I strongly suggest you read “How The Mind Works” by Steven Pinker. Genes have a lot more to do with it than most people would care to believe. Pinker cites several examples of amazing similiarities between identical twins separated at birth and who didn’t meet until well into adulthood. For example, a preference for dipping buttered toast in coffee, and when starting to swim to walk backwards into the water.
Not to say that environment doesn’t also play a role here. But it’s extremely naive to say that genes play no role in behavior, given the overwhelming evidence that says that it does.
Sure, genes play a role in our behavior which is why we eat sugar instead of rotting feces–because we’ve been programmed by evolution to believe that sugar tastes good. Of course this is a lie. We only think sugar tastes good. It really tastes horrible, and rotting feces tastes good as every scarab beetle knows.
If our genes program us to think we’re happy fulfulling our biological imperatives of eating, fucking, caring for our children, and so on, how exactly is that different from actually being happy? Is a scarab beetle really happy rolling a ball of dung into a hole and laying it’s eggs in the rotting feces? Or does it only think it’s happy?
Ah, but would it be the most preferable outcome for brontosauruses?
But, you say, brontosauruses don’t exist. They haven’t existed for a very long time. Therefore it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s good for them if the human race goes extinct.
Well, if the human race were to go extinct, humanity would no longer exist either. So why would it matter whether “this would be the most preferable outcome” for human beings or brontosauruses?
That aside, I (like others) disagree with the premises of the argument. Pain is always bad? What about masochists? What about people who enjoy the vicarious emotional pain of a sad or scary movie?
But perhaps my main objection is that the argument really relies on the unstated premises: The presence of pain is the only bad, and The presence of pleasure is the only good.
These I emphatically deny (unless you define “pain” and “pleasure” so broadly as to make them tautologies). People willingly, sometimes even eagerly, subject themselves to pain for the sake of an outcome other than pleasure that they consider good.
You make a good point. I can’t really say that it’s good for humanity. I’m trying to take a more objective, universal perspective here. Nobody would be around to lament the absence of humanity.
On a long enough time line, the human race will eventually go extinct. All things considered, I think humanity dying out sooner rather than later would prevent an enormous amount of suffering. If humanity chose to gradually phase itself out within say a few hundred year time frame, that would be superior to waiting until the sun burns out and an earth packed with people suffers the horrible fait of intense climate change.
A little bit. But already existant people have a very strong desire to remain alive and overcoming that is going to be a stressful process, even with terminally ill people only a minority die by suicide and not by their illness.
Much easier to not even create them in the first place.
Any unhappiness of childlessness is going to pale in comparison to someone greaving over a suicide. And if we gradually reduce the human population, we can minimize the number of people who have to suffer the bad fate of the final generation.
Well, we can gradually reduce the human population by the proven method of raising everyone’s standard of living to the point where women can choose the number of children they have, and many will choose to have only two, or one… or none.
I’d prefer the human species to make something superior to ourselves, THEN die out ( preferably by becoming the superior entities in question ). Yes, the level of suffering humanity has undergone is enormous, and I couldn’t justify creating humans if I’d been in charge of Earth back when we arose; but the fact is that we ARE here, and we might as well build a better replacement since we are. One that suffers and screws up much less.
I’d also be ok with that. But as it stands now, I can’t see any justification for creating a human being. Only if a huge proportion of people were getting sterilized would I see any urgency whatsoever to make new people to make current peoples lives less miserable.
“If I were an identical twin, seperated from the other at birth and reunited with him many years later, I would be financially set for life. I could make a career selling my services out to those who wish to make a point in the nature vs. nurture debate, since I’d be a rare example of the only valid way to seperate the effects of environment from innate and unchangable traits.” -Stephen J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man.
Gould goes on to explain that fewer than twenty real cases of the phenomenon exist. The most famous cases studies comes from British scientist Cyril Burt, but after his death it was found that Burt faked his data. Further discussion here: http://logbase2.blogspot.com/2008/11/twin-delusions.html
The twin studies don’t really prove what many wish they proved. Even if their data were valid, how does it answer the fact that we to find the butter-toast-in-coffee-gene or any other such gene?
Both these examples actually cut in the other direction. Advertising does not seek to convince us that we are happy. It seeks to convince us that we are currently unhappy, but would be happy if we bought the product. Hence the prevalence of advertising would more likely lead people to underestimate their overall level of happiness, rather than to exaggerate it.
There are social situations where we’re expected to put on a show of happiness, even if it’s false. Yet there are other situations where we’re expected to complain even when we feel fine. In the workplace we’re expected to gripe about customers, students, patients, coworkers, or bosses, and we often do so even when we actually like them. Whining about politicians, celebrities, and athletes is the norm. You get much more conversation about the world going to hell in a handbasket then about positive outlooks for the world at large. So social norms, just like advertising, would often lead people to undercount their happiness.
Overall, I feel pretty sure that people generally assess themselves as being less happy than they really are, and also underestimate the happiness of their fellow human beings.
The point of what I said is not that we ARE happy, but that there is an imperative to BE happy, and everything is subsumed by the pursuit of happiness.
Your cite actually does acknowledge a statistical connection between anti-social behavior amonst identical twins, but tries to use an alternate explanation.
It would be much easier if there was a 100% connection here, but I’m not claiming that genes are an absolute determinant of behavior. I’m saying that genes can predisose one to certain behaviors. It’s genes combined with environment.