[Excelsior]

(12-18-2012 06:25 AM)RawGod Wrote:  

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?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As I said above to Samseau, I feel that there is an inherent purpose to it all (persistence), and that this does have some value (or, at the very least, it should to us) as it is what allows us to be here.

The "genetic winners" are those who persist. Of course, I suppose one could argue that this persistence in and of itself has no real value, but at that point I think we're marching into overly nihilistic territory. Our persistence certainly maintains some value, if not to nature as a whole (which, as Samseau noted, could do without us) then certainly to us on a more subjective level (whose lives, and all the pleasures derived therein, are the result of such persistence).

I do not think it irrational for a human to assign some value to the persistence of his/her species. We exist in large part because of that value, and will only continue to do so to the extent that it remains.

Quote:

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.

What is not known is not inherently invaluable-the value of future contributions cannot be limited, in my view, by the lack of knowledge of said contributions on the part of the contributor.

You're defining the worth of a future contribution primarily in the context of the individual's ability to benefit from it. This is textbook individualism (that's not an insult), since it gives very little weight (not a single "damn" at all, actually) to the future beyond what can be used to derive pleasure (or knowledge, or some other tangible benefit) for the individual in the now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. This view is not invalid, but it is certainly not all there is to things.

Quote:

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.

The term "individualist" isn't an insult, just a matter of fact. It also represents the dominant point of view in the western world, so you're not alone.

It should also be noted that I did not state that procreation guaranteed an extended genetic legacy. I noted that those who procreate were the only ones with a chance to maintain that legacy beyond their death.

Yes, those who procreate could watch all of their 3-5 children die prior to adulthood and end up leaving no real genetic legacy at all. They were, however, the only ones who stood a chance of having said legacy to begin with, and more often than not those who take this chance do manage to see their results persist beyond their death.

Quote:

Each of us only has the present.

My self will only see the present, but the present is far from all-important.

Quote:

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 would contend that offspring provide more than mere "validation", as I've argued above. Procreation carries more significance than this.

Other than that bit, to the rest I say to each their own. You have a choice and that choice is fine, so long as you're not inaccurately evaluating the consequences (or lack thereof) of this choice and of the alternatives to it.