Quote: (12-18-2012 08:42 AM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
That doesn't change that fact that those who reproduce still force the hand of evolution by influencing the genetic character/composition of future generations. That is as close as any individual being can get to directly influencing nature in some significant way.
So what? What difference does it make if I influence nature or not? What difference does it make if humankind nuked the world over? The earth would still be here. New lifeforms would evolve.
On an individual level, your failure to procreate may not make a huge difference, though that decision is not without consequences on a more localized level (more on those later).
With regards to the latter portion of this statement, 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 of humankind 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 you noted earlier, 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.
If you believe there is no value to human existence on even a subjective level, then I suppose we'll need to agree to disagree.
Quote:Quote:
And why is it important to pass your parts on? As long as some of us pass on our parts, it doesn't matter if all of us do.
It is not imperative to the existence of the species as a whole that every individual procreate.
The purpose of my argument, however, is to note the significance of the act: those who take part in it gain a measure of genetic influence that those who do not simply cannot obtain. This influence is actually important relative to the future of our species as it influences their nature quite heavily. This influence can be seen as a benefit to those who wish to have an impact on this world (and on humanity) in some way even after they themselves have left it.
You are fully welcome to avoid taking part in the act. My argument is merely challenging the notion that there is no inherent benefit to the contrary position. Those who take the opposing stance can gain something (strong influence, if not direct control, over the genetic and sometimes cultural direction taken by future generations), and that something is not without worth (unless of course, as noted earlier, you simply assign no worth to the existence of humanity at all on even a subjective level).
Quote:Quote:
In fact, most humans are 99.9% genetically similar, which is the species way of guaranteeing it's survival.
We share nearly 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Don't underestimate the value of that .01%. There is plenty of genetic variation within the human species even with 99.9% similarity.
Quote:Quote:
Thus, if persistence is your sole criterion, it does not matter pass your genes on or not as long as enough of us do. So even by your own arguments, you still have no reason for reproducing.
As an individual, I do-see above.
Quote:Quote:
But even now, idea that nature has the criterion of persistence as it's purpose is suspect.
Let me clear this up a bit. I am claiming that,
for all living beings subject to nature (which would be every one of them), persistence is the criteria on which they are judged. Their goal is to survive, through reproduction and adaptation, across time and across a multitude of environments provided by nature.
Thus, I am saying that the purpose of the species' is to persist. The purpose of nature as a whole is a much broader question, and one I can't really answer fully.
Quote:Quote:
Toward what goal is nature heading? Why is it heading that way?
The specific purpose of nature itself (its goals and its reasons for having them) is a mystery. The purpose of those beings living under its auspices (which is what my argument is primarily concerned with) is, in my mind, much more obvious. Their job is to persist via adaptation and procreation, regardless of the challenges nature throws at them.
Quote:Quote:
How is nature guiding evolution?
By weeding out those who fail to persist.
Where is nature guiding this evolution and why is it doing so? These things I do not know.