"Men would pay for the privilege of donating to sperm banks, women for donating eggs."
The technology that would allow this is so new and novel there is no way that human beings would have evolved to desire it.
A man could donate sperm, but generally speaking only the very best sperm gets selected at a sperm bank. It's even more Darwinian than mating.
A woman can donate eggs but that's a pretty onerous process. The woman is primed to want to get pregnant via sex and then raise children, not to inject herself hormone shots and then go through an invasive surgery so that the abstraction of a child might be raised by a stranger.
I think that's actually the point Friedman was trying to make. If I was concerned solely about propagating my genes I would want them as widely distributed as possible, and we would want the best sperm and eggs mating and then raised by surrogates, regardless of difficulty or effort. From an evolutionary standpoint something like cuckoldry is the best mating strategy since it eliminates the Cads vs Dads conflict while providing social stability through widely available male-female pair bonding to raise the kids.
As a society we are like the dog that caught the car. We chased the idea of eliminating the connection between sexual activity and reproduction for ages but when it actually happened 60 or so years ago we had no idea how we were going to deal with situation.
I like your dog chase analogy. It seems like there's probably a lot of potential uses for it but I'm not sure what. I'll have to think about that. Thanks for the idea.
What evidence do you have for this statement, "[O]nly the very best sperm gets selected at a sperm bank." We have significant evidence that this is empirically false. Donors self-report their medical histories. Who do you imagine donates, exactly? Altruistic, well adjusted high IQ, high salaried males in stable relationships and fabulous careers, overcome with love for fellow human? NO. They're men who need the money, who may not be capable of a relationship or a job; maybe they're hyper-aggressive, antisocial, mentally ill, just defective in some important way. There is a certain narcissism implied by desiring to sire with one's seed without a partner, even megalomania, since, in the USA (not in many other countries), they can have well over 100 progeny and corrupt the gene pool. Using a sperm donor is selfish, egocentric, anti-social behavior. It's rolling the dice to the detriment of the common good. This is a problematic industry. I would like to know more about libertarians' views of its regulation.
I recently read Micheal Poylani’s essay “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry”. This slice . . .
“Biological systems, like machines, have, therefore, functions and forms inexplicable by chemical and physical laws. The argument that the DNA molecule determines genetic processes in living systems does not indicate reducibility. A DNA molecule essentially transmits information to a developing cell. Similarly, a book transmits information. But the transmission of the information cannot be represented in terms of chemical and physical principles. In other words, the operation of the book is not reducible to chemical terms. Since DNA operates by transmission of (genetic) information, its function cannot be described by chemical laws either.’’
I agree. I don’t think atoms or molecules can have any teleological function. Recalls Aristotle’s theory of nature. Rocks fall because that’s their ‘nature’.
Material dna essential for human life. Necessity isn’t sufficient.
I think human competition, envy, more explained by striving for self-esteem, especially since most draw self-respect from their group, not from their own evaluation.
Self-esteem isn’t inherent in genetic information. Mind, conscience, love, hope cannot be explained by material means.
As Newton wrote ‘Blind metaphysical necessity cannot explain all the amazing things that exist’.
> Friedman makes the point that caring about status only makes us indirectly concerned with reproductive success. If we directly cared about reproductive success, then
There are many steps in between -- and maybe we optimise on some of the intermediates. At what rate will a young man trade pussy for status if forced to choose?
I am a good hunter, but the government won't let me have a gun because I am white. No kidding, that is what they said.
I am fit and strong, and as a person with expanding muscle tissue, nust logically be verile enough to deliver sperm, if you want to put it so clinically. But what kind of fool would I be to deliver sperm to a PEG soaked, mRNA-spike protein riddled, chockfull of graphene oxide, medicine addled woman (sorry, egg receptable) when medical science has demonstrated that screwing causes transfer.
"Men would pay for the privilege of donating to sperm banks, women for donating eggs."
The technology that would allow this is so new and novel there is no way that human beings would have evolved to desire it.
A man could donate sperm, but generally speaking only the very best sperm gets selected at a sperm bank. It's even more Darwinian than mating.
A woman can donate eggs but that's a pretty onerous process. The woman is primed to want to get pregnant via sex and then raise children, not to inject herself hormone shots and then go through an invasive surgery so that the abstraction of a child might be raised by a stranger.
I think that's actually the point Friedman was trying to make. If I was concerned solely about propagating my genes I would want them as widely distributed as possible, and we would want the best sperm and eggs mating and then raised by surrogates, regardless of difficulty or effort. From an evolutionary standpoint something like cuckoldry is the best mating strategy since it eliminates the Cads vs Dads conflict while providing social stability through widely available male-female pair bonding to raise the kids.
As a society we are like the dog that caught the car. We chased the idea of eliminating the connection between sexual activity and reproduction for ages but when it actually happened 60 or so years ago we had no idea how we were going to deal with situation.
I like your dog chase analogy. It seems like there's probably a lot of potential uses for it but I'm not sure what. I'll have to think about that. Thanks for the idea.
What evidence do you have for this statement, "[O]nly the very best sperm gets selected at a sperm bank." We have significant evidence that this is empirically false. Donors self-report their medical histories. Who do you imagine donates, exactly? Altruistic, well adjusted high IQ, high salaried males in stable relationships and fabulous careers, overcome with love for fellow human? NO. They're men who need the money, who may not be capable of a relationship or a job; maybe they're hyper-aggressive, antisocial, mentally ill, just defective in some important way. There is a certain narcissism implied by desiring to sire with one's seed without a partner, even megalomania, since, in the USA (not in many other countries), they can have well over 100 progeny and corrupt the gene pool. Using a sperm donor is selfish, egocentric, anti-social behavior. It's rolling the dice to the detriment of the common good. This is a problematic industry. I would like to know more about libertarians' views of its regulation.
David/Arnold
I recently read Micheal Poylani’s essay “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry”. This slice . . .
“Biological systems, like machines, have, therefore, functions and forms inexplicable by chemical and physical laws. The argument that the DNA molecule determines genetic processes in living systems does not indicate reducibility. A DNA molecule essentially transmits information to a developing cell. Similarly, a book transmits information. But the transmission of the information cannot be represented in terms of chemical and physical principles. In other words, the operation of the book is not reducible to chemical terms. Since DNA operates by transmission of (genetic) information, its function cannot be described by chemical laws either.’’
I agree. I don’t think atoms or molecules can have any teleological function. Recalls Aristotle’s theory of nature. Rocks fall because that’s their ‘nature’.
Material dna essential for human life. Necessity isn’t sufficient.
I think human competition, envy, more explained by striving for self-esteem, especially since most draw self-respect from their group, not from their own evaluation.
Self-esteem isn’t inherent in genetic information. Mind, conscience, love, hope cannot be explained by material means.
As Newton wrote ‘Blind metaphysical necessity cannot explain all the amazing things that exist’.
Thanks
Clay
> Friedman makes the point that caring about status only makes us indirectly concerned with reproductive success. If we directly cared about reproductive success, then
There are many steps in between -- and maybe we optimise on some of the intermediates. At what rate will a young man trade pussy for status if forced to choose?
In what sense of supply are mates limited but game not limited?
"males should be more concerned with relative outcomes than females" and yet it is the reverse
I was thinking the same but I'm not sure it's true. I can list a few arguments why it might be true and none in the other direction but is it true?
"people should be most concerned about relative outcomes in a range near their own level.
I have seen Tyler Cowen claim that this is true."
Also, Rob Henderson previously linked to by Arnold... https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-perils-of-imitating-high-status
Is he for or against? Just kidding.
None of that makes any sense to me.
I am a good hunter, but the government won't let me have a gun because I am white. No kidding, that is what they said.
I am fit and strong, and as a person with expanding muscle tissue, nust logically be verile enough to deliver sperm, if you want to put it so clinically. But what kind of fool would I be to deliver sperm to a PEG soaked, mRNA-spike protein riddled, chockfull of graphene oxide, medicine addled woman (sorry, egg receptable) when medical science has demonstrated that screwing causes transfer.