The eternal death of your unique genetic line

I wasn’t sure where to put this topic, mods feel free to move it to Society or Science or wherever fits.

If you don’t have any kids, your unique genetic line dies. All of your ancestors who survived, stretching back to the very first humans; you are the direct product of all of that. Every single ancestor of yours, all the way back to the beginnings of humanity, had at least one child.

And now many of us won’t have any children at all. Each time this happens, an entire ancestral chain dies. However, if you have siblings and they have kids then that line is still preserved. Since your siblings are also genetically constituted 100% by the same two parents that you are 100% genetically constituted by. Although you will only share an average of 50% of your actual heritable genes with your siblings (in reality it could be a lot more).

The problem is where we as individuals possess our own unique genetics, separate from even our parents and siblings. Our parents created us, we are the unique expression of their genetic merging. They continued the process that stretches back across all of your ancestors to the beginning of human time. YOU are the manifestation of the success of literally 100% of every single one of those ancestors who ever lived.

What is the meaning therefore of not having kids? It is the direct nullification and cancellation of your own genetic ancestral line, all of their successes that led up to you are destroyed. That is just a factual statement, not necessarily a moral one but you can take it how you wish. Another way to look at it is: if even just ONE of the people in your ancestral lineage, stretching back so many hundreds and probably thousands of individuals back to the beginnings of human history, if even just one of them had failed to have kids then you would not be here today. Your entire existence would never have happened and everything you did in your life would never have occurred.

Thus, by not having kids we are effectively erasing entire realities from existence. But it gets weirder, since even if you have let’s say 2 kids instead of having 6 kids you are still erasing 4 complete realities (the 4 kids you didn’t have). So having kids is sufficient to maintain the integrity of your unique ancestral line and pay respect to all who came before you and gave you the existence you now have, but it is not sufficient to not still be erasing entire realities from existence. Does this mean we have some sort of obligation to have as many kids as possible? I am not taking the argument that far, but I can definitely see someone making such a claim.

How familiar are you with Anthropology?

Each person has a Paternal (Y-DNA) and Maternal (mtDNA) lineage, male and female Genetics. Male-genetics has far, far lower survivability (eternal death) than Female-genetics. So I presume, in your OP here, you’re specifically referring to Patrilineage… yes?

Women and females have a higher genetic survivability, so if your sisters / female cousins survive, a semblance of ‘You’ (genetically) does survive. Or, “parts of you”.

Yeah man, otherwise we’d be erasing entire realities!:rofl:

Yes, and luckily for you (perhaps unluckily for us) none of your own ancestors failed to reproduce. Otherwise YOU would not be here to spout your nonsense.

1 Like

Why do you make threads when you don’t really care about answers?

Philosophy is to you just a one-way unloading shot into the void and you’re done?

I’ll leave you to your Monologues then… what a disappointment.

“And now many of us won’t have any children at all. Each time this happens, an entire ancestral chain dies.”

Screw those people they got nothing to do with me. Societies, families, bloodlines, all irrelevant spooks. There are only individuals, and each one is entirely unique and set at odds against everyone else, sometimes even their own family.

Having childrens has absolutely no metaphysical significance and nothing to do with me. What has metaphysical significance is the idea of the eternal recurrence and that i might live again! I’m kinda like my own childrens then.

You know how i know family and heritabiity and all that shit is nonsense? Because i came out of a degenerate piece of shit and yet I’m like a fuckin level 5 x-man. That’s how i know.

Prom… ya gotta move out from your mom’s house… that said, yes, I realize you have like no alternatives. So this is as far as my advice can go right now.

Look buddy, you share 40% of your genes with bananas, and 95% of your genes with chimpanzees..
I imagine you might have a few close relatives, maybe sibling or cousins. Maybe your sibling are your cousins.
So seriously? How fucking unique do you really think you are? Is the ending of your “line” significant?

Try having a child, and try to find something worthwhile that they have you think is worthy to carry on in perpetuity.
The likelyhood is that you will see two things. 1) You will see all your negative qualities in that child that you have saddled them with, and 2) You will also, hopefully be astonished at qualties that you admire that you cannot account for by looking at yourself.
Such is the burden of the parent to always worry, but be proud of your child .

1 Like

MtDNA does not contribute to this argument.

Average postmodernist narcissism take. “It’s all about me.” :rofl: Well done.

Peak degenerate narcissism of the radically individualist postmoderns, thankfully, tends to select itself out of the next generation. Unfortunately, the society around us is pushing these messages so hard that it keeps reinfecting the new generations over and over despite how the degenerates like you tend not to reproduce themselves.

Then imagine if people like you were actually having kids. How much worse the whole situation would be.

“Look, buddy, you share 40% of your genes with bananas, and 95% of your genes with chimpanzees..”

I feel like chimpanzees would also share some percent of their genes with bananas if our 40 percent share with bananas is comin’ out of our 95 percent total share with the chimps. Am i right?

1 Like

How in the hell can you claim that?? Explain…

No, wait, this is Scalptor being dealt with… guess I’ll do the explaining.

MtDNA is critical in understanding genetic distribution because ‘safer’ strands of DNA accumulates in females than in males (because females have a much higher survival AND sexual reproduction rate than males).

You understand this, right? You do understand that, pretty much universally, female Mammals survive and reproduce far more frequently than males? Like by a factor of 10.

DO you understand that a mitochondion is?

You need to understand that the mitochondria do not contribute to your “genetic line”.
Please see headline title.
During your gestation, your mother passes some of these organelles so that your cells have a means to use energy, at conception through the egg cell.

Mitochondria do not contribute to the human genome in the conventional sense because their DNA is separate from the DNA found in the nucleus of human cells. When we refer to the “human genome,” we typically mean the complete set of nuclear DNA that is inherited from both parents and housed within the cell nucleus. This nuclear DNA contains approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes spread across 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Mitochondria, however, have their own small, circular genome known as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is located inside the mitochondria themselves—not in the nucleus. This mtDNA encodes only a small number of genes (just 37), which are mostly involved in the mitochondrion’s energy production functions. It is entirely separate from the nuclear DNA and does not mix with it under normal biological conditions.

Another key distinction is in the way mitochondrial DNA is inherited. Unlike nuclear DNA, which comes from both parents, mitochondrial DNA is passed down exclusively from the mother. This happens because the mitochondria present in sperm are typically destroyed after fertilization, so the embryo inherits mitochondria only from the egg cell.

Because mitochondrial DNA is functionally and physically separate, it is not included in what scientists usually refer to as the human genome, even though it plays a crucial role in cellular energy production.

This is utter bollocks.

Okay so you’re just misguided, as is the OP. When Humanize claimed “death of your genetic line”, he unknowingly, unwittingly meant a person’s paternal genetic heritage. He did NOT mean your or my or anybody’s maternal genetic heritage. This difference is critical, because there are different sets of genetics passed by fathers and mothers, by gender/sex.

Even you must admit, having a son is entirely different than having a daughter. The Y-DNA and mtDNA of gender are different sets of information.

Then you just completely missed the point I made that males and females have different survivability rates, and especially sexual reproduction rates. So you don’t see how this connects to the OP and original argument.

A male has less survivability than a female. A male has less success with sexual reproduction than a female. This is true across pretty much every, or simply ALL Mammalian species.

This means that the different sets of genetic information passed to son or daughter, also have different survival/reproduction rates.

“More generally, in mammals, female adult lifespan is on average 19% longer than male adult lifespan even if the magnitude of sex differences in lifespan is highly variable among species (Lemaître et al., 2020).”

Sex differences in adult lifespan and aging rate across mammals: A test of the ‘Mother Curse hypothesis’ - ScienceDirect).

I’ll spell this out as simple as I can for you Scalptor…

Genetics directly causes different survival and reproductive rates in ALL organisms.

If you believe that “has nothing to do with genetics” then you’re just clueless. I don’t even know where to begin with you. It seems all your Anthropology studies have amounted to nothing?

Humanity is overpopulated. That is why you need a license to hunt deer, turkey, etc.

I’ll confess I don’t feel as though I’m a “total expert” of genetics yet, but it seems to be that if you don’t reproduce but your uncle and aunt does, then your ancestors DNA will be “preserved”. So if your uncle and aunt reproduces then you could just adopt or something, and then you wouldn’t be considered “selfish” like the OP claims. In fact, reproduction could be considered selfish when there are many kids that need to be adopted and saved from poverty

Overall, there is a smidgeon of truth to the OP to that which I agree. I find it shameful that many genetic curiosities, such as geniuses, those with superpowers, people with special abilities, perhaps athletic or other curiosities… in our society their genes completely are lost and go to waste upon their demise, it very much feels like an Idiocracy when people like Tesla die celibate and their entire genetic DNA is not able to be uploaded into some computer database for future storage and reconstruction. Tesla thought he was even unworthy of a pigeon, let alone a human companion. He was handsome and one of the greatest geniuses of all time (goat), if he was not worthy of even a pigeon what does that say about our entire species…?

1 Like