You certainly write at length, Athlone, and I have a terrible habit of never devoting more than a minute to a forum post, so I'm sure I can't compete.
I think you missed Samseau's point, though, about Darwinism and teleology. We can't derive meaning from the direction of nature. What survives and reproduces simply survives and reproduces. This has no inherent value or meaning other than what we give it. I think your use of the terms "genetic winners" and "genetic losers" is a red herring as it seems designed to be conflated with one's personal sense of worth. No-one wants to be branded a loser, right?
As the writer of Ecclesiastes (reputedly King Solomon, with his harem of 1000) said, the battle is not to the swift and the race is not to the swift, but time and chance happens to them all. We don't know what our genetic legacy will be, or our legacy in the realm of ideas. As I said, we'll be dead and derive no benefit. I don't give a damn if by spreading my seed I influence future evolution. Frankly, I don't give a damn if I found a new philosophy which changes the course of history like Lao Tzu or Marx either.
Mozart had six or eight kids, two survived to adulthood and neither of them reproduced. So there's no more Mozart genes. His music lives "forever" or until the next Ice Age maybe, but so what? He might have traded that fame in order to live past 35 or have grandkids, but none of us even have the power to make such bargains. If that makes me an individualist, I'm OK with that.
Each of us only has the present. The playboy who uses Durex scrupulously wouldn't be more of a winner if he got drunk and knocked up a broad here and there. Unless he considered himself more of a winner.
What our egos are invested in, however, is competition with others (other males, in the main, for men like us). We do consider ourselves losers if we fail to gain the resources and attractiveness to mate with attractive women. But with the freedom given by our social structure and modern technology, we no longer have to allow the final step of letting the sperm unite with the egg. So for me, I can rest easier if I'm mating with hot chicks on occasion, and I don't need the "validation" of actual offspring. Maybe I'm a slave to lust or ego, but that's OK with me. We're players, right? That means we know the rules of the game and in full consciousness we take our places and do our best until the whistle blows, after which, it's over.
I think you missed Samseau's point, though, about Darwinism and teleology. We can't derive meaning from the direction of nature. What survives and reproduces simply survives and reproduces. This has no inherent value or meaning other than what we give it. I think your use of the terms "genetic winners" and "genetic losers" is a red herring as it seems designed to be conflated with one's personal sense of worth. No-one wants to be branded a loser, right?
As the writer of Ecclesiastes (reputedly King Solomon, with his harem of 1000) said, the battle is not to the swift and the race is not to the swift, but time and chance happens to them all. We don't know what our genetic legacy will be, or our legacy in the realm of ideas. As I said, we'll be dead and derive no benefit. I don't give a damn if by spreading my seed I influence future evolution. Frankly, I don't give a damn if I found a new philosophy which changes the course of history like Lao Tzu or Marx either.
Mozart had six or eight kids, two survived to adulthood and neither of them reproduced. So there's no more Mozart genes. His music lives "forever" or until the next Ice Age maybe, but so what? He might have traded that fame in order to live past 35 or have grandkids, but none of us even have the power to make such bargains. If that makes me an individualist, I'm OK with that.
Each of us only has the present. The playboy who uses Durex scrupulously wouldn't be more of a winner if he got drunk and knocked up a broad here and there. Unless he considered himself more of a winner.
What our egos are invested in, however, is competition with others (other males, in the main, for men like us). We do consider ourselves losers if we fail to gain the resources and attractiveness to mate with attractive women. But with the freedom given by our social structure and modern technology, we no longer have to allow the final step of letting the sperm unite with the egg. So for me, I can rest easier if I'm mating with hot chicks on occasion, and I don't need the "validation" of actual offspring. Maybe I'm a slave to lust or ego, but that's OK with me. We're players, right? That means we know the rules of the game and in full consciousness we take our places and do our best until the whistle blows, after which, it's over.
Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.