The meaning of life (split from the Stupid Question topic)

[Burning Zeppelin]

A: Why?
Q: Damnit, what is the meaning of reproduction?

[Kazuki]

Whomever you believe to be the creator of human life was way too damn clever. It's placed in such a way that you are *convinced* that you "love" another person of the opposite sex (all hormones, in my opinion. I almost 100% do not believe in "love.") and act out an all-too enjoyable experience to form that baby. Urges come from instincts existing since the beginning of man, and that is why the population issues will only increase.

The point of reproduction is the same in all species; to ensure it's survival. Nothing is omnipotent, so the only way to keep the species alive is to reproduce.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Yes, but why do we wish to continue the race? Do the animals feel love for their children, or do they want them to survive to continue the race? If its for the survival, why? Why do they wish to continue the race when they are, sometimes from actually giving birth, going to die?

[Kazuki]

Animals are entirely reliant on instinct, which prompts them to obsess over reproduction. There is no way of controlling their instincts.

Humans tend to sugar coat the process to attempt to deem themselves *above* animals by attempting to bring out *human* characteristics in an almost entirely animal act. The population goes on because most humans cannot control their instincts and/or choose not to*.

*This is my opinion, leastways. Not trying to pass it on as fact.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Humans instincts are quite basic though, to not die. Did you know (thank you the most extreme) that humans when looking for food, don't go on instinct (except they usually like sweet food more) but just eat about anything.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Humans instincts are quite basic though, to not die. Did you know (thank you the most extreme) that humans when looking for food, don't go on instinct (except they usually like sweet food more) but just eat about anything.

Which is instinct, because those foods are the foods that were ideal when food was not as plentiful, back before we had basic agriculture and such, thus they were the foods we evolved to favor.

[Lord J Esq]

Yes, but why do we wish to continue the race?

You ask an excellent question, despite the title of this thread. However, the reply is not simple:

Life has evolved to survive. Obviously, if it hadn't done so, it would have gone extinct. By definition, life survives. As species adapted to their environments they became more complex in their genetic makeup and biological processes. Correspondingly, so too did their behaviors become more complex. And, therefore, survival became more colorful. As brains and nervous systems evolved, instincts eventually came into being. Survival took on the appearance of actions...the "Four Fs of Survival," if you will: Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and sex. Later on arose human beings, and with our advanced sentience came the power of conscious thought, and a new class of life came into being: a life of purpose, rather than survival.

Meanwhile, everything within us contributes to our survival, if not today then in the past. All of our biological functions and instincts are correlated in some way with survival. Our nature is to survive. And now that we are sentient, our willpower itself is drawn to stay in tune with our nature. Every one of our behaviors that have even the slightest degree of whimsy in them are predicated at least in part upon survival-oriented behavioral instincts. This is chiefly the answer to your question. However, with the power of conscious thought, we do have the means to choose behaviors that do not necessarily correspond to our survival. And, furthermore, many of these behaviors are highly abstract, well beyond the simplistic intricacies of the rest of nature. Civilization has progressed so rapidly, and human thought has progressed so far beyond the basic compulsion to survive, that many of the behaviors and ideas open to us do indeed contradict our biological prospects for survial. But this is offset in that, to the extent our immediate survival can be secured, our indefinite survival (as individuals) is more dependent upon sociology than biology, and the history of civilization has trended in this direction throughout history, as we would expect.

So, in a more thoughtful way, we choose to survive not only because it is in our biological nature to survive, but because the will to survive has also evolved, culturally, to be in our sociological nature as well. This is not guaranteed, and humanity forever stands but one massive Heaven's Gate from oblivion, yet let not this cognitive peril keep you awake at night. Take it as I do: A motivation to succeed. In my mind, survival is a prerequisite to success...not only for myself, but for our entire species.

[GrayLensman]

I've split these posts from the Stupid Question topic (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1576).[/b]

[Eriol]

Yes, but why do we wish to continue the race?

You ask an excellent question, despite the title of this thread.

And yet you never answer it with any more than "because that's what life has always had a biological need to do.  You do a great job of enumerating what has occurred when you throw intelligence into the mix, but at the end of the day you still have not answered it beyond the biological urge.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Yes, but why do we wish to continue the race?

You ask an excellent question, despite the title of this thread.

And yet you never answer it with any more than "because that's what life has always had a biological need to do.  You do a great job of enumerating what has occurred when you throw intelligence into the mix, but at the end of the day you still have not answered it beyond the biological urge.

Fine. The answer is self preservation. At some point, we all have to die, but our genes do not. Not for a very long time anyway. We have kids, who have kids, who have kids. It preserves "our" DNA on long past our deaths.

[Eriol]

Fine. The answer is self preservation. At some point, we all have to die, but our genes do not. Not for a very long time anyway. We have kids, who have kids, who have kids. It preserves "our" DNA on long past our deaths.

But why does that have worth in itself?  That's an effect, not a cause.  We preserve our genes.  Whoohoo.  Now what?  Just keep doing it?  Why?


Why, why, WHY??

[Radical_Dreamer]

Fine. The answer is self preservation. At some point, we all have to die, but our genes do not. Not for a very long time anyway. We have kids, who have kids, who have kids. It preserves "our" DNA on long past our deaths.

But why does that have worth in itself?  That's an effect, not a cause.  We preserve our genes.  Whoohoo.  Now what?  Just keep doing it?  Why?


Why, why, WHY??

Why do you get up in the morning? Why do you go to work/school each day? Life is hard, why do you bother? The answer to those questions is the microcosom of the answer to your questions.

[Lord J Esq]

But why does that have worth in itself?  That's an effect, not a cause.  We preserve our genes.  Whoohoo.  Now what?  Just keep doing it?  Why? Why, why, WHY??

The failure in your thinking is to assume that there is some inherent worth in life that we're dancing around herein by "merely" talking about the biological facts of life. Probably, this ties in neatly with your religious views, and in that case I have nothing to offer that you would find satisfying. But, inasmuch as you may be interested in the factual element of the discussion at hand, consider this:

Life happens. We don't need a "why" or a "for what purpose" to verify that. Introducing such complexities into a relatively straightforward truth belongs properly in the realm of metaphysics--which concerns itself less with the reality of the universe and more with our interpretation of it. Our sense of meaning is a quality of the human mind. It has no fundamental representation in the fabric of the universe, beyond those physical ingredients which contribute to our thought processes and assignations of value. All inherent truths therefore are by definition expressed physically.

Why do rainbows form? The answer is not that rainbows have some supernatural worth in the grand scheme of things, whose "worth factor" influences their incidence and prevalence, but that their existence is a function of the physical properties of the universe, and will arise under the proper conditions. "Worth" can only affect the reality of an entity if it has some physical expression. Likewise! Why does life attempt to survive? Not because life has some inherent worth whose "worth factor" compels all living creatures to survive, but because the evolution of life naturally favors those organisms which do survive. If life forms did not survive, they would die out! Thus, the life that has survived thus far is hardy in its ability to survive in its native environments. Maybe reread my last post, if you're interested. =)

[Exodus]

If I may?

Because we can.

In much the same way an organism can choose to end its life.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Well, guess what? How can you compare rainbows and life? A rainbow and a human body, perhaps, but life is different. Rainbows form because some properties in rain, and properties in light react, and therefore, voila! A rainbow! The decision to go and create life is different. We decide to do it. It's not like we wish to do it automatically. When we see wo/man we dont become/induce pregnacy. The question is, what thing in us tells us to do such things? God? Man, we soo need an "Intelligence in Organisms" thread, to do with Bacterium, Plants, Animals and Virii.
Oh, and Exodus, we can do a lot of things. We can gurgle acid. We can throw nukes at Mars. But do we (all) do this. No. But lots of people, LOTS, decide to make a baby. Wait. Oh my god. How did evolution give us the ability to procreate non asexually?