> It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.

I've witnessed the opposite: Having kids made people much more selfish. Resources were plenty before they had kids, so they would spend a lot (time and money) on others - be it friends or the general public.

When kids come along, two things happen:

1. Resources are limited, so a lot less goes outside the family.

2. At least one parent will put the foot down when being generous to people outside the family - even if the wealth/income supports being able to do so. Tribalism sets in.

Paying full taxes to support a society where people with kids pay less taxes and receive more benefits from the State is certainly not selfish. That's the case in my country, at least.

> It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.

That would certainly be your opinion. I think the ultimate selflessness in a world being more and more damaged by humans would to elect not to perpetuate the species, and help try to leave the world a better place for those who do choose to have kids.

This aligns with my own experience to a T.

>in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without

This goes so far against my own (equally anecdotal) experience that one of us must be living in a bubble

>It’s really because statistically, in my experience

Uhh, no. Your experience is not data.

Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence. I don't believe in gods, so my existence and its length were determined by a series of accidents. It isn't right or wrong or even optimal, it's just the traits that survived thus far.

It isn't even a rule of biology. There are living things with much longer lifespans than humans, some even effectively immortal (absent predation or accident or climate change).

Your language implies you believe in a creator of some sort, something making decisions about how things should be. You've called it "biology", but "biology" doesn't "discover" or have a "reason" for doing things.

> I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.

I hear you taking pride in accepting death on a quite short timespan as a necessity, and hubris that one individual living longer puts "the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk".

We have already disconnected from evolution, to a large degree. Many people who would have died in childhood a couple hundred years ago now survive to adulthood and procreation.

Should we stop vaccinating children because they were supposed to die to protect the delicate balance? Surely it is hubris to prevent their deaths when evolution and biology discovered polio and smallpox to kill and maim them? If there is a biological Chesterton's fence it is probably sitting somewhere around five years old and half of people wouldn't make it past it.

> are not meant to

Because it hasn't happened?

[dead]

I don't have kids. I have not caused a need for me to die to make room or to be "replaced" (though "overpopulation" arguments are often eugenicist and/or racist propaganda, and don't engage with actual density/agricultural limits, so I'm hesitant to make any arguments based on whether there is room for people to not die).

How can you want for other people what you don't want for yourself? Why should other people die, for example of cancer, when having the chance I'll opt for the cure?

Obviously not? What an insane question

do these other people have a fertility rate of at least 2.1?

Think of rich people as beta testers.

On a personal level it would be demoralizing to see some billionaires live multiple lifetimes, but only a tad more demoralizing than seeing the wealth disparity we already have and the changing line of idiot faces at the top.

Well, sure, but there are solutions to those particular billionaires. We don't have any politicians I'm aware of that are willing to consider those solutions, but they exist. Societies, including the US (to some degree), have solved the problem of oligarchs in the past through various means. We can do it again, and should consider all the options.

especially given how they fund their billions from 401k through rapid inclusion into indexes, building DCs near residential areas, stealing IP, regulatory capture and hype driving manipulations.

Or they just enjoy life and want to keep living? What about it is 'trying to be a god'?

Gods famously don't have legacies

A lot of parents are literally trying to live forever in some way by leaving a legacy.

Isn't wanting billions of other people to die infinitely more narcissistic than not wanting to die yourself?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Fundamentally the problem with living forever goes beyond billionaires. People get stuck in their ways of thinking, the mindset of living forever is completely different. Why should I even listen to someone who only lives a mere 40 years? What is a suitable punishment for someone that lives forever? How does it change murder?

Philosophically, living forever may be corrupt by nature.

The only way to tear down tiers of society is for some of those tiers to literally die off.

It's not? Have your seen climate change forecast? Have you seen the cost of diesel? Eeosion of democracy in the US?