Reproduction is not a rational choice

IntroductionThank you PRO for submitting your R1 in such a timely manner. RebuttalsPRO argues:""That information also can only be known retrospectively, which means that anytime we reproduce, we take a big risk. Why do I say that? Because we are 'taking' someone from a neutral state, represented by the number 0, and gambling on the fact that they will be in a positive (+1) state after birth..."It is this "gambling" that PRO finds unreasonable. However, the objection this immediately raises is this: under what criteria must we act in order for actions to be rational? That is to say, in our daily lives, we act with an understanding that certain things will not have a probability of (1). We acknowledge that some things might happen or might not. Most events are contingent. The best we can do is consider the factors we have been able to gather, and reach a decision based on them, in the hopes that the decision we make will have a positive outcome. There is always the possibility that our actions will have a negative outcome, but that is the nature of a world which we (as individuals) have little control over.PRO"s main point (for both arguments) it seems, is that we can"t be certain of the effects of our actions, and that because of this, our actions in general are irrational. Reproduction in particular. However, not only is this criterion unsupported, it is too general. There is no action to which this criterion does not apply, and as such it is useless, and should thus be rejected out of hand. I will elaborate with an example. Suppose someone was constructing a grading scale. On this grading scale are only two grades: P and F. P ranges from 0-100, out of a possible 100. F, then, is unnecessary. This grading scale could hardly be considered useful. Everyone gets the same grade, regardless of performance! This is the predicament created by PRO"s argument. For "rational" and "irrational" to be useful terms, there must be some way to distinguish the rational from the not-rational (or irrational). There must, therefore, be a criterion which separates actions and choices into categories of, at least, rational and irrational. (Some actions could be non-rational, like waking up or picking your nose. Such choices and actions don"t fall within the scope of rationality, since there is really no deliberation or consideration necessary for these things. You could simply pick your nose just for the sake of doing so). Determining Rational ChoiceIn the comments, PRO gave me an example of a rational choice. "An example of a rational choice might be something like deciding to go to the grocery store on Tuesday instead of Wednesday because you have less to do on Tuesday and the trip would be faster and more convenient"This reveals some of the criteria that must be taken under consideration when deciding if a choice is rational or not. There are three which I can identify. I will call them: 1. Alternatives- Different courses of actions a. RATHER THAN going on Wednesday, you go on Tuesday 2. Factors- Reasons, both internal and external, for taking one alternative over another a. BECAUSE the trip would be faster and more convenient. 3. Motivating Prudent Reasons – Factors external to oneself which encourage one alternative over another a. While I might want to go on Wednesday, say, because my favorite clerk is working that day, it is more efficient to go on Tuesday, and thus I prudentially ought to go on Wednesday. I would like to note that while (2) and (3) are similar, they refer to different things. For example, "I want to do X" is a consideration, as is "X is more convenient than Y", however the former can be ruled out as a motivating prudent reason particularly because simply wanting to do something doesn"t make it the best course of action, all things considered. For example, while I might want to go rock climbing, if rock climbing costs money, and I only have enough money to either go rock climbing or pay my phone bill for this month, it wouldn't be prudent to spend that money on rock climbing. Arguably, this course of action wouldn"t be rational, especially if one takes self-interest to be a given.The CriteriaWhy, you may ask, prefer these criteria over others? In making any decision, generally, these are the things which we focus on. For example, in writing this round, I had to decide how to structure my rebuttals, and I had to determine exactly which points PRO offered that I ought to respond to. I took into account what PRO had already stated, combined with my own background knowledge and argument style, and deciding this particular format would be best for me to use. Likewise, in everyday decision making, these seem to be the kind of things that play a central role. I welcome any challenge by PRO to these criteria, though they seem to be uncontroversial. On Criterion (3)Why external factors, rather than internal and external factors? Internal factors are, generally, going to be desires and emotions, which by no means precludes rational action, but do encourage a higher level of irrationality. For example, if I am mad at someone, I might choose to "cuss them out". If that someone is a person I care about, cussing at them might not be the best way to go, all things considered. That said, a certain degree of deference must be given to external factors over internal ones, primarily on the basis of prudence.ClosingMy argument is, essentially, this.P1. Any criterion for X which precludes the application of X-ness to any referent r ought to be rejected. P2. PRO's criterion for rationality precludes the application rationality to any and all actions and choices.Ergo, PRO's criterion for rationality ought to be rejected.This is a valid argument. I have offered a few reasons to believe P1 and P2 are more likely true than false. PRO must object to one of these premises in order to avoid the conclusion. I will save my positive arguments for next round. I think I"ve written enough here for PRO to respond to. I look forward to PRO"s rebuttals.