Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,822
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I some other threads, I've discussed this, but I think it bears closer examination.
To this extent this thread is NOT about how someone accomplishes being "non-reproductive". It is not about how or why people end up "trans" or whether or not they need treatment of any kind for it.
For the purposes of this thread, all of the LGBT community that is statistically or structurally unlikely to produce children are 'counted' among the "non-reproductive" set.
That said, the hypothesis goes something like this:
People who don't have kids have more money with which to amass more money, and less on the line when taking risks, and so such individuals provide benefits to their family which scale to the extent of their familial acceptance.
Wealthy people within a society maintain power largely through momentum provided by having more money already, a moment that can only generally be matched by having fewer expenses.
Therefore, there is a direct natural incentive for those who have power to divide non-reproducers from their families and prevent social support for such individuals as who would provide "dynamic wealth" in their families.
Throughout political discourse, we have seen a longstanding, consistent, and otherwise inexplicable disdain for certain groups.
At this point I think it's more than an enemy of convenience for the anti-social right and instead constitutes an actual threat to entrenched power and THIS is why entrenched powers tend to attack those groups.
To this extent this thread is NOT about how someone accomplishes being "non-reproductive". It is not about how or why people end up "trans" or whether or not they need treatment of any kind for it.
For the purposes of this thread, all of the LGBT community that is statistically or structurally unlikely to produce children are 'counted' among the "non-reproductive" set.
That said, the hypothesis goes something like this:
People who don't have kids have more money with which to amass more money, and less on the line when taking risks, and so such individuals provide benefits to their family which scale to the extent of their familial acceptance.
Wealthy people within a society maintain power largely through momentum provided by having more money already, a moment that can only generally be matched by having fewer expenses.
Therefore, there is a direct natural incentive for those who have power to divide non-reproducers from their families and prevent social support for such individuals as who would provide "dynamic wealth" in their families.
Throughout political discourse, we have seen a longstanding, consistent, and otherwise inexplicable disdain for certain groups.
At this point I think it's more than an enemy of convenience for the anti-social right and instead constitutes an actual threat to entrenched power and THIS is why entrenched powers tend to attack those groups.
Last edited: