>There is no responsibility or obligation to one's ancestors to have children
I think it's probably a philosophical, maybe even a spiritual argument. Enlightenment individualism has ingrained in western cultures the idea they have no connection or ties to the past, or their ancestors, and shouldn't even conceive of themselves in terms of these other people. Blank slate, complete autonomy, etc. I think it's just a fundamental philosophical disagreement to start from a different premise that isn't self interest per se.
"Lack of choice", I like that. It removes the consideration to construct arguments about self-interested "choice".
I'll make a logical one though:
Every single person's existence is the sum total of all previous generations of ancestors action of making the choice that led to you. Not just one or a few of your ancestor's, but all of them are owed this choice. Maybe even this choice is owed to the universe (~God) itself?
The evolutionary "winners" will be the ones that consistently take this action. You can simply say, are you evolutionarily a winner, or a loser? Will you continue the propagation of your genes, or won't you? This is the "forest for the trees" way to frame it, I believe, as it steps back to avoid endless lower-level convenience rationales for opting out (if the choice is available to you of course).
Evolutionary arguments in this day and age are moot points. We are already a genetically modified species (through IVFs and more recently , crispr) and won't be long before we can grow babies extracorporeally. And it's pretty certain , when designer babies become the norm, the trend is not to select traits that resemble some mythical ancestors, but the traits that are likely to maximize their happiness in the future.
Glorification of your ancestors, or having the expectation that your descendants will procreate in your honor, sounds like self-interested ego stroking and a vain attempt at establishing ones own importance in the universe, when that importance in the grand scheme of things is questionable.
Adopting a belief of "Lack of choice" is still a choice, as no one holds a gun to your head to have children, and birth control options are readily available to much of the world. This sounds like an excuse to remove inhibitions around sex, in that you are somehow doing this sexual act to honor "something greater than yourself", rather than it being your own self-interested pleasure seeking.
Species that adopt breeding = winning behaviors often experience overpopulation pressures which leads to catastrophic die offs. Turning this into a winners vs losers argument, over an act that is not that terribly complex or worthy of ticker-tape parades, seems again more self-interested ego stroking. How many points do you score when you have a baby, and who is keeping score? Maybe just you.
I think it's probably a philosophical, maybe even a spiritual argument. Enlightenment individualism has ingrained in western cultures the idea they have no connection or ties to the past, or their ancestors, and shouldn't even conceive of themselves in terms of these other people. Blank slate, complete autonomy, etc. I think it's just a fundamental philosophical disagreement to start from a different premise that isn't self interest per se.
"Lack of choice", I like that. It removes the consideration to construct arguments about self-interested "choice".
I'll make a logical one though:
Every single person's existence is the sum total of all previous generations of ancestors action of making the choice that led to you. Not just one or a few of your ancestor's, but all of them are owed this choice. Maybe even this choice is owed to the universe (~God) itself?
The evolutionary "winners" will be the ones that consistently take this action. You can simply say, are you evolutionarily a winner, or a loser? Will you continue the propagation of your genes, or won't you? This is the "forest for the trees" way to frame it, I believe, as it steps back to avoid endless lower-level convenience rationales for opting out (if the choice is available to you of course).