Personally, I would not try to convince the kids to have sex with each other to produce the third generation. If no survivors ever showed up and it was necessary for the kids to continue the species with each other, I’d just ask them to do the turkey baster method. To me, that seems much less disgusting than actually having sex with each other - even though it’s still gross.
You do realize that between hormones and parental disapproval, this is the perfect technique for making sure that they do have sex with each other?
Not if you make an effort to keep the power up at the closest fertility clinic. Okay, so most of us aren’t doctors so successful transfer of frozen embryos is probably out, but you can preserve semen for 20 years - that’s long enough for your older daughters to grow up and make use of it.
During the phase when there are just two, it applies. As it grows (or if it grows), it continues to apply. Maybe the partner has no interest in breeding, or vice versa. Whichever it is, the last humans don’t get to just opt out, sit on their heinies, and let someone else (even if it’s only one someone else) take all the heat.
I don’t even understand what this means.
Does this mean that if the other person wants children, you must have sex with them out of an obligation to continue the species?
Does it mean that if the other person doesn’t want children – so you know you are going to be one of the last two people on Earth – that you must somehow “soldier on” until death to preserve … what? … for who?
Or if the other person doesn’t want children, you are supposed to force it on him or her because childbearing is an obligation of both of you?
Same answer I gave in the previous thread. I care about persons, not humanity. If it’s just me and another person, I’ll care about that person, but I won’t try to rebuild the species. The species is dead.
We do not inherently have an obligation to society directly. We DO have an obligation to our fellow man, particularly in those we closely interact with. In many ways, that manifests by taking actions that benefit society as a whole because society is nothing more than the social network make up of the individuals in it. So unless anyone would deny that I do have an obligation to how we interact with other humans, whether family and friends or just perfect strangers, we do essentially have an obligation to society.
So, I have no obligation to the society that, in all likelihood, nuked itself to death, nor do I owe it the death that I may or may not feel it deserves under the circumstances. I DO, however, have an obligation to the other person I am left alive with, and as the only ones alive, I ultimately have an obligation to her and to myself. Whether or not that culminates in sex and/or children depends on the nature of how we interact. I very well may want to procreate, but what if she is not interested? Am i not violating my obligation to her, of particularly great importance because we are each the others only remaining companion, by raping her to procreate the species? And even if I could justify that, I now have children that I have an obligation to, born of rape and the consequences that has for them and their relationships with me and their mother.
Really, when it comes down to it, I’m not sure my philosophy would change in any meaningful way in that regard. While I certainly have the biological imperative to have sex and have children, I don’t think that should be enough reason to do so or, similarly, if one is lacking such a biological drive, it should not be enough reason not to do so. And that concept carries over from biological imperative to the philosophical obligation to society; so, we shouldn’t have children out of obligation to continue society, nor not have children out of obligation to end society. Our new society, just the two of us, should live or die on it’s own merits.
Yep. Survival of humanity is supreme for me. Even though extremely unlikely if only two people are left.
Oh for heaven’s sake. You’re making this WAY too complicated. No, it merely means you (you collective you, not you personally), engage and take part in the decision, you don’t just laze out and make the other person take all the responsibility for making this decision. Then, if the decision does happen to be that you’ll be attempting to further the human race, that you have the same obligation to the (albeit slowly) growing society.
I don’t feel that I owe nonexistent things existence. An un-baby has the same qualities (that is, none) as an un-cat or an un-tennis ball. They’re completely identical and they have identical rights to exist IMO.
Honestly, I still don’t know what you’re trying to say, especially when you use phrases like “take all the heat” which doesn’t even make sense when there are only two people.
I voted #4. My overwhelming reaction is being glad I don’t have to decide. If this is a weenie response, I would revert to #1 but with regret.
“… the decision does happen to be …?” So you, as one of the two survivors, have no choice? You are obliged to continue the species, should the other person decide to.
Nope. Species go extinct and if mine does, I feel zero obligation to try to propagate it all costs. Anyway there’s almost zero chance the species would survive with just two people left, and as the woman in this equation, I would prefer to make my remaining days as easy as possible, rather than risking my life and the life of my growing family by trying to have a bunch of babies in a survival situation.
If there was mutual attraction with the only man in the world, sure I’d have some sex. But prevent pregnancy. I’d feel too guilty about bringing even one child into such a life.