|
This is just a philosophical starting point for a discussion. I don't want it to get religious or overtly political, so let's leave our deities and our political parties at the door. Otherwise, I'm interested in your thoughts.
Posing for argument, the death of civilization, and our eminent collective demise that would follow - or at least for most of us - i don't want to get hung up on that: Is it really any different than your personal death? We are so attached to the idea of projecting ourselves into the future vicariously through The Child - have we ever asked ourselves if it *really* matters? It's not like we'll actually live any longer. Yet this clinging to life is so dear we even do it beyond ourselves. While I can understand the value of that as a simple social animal, we don't live in caves anymore. We're not simple as to not be able to look at the continuation of the species and ask ourselves what the point of it really is.
Please don't misunderstand me above, as this isn't so much about petty nihilism, but I'm trying to raise a question with it.
Why are we here, and I mean absent some sort of artifice we create to rationalize our existence?
What I mean by that is what is core drive, aside from survival? Don't we need one? Haven't we moved past the bread and water phase of existence? As a species, what are we really trying to accomplish, other than base continuation?
I don't know if I should hide after writing this. Just trying to pose a starting point for a potentially interesting discussion topic.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I am, therefore I shall endeavor to enjoy the ride.
|
|
|
|
|
Enjoyment. Jouissance. It's as good a reason as any I suppose. Maybe even the best one. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of existence is existence. Nothing else.
The ride may be more or less enjoyable, but the ultimate destination - on both the species and the personal levels - is the same. Therefore the only thing left to do is to enjoy the ride while it lasts.
There are those who will argue that as we already know the destination, we should go there by the most direct route. They are wrong; points in this game are not accumulated by reaching the destination, but by making the journey last as long as possible.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: points in this game are not accumulated by reaching the destination, but by making the journey last as long as possible.
With exceptions of course...
I would rather end the game some sooner, than remain there but not being able to play for long time. Game quality is a thing too.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Survival and procreation is a core drive. Probably THE core drive. Built in to all animals. Of which we are one
Asking if we can overcome it is about as reasonable as asking why you can’t overcome your anxiety issues or I can’t overcome my weight issues.
I don’t mean that as a personal attack, I am trying to point out that our basic programming is astoundingly hard to overcome.
On a second note. I do believe humanity is a net positive and hope that my kids have a better life than I did.
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really overcome it, so much as bring something higher to the table as well.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Not really overcome it, so much as bring something higher to the table as well.
I suppose that through politics and religion humans do try to bring something higher to the table. Not so much the politicians (aka power-hungry scumbag liars) and religious zealots (aka power-hungry scumbag hypocrites) themselves but the "big picture" concepts of politics and religion. A conservative might argue that individual liberty and free markets are the best way to improve society while a socialist might argue that planned equity and workers rights are best for mankind. Each religion obviously thinks theirs is the true path to enlightenment and redemption.
Modern humans are still flawed creatures. Hopefully we're still early in our existence. If we can survive our own tendencies to corrupt and kill each other maybe we'll end up at some higher level... but probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you about politics and religion, but aside from the rules of the lounge, they are also excluded because they also fail at it.
In the end we impede our own progress, or wind up directionless as a whole.
I think we would be better off if we could all find a common cause, even if it was diverting a planet killing asteroid or fending off hostile aliens. Heck, maybe we need an external threat. At least that way we could externalize our tendency for conflict. It works for dictators. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I suppose that through politics and religion humans do try to bring something higher to the table.
Some think that one of these (rarely both) brings something higher to the table, but I think that they are the two most destructive inventions of humankind.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: I think that they are the two most destructive inventions of humankind.
I don't necessarily disagree but at the same time one could argue that over the full course of human civilization (~10,000 years) that politics / religion (or their derivative predecessors) are the things that kept enough of us alive and organized enough to let science thrive and allow us to communicate over thousands of miles in near real-time using little keyboards. Just saying...
So there is a yin and yang to it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: that politics / religion...are the things that kept enough of us alive and organized enough to let science thrive and allow us to communicate over thousands of miles in near real-time using little keyboards. Just saying...
What? Seriously?
Religion and politics want dumb people because they are easier to manage.
Religion has been long and stark enough against science in most of its forms.
Politics no exactly against per se, but still has made it go slower because of bureacracy.
The ones that have always helped science and technology were the militars (but not exactly for the good).
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: What? Seriously?
Religion and politics want dumb people because they are easier to manage.
Religion has been long and stark enough against science in most of its forms.
Politics no exactly against per se, but still has made it go slower because of bureacracy.
If you bring anything more than about 10 people together to achieve anything which benefits the group that structure must exist. And that is politics. 10,000 people can't build a wall if every single one of them attempts to plant the first brick.
And those same groups are susceptible to down turns in the survival of the group as a whole. And the real world provides nothing to provide emotional support. But religion does.
The fact that some people at some times misuse that can only be surprising if one is not aware that individuals are selfish, lazy, murderous, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
People cooperating to build things isn't politics. Politics is the antithesis of that: it's organized violence.
The ones who are typically selfish, lazy, and murderous are politicians. The 20th century is great testament to that. Sometimes religious zealots behave the same way, but they can't hold a candle to politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: People cooperating to build things isn't politics.
'Organizations' at a certain point must require and enforce structure or they fail to achieve anything.
Greg Utas wrote: The ones who are typically selfish, lazy, and murderous are politicians
Nonsense.
That is a generalization that people make without understanding people or organizations.
Someone like Hitler doesn't magically enforce their view on millions of people without those people also making some decisions that enable that single person to act in certain ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Governments, led by politicians, have killed far more people than criminals. The fact that some people support them doesn't make it nonsense.
May your chains rattle lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Governments, led by politicians, have killed far more people than criminals. The fact that some people support them doesn't make it nonsense.
Simplification.
Countries/kingdoms have killed more people because those groups and the ones they strive against are a vastly larger group than "criminals". So of course that would be true.
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't thinking of wars, but of governments that killed millions of their own citizens. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and numerous others who didn't reach the million mark.
|
|
|
|
|
And sometimes mothers kill all of their children.
All you are talking about is scale.
If you have a solution that solves the problems that large organizations solve such as building dams and ensuring that the neighboring tribes do not kill your family members then you should start getting the idea out there.
|
|
|
|
|
1) I’m considering politics & religion in all of their forms over 10,000 years not merely Christianity and western democracies. Think ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Asians, etc…
2) I’m not saying politics & religion always helped science progress directly. In some cases, they just kept people inline well enough to survive. Versus tribal warfare killing everyone off.
|
|
|
|
|
fair enough
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: As a species, what are we really trying to accomplish, other than base continuation?
looking at the news for the last years, I would not bet about it.
Individually humans can do great good. As a species... I am not that sure anymore.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: As a species, what are we really trying to accomplish, other than base continuation?
Since even base continuation is not a rationale as such, I do not think that there is a reason as to why we are here and what we are here for ; it is a fact that we are here, and that's it.
I also would not bother about finding a common goal : Due to conservation instinct that seems to be embedded in our genes, and that drives a good majority of people to think about their own wellness before the one of the group, we have not bright future as a specie. Since this drives us towards more conflicts and critical situations, and critical situations tend to emphasizes individualism, the vicious circle has already started ; put briefly, it is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".
Anyway, we are here, let's make the best out of it- and the definition of "best" is different for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Due to conservation instinct that seems to be embedded in our genes, and that drives a good majority of people to think about their own wellness before the one of the group
I'd argue the problem is larger than human nature. We are billions of loosely networked agents in a Complex Adaptive System.
Such systems always have a collection of chaotic agents, and will reproduce them. These agents are destructive the way a volcano is destructive - violent renewal. They chip away at the system but that keeps it adaptive.
Such systems go through bifurcation cycles where the orderly agents are more actively in conflict with the chaotic agents and vice versa.
Dual-phase evolution in complex adaptive systems | Journal of The Royal Society Interface[^]
We're in a heavy conflict part of the cycle in societies in various parts of the world.
Every single thing that acts as an agent becomes part of a complex adaptive system once those networked agents achieve critical mass. Such a system "takes on a life of its own" whether it's governments, economies, societies or ecosystems.
To summarize my point we can't escape conflict, not because of who we are, but basically ... because of math.
Conflict is both inevitable and necessary in our case.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
The point is ! there is no point 
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
