No goalposts were moved in the making of this argument. You asserted that my reasons for not having children were inherently materialistic. This is obviously not the case.
But they certainly do in disproportionate numbers and the disparity is massive when compared to the religious.
Compared to some religious denominations, yes. Others, not so much.
And since you're a materialist and only accept materialist answers, the fact that they procreate in such low numbers must be a biological glitch in them.
Choosing not to have any children isn't a "glitch", any more than choosing to have only 2 children rather than 10 is a "glitch". I acknowledge that my genes won't be passed on. I just don't care. The human race will get along just fine without my genetic contribution.
(although some of then actually will be passed on in the form of my nephews, who do share some of my genetic code)
So I guess we're better off as a species that they don't breed.
Why? If they bred, they wouldn't have the "glitch", as per your definition.
Yeah they were. You made an assertion, I countered and then you demanded an answer as to whether it was a requirement. That's a pretty textbook example.
You asserted that my reasons for not having children were inherently materialistic.
Then you went and listed a bunch of material reasons.
Why? If they bred, they wouldn't have the "glitch", as per your definition.
You're parroting a tautology back at me as a rebuttal. That doesn't bolster your point.