If one includes ones own future self within the set designated by "ones
children" then one can interpret Hara's remarks as they would apply to
someone who has no gametic offspring, and they still make sense.
Deathists tend to identify with their genetic offspring (and sometimes, as
in the case of Nietzsche, with their memetic offspring) because they are
convinced of their own mortality. Since you disagree with them about that
conviction, you might as well adjust their terms for them accordingly when
you are trying to interpret and make sense of what they say. I'm not saying
Hara is a deathist (I know better than that!), but we have these
assumptions built into our language still, and it will take a while for
them to vestigiate.
Eric Watt Forste <arkuat@pobox.com> http://www.c2.org/~arkuat/