a person with bad genes to breed knowingly? What is the point of breeding for the sake of breeding? Isn't it more important to ensure that the only the best of genes reproduce in order to increase the quality of life and the human species as a whole? If anything, mindless breeding seems rather irresponsible. I once knew a mother who had 5 different kids from 4 different guys, perpetually having CPS called. None of them had quality lives. One ended up deaf from abuse. How can this be important? >time is the source of value Why is time the source of value? >kids are cool Yes. Screaming vomit and diarrhea monsters. Quite lovely, indeed. >>82479 >The system will take what belongs to it, you either accept that or lament and hate. Is that to imply that the system will suck sperm straight from our cocks and into fresh young women?

>>83207 >Why so? What sort of damage does it cause? How is sex "knowing"? What is being known? It just does. Truth that's not worth / able of being communicated, it's simply realized. Everyone knows deep down.

>>83208 I think there's maybe something to this but probably generalized to deep connections with people, which sex has a role in but sex by itself is not sufficient.

>>83209 I agree with that. I'm still thinking about this. Whether I regret making things sexual. I lean towards yes, but I was only capable of this perspective after already knowing. After knowing I see that it isn't necessary. It's only necessary to know, which allows you to also know, that it isn't necessary. People who say they need sex are totally hypnotized and sunk into sensory reality.

>>83207 >Yes. Screaming vomit and diarrhea monsters. Quite lovely, indeed. lol. sorry you have bad genetics

>>83213 >neurosuggesting anyone on lainchan has good genetics

>>83219 I was grown in a vat to be peak human genetics, what are you talking about?