Last of Us: Duty to Reproduce?

[Dracoria]

Doesn't the vagina stretch to accommodate bigger penises anyway? Isn't that why a penis too big isn't as much of a problem as a penis too small anyway?

What are you talking about? A lot of women have issues with their partner being too large. It can be really painful.

Pat could take plenty of Dick. Although I wonder if he caused her stroke.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Doesn't the vagina stretch to accommodate bigger penises anyway? Isn't that why a penis too big isn't as much of a problem as a penis too small anyway?

There is plenty of biological variation. And too small... the most sensitive part is the first 5 centimeters. Penetration alone isn't the more relevant deal for most people with vulvas anyway.

I'm afraid this might be off-topic, though.

thankfully, I don't have a vulva

[NERVUN]

Guys, this is not the topic and is getting close to the line. Let's drop it here.

[Olthar]

There is no way in hell I'm letting any guy get intimate with me, humanity be damned.

[Sun Wukong]

There is no way in hell I'm letting any guy get intimate with me, humanity be damned.

If I get a sex-change can we at least cuddle?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

There is no way in hell I'm letting any guy get intimate with me, humanity be damned.

If I get a sex-change can we at least cuddle?

my sides

[The Orson Empire]

Doesn't the vagina stretch to accommodate bigger penises anyway? Isn't that why a penis too big isn't as much of a problem as a penis too small anyway?

There is plenty of biological variation. And too small... the most sensitive part is the first 5 centimeters. Penetration alone isn't the more relevant deal for most people with vulvas anyway.

I'm afraid this might be off-topic, though.

Okay seriously, why are you guys talking about this?

[Olthar]

There is no way in hell I'm letting any guy get intimate with me, humanity be damned.

If I get a sex-change can we at least cuddle?

[Dakini]

Why would the few remaining members of a functionally extinct species have a duty to reproduce?

[Lydenburg]

Mushroom, what the hell is wrong with you?

[Red Fury]

If I get a sex-change can we at least cuddle?

The transphobia is real.

[Korouse]

Start the human race again, and in several generations have a thousand horribly deformed human-like things that were bred from incest.

just my idea, btw yes.

[The Batorys]

You wake up the next day, all of humanity except you and one girl in your class.... HAS DISAPPEARED!

You are made aware of this and it fills you with sadness. You'll probably be condemned to a lifetime of traveling between empty cities, looking for food in the now abandoned houses and stores... it's not going to be the greatest existence perhaps.

The girl (or boy if you're a girl)'s also not exactly the best company. Acceptable company but not the best (just imagine a randomly selected, run-of-the-mill person from your class of the opposite sex).

Now here's the question.

Do you have a duty to produce children?

You and the person are the Last of Us. But hey maybe you NEVER wanted children. Maybe you feel like you couldn't take care of those children or that they would be miserable. Maybe you just don't like the person enough to have serious relations with them. But if you do not reproduce, humanity will become Extinct.

Let us assume... that once the first child is successfully created, God will intervene and teleport in a very high technology device that can randomly generate human samples/genes for the purposes of future reproduction. This technology allows you or your children to reproduce again WITHOUT having to engage in intimate relations and with a very high success rate (assume you know how to operate the technology, assume that it is safe to use, and that it is 100% fail-safe). (the point of the dilemma is that reproducing ONCE with your partner, somehow can help ensure the survival of humanity, the technological specifics are less important.)

Do you have a DUTY to reproduce for the sake of humanity (the first time, with the only other person)?

I don't think so. Because Freedom. Freedom is a sacred concept, even in the face of Apocalypse. And as Rorschach said: ''Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.''

First of all, way to go assuming that everyone on here is a man.

What is all this about "my class"

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. My social class? Why is it important that the other person is of the same class as me?


To answer the question, no, I don't have a duty to reproduce.

[Dakini]

What is all this about "my class"

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. My social class? Why is it important that the other person is of the same class as me?

I think he's assuming that everyone here is a student. Possibly for the same reason he assumed everyone here was a man, straight and cis: because he is.

[Sun Wukong]

What is all this about "my class"

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. My social class? Why is it important that the other person is of the same class as me?

Well obviously if she's a Vaishya and you're a Kshatriya that would be a sin.

[The Batorys]

Not disagreeing with your point per se, but we're not any more intelligent now than we were thousands of years ago.

We have better technology.

And we sacrifice virgins in exchange for a good harvest less often.

That's a start.

Knowledge and intelligence aren't the same thing. Mainly because a species/society's knowledge is cumulative.

[Utceforp]

Humanity is doomed either way. An entire society with the genetic diversity of two people would be wiped out very quickly.

[Red Fury]

Nothing has changed. Nationstates still likes to imagine excuses for rape or situations where rape might be plausible; while none of them truly understand what rape does to someone.

[Red Fury]

Not disagreeing with your point per se, but we're not any more intelligent now than we were thousands of years ago.

We have better technology.

And we sacrifice virgins in exchange for a good harvest less often.

That's a start.

Actually in blood sacrifices "virgin" mostly referred to people whose blood had never been used in sacrifice before; not whose lives had been somehow magically altered through intercourse.

[Benuty]

Humanity is doomed either way. An entire society with the genetic diversity of two people would be wiped out very quickly.

I suppose its time I start uploading all the intelligence I can into sapient type of Robotic. Along with all of human history, and all vital knowledge to boot. I suppose this new species of self-sufficient sapients will serve well as caretakers of the planet till the next wave comes.

[Utceforp]

Humanity is doomed either way. An entire society with the genetic diversity of two people would be wiped out very quickly.

I suppose its time I start uploading all the intelligence I can into sapient type of Robotic. Along with all of human history, and all vital knowledge to boot. I suppose this new species of self-sufficient sapients will serve well as caretakers of the planet till the next wave comes.

We should do that anyway, regardless of whether human extinction is imminent. It sounds cool.

[The Batorys]

But there is no such thing as "rational" and "irrational" There is only good and evil. Rational and Irrational make no sense, as something good can be irrational, but evil can be rational. It's good to NOT repopulate, but it can also be evil. Depending on your views, but I'm going to be the good guy, and let us die off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Who determines what is good or not good? That's entirely subjective, but ah, rationality is not. Rationality can be clearly defined as the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action.

What is moral may be immoral for someone else, and morality is not solely determined on facts or reason. They can be, and many of us associate our morality with those facts, but facts do not solely support one's moral fabric.

Why should I reproduce, though, if I don't want to?

In this hypothetical situation, who is there to say I should besides myself and the other person? Ignoring the fact, for now, that two individuals can't really successfully restart a species, whose sake would we be doing so for? Humanity's? Humanity in this hypothetical are all dead except for us. The other person and myself would constitute the entirety of humanity at that point. There's no great mass of people to do anything on the behalf of. We are the species. All of it. And if we decide that neither of us wants to reproduce, then Humanity has thus decided not to continue.

[Sun Wukong]

Nothing has changed. Nationstates still likes to imagine excuses for rape or situations where rape might be plausible; while none of them truly understand what rape does to someone.

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.

We have better technology.

And we sacrifice virgins in exchange for a good harvest less often.

That's a start.

Actually in blood sacrifices "virgin" mostly referred to people whose blood had never been used in sacrifice before; not whose lives had been somehow magically altered through intercourse.

Sauce that.

[Red Fury]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Who determines what is good or not good? That's entirely subjective, but ah, rationality is not. Rationality can be clearly defined as the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action.

What is moral may be immoral for someone else, and morality is not solely determined on facts or reason. They can be, and many of us associate our morality with those facts, but facts do not solely support one's moral fabric.

Why should I reproduce, though, if I don't want to?

In this hypothetical situation, who is there to say I should besides myself and the other person? Ignoring the fact, for now, that two individuals can't really successfully restart a species, whose sake would we be doing so for? Humanity's? Humanity in this hypothetical are all dead except for us. The other person and myself would constitute the entirety of humanity at that point. There's no great mass of people to do anything on the behalf of. We are the species. All of it. And if we decide that neither of us wants to reproduce, then Humanity has thus decided not to continue.

I would like to second this post.

[Benuty]

Nothing has changed. Nationstates still likes to imagine excuses for rape or situations where rape might be plausible; while none of them truly understand what rape does to someone.

Just what side of internet hell did you come from exactly?

It sounds like Forum 7 because NSG isn't that bad. Immaturity is a problem, but as the experienced survive the attacks from school students each summer it gets a little better.