In other words, you’re making a circular argument: since you’re defining “biologically programmed behavior” as “having children”, you’re only proving that having children implies having children—a tautology.
You’re also missing my point. The only reason you have any desires or goals or ambitions in the first place is because, at least heuristically, they serve some sort of self-replicating purpose. Not all possible human behavior serves a self-replicating purpose, but the vast majority of actual human behavior does, at least heuristically. That’s why we behave that way and not in some other way.
>In other words, you’re making a circular argument: since you’re defining “biologically programmed behavior” as “having children”
No, I am pointing out a contradictory argument, which was PG's "X is not X (because some Y)." Well, no, X is X, because that's how reasonable people define identities.
His original quote:
>But it is not, as I implicitly believed before having kids, simply your DNA heading for the lifeboats.
How I read it:
>[Having kids] is not...simply your [biological programming to reproduce].
That is obviously wrong to me, and the clearest way to point that out is to show that "biological programming to reproduce" is the definition of having kids.
>You’re also missing my point. The only reason you have any desires or goals or ambitions in the first place is because, at least heuristically, they serve some sort of self-replicating purpose.
I'm not missing that point, I agree with that point. I just don't see the relevance to my original argument.
You’re also missing my point. The only reason you have any desires or goals or ambitions in the first place is because, at least heuristically, they serve some sort of self-replicating purpose. Not all possible human behavior serves a self-replicating purpose, but the vast majority of actual human behavior does, at least heuristically. That’s why we behave that way and not in some other way.