"The desire to procreate may be our very reason for being."

[mswas]

@Fear_Itself

The only reason you need a body is to schlepp your genitals around. Name one thing your body does besides procreate that will survive after it is dead.

Why is my genetic material surviving beyond life expectancy desirable?

[ITR_champion]

@Fear_Itself

The only reason you need a body is to schlepp your genitals around. Name one thing your body does besides procreate that will survive after it is dead.

In response to the second sentence, I could name writing books, stories, or articles; composing music; painting pictures or murals; building buildings; inventing new technologies or improving old ones; engineering products; educating children (or adults); raising animals or plants; aiding the establishment of countries, states, or cities; and a great many other things.

In response to the first sentence, your are obviously wrong. This could be proven in many ways. For one, some people have their genitals removed, but they still need their bodies.

[ITR_champion]

@YamatoTwinkie

From an evolutionary standpoint, it is. The purpose of life is to spread one’s genetic material as far as possible- to have as many offspring (that survive long enough to have offspring of their own) as you can, before dying to leave room for the next generation.

I don’t base my life on an evolutionary standpoint, and I don’t know many people who do. Even those who claim to do so usually seem more interested in inventing far-fetched explanations for why evolution forces them to do what they choose, as opposed to altering their choices based on actual evidence of evolutionary forces.

But since you’re arguing the point, why don’t you address the ending of my OP? Consider the three individuals that I named in the OP, and the many others like them. Are they to be classified as failures because they ignored “the purpose of life”? If not, why not?

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@YamatoTwinkie

From an evolutionary standpoint, it is. The purpose of life is to spread one’s genetic material as far as possible- to have as many offspring (that survive long enough to have offspring of their own) as you can, before dying to leave room for the next generation.

There is no “purpose” to life. It simply is. Life persists because of procreation and evolution, not to further it.

[ITR_champion]

@RickJay

In terms of your effect on our species, it certainly does.

This is flatly and obviously incorrect. Panache can have quite an effect on our species even if he does not have children, assuming we’re using the English-language definition.

[ITR_champion]

@Critical1

Humans are Animals while still being more, the fact that we have big brains doesnt negate the animal in all of us.

We certainly can choose the negate the animalistic portion of our nature. Some people do and some don’t, but everyone can.

add in the fact that something on the vicinity of 99.999999% of all humans engage in sex

I don’t believe this is true. If it were, then the United States (pop. 300 million) would have only three persons who abstain from sex.

[Sr_Siete]

@ITR_champion

I don’t base my life on an evolutionary standpoint, and I don’t know many people who do. Even those who claim to do so usually seem more interested in inventing far-fetched explanations for why evolution forces them to do what they choose, as opposed to altering their choices based on actual evidence of evolutionary forces.

But since you’re arguing the point, why don’t you address the ending of my OP? Consider the three individuals that I named in the OP, and the many others like them. Are they to be classified as failures because they ignored “the purpose of life”? If not, why not?

No, looking at things froma certain standpoint is just a way to understand reality. Nobody is talking about basing your whole life around it. There are several aspects of life we can see through several standpoints.

[Jack_Batty]

I quote The Big Chill:

Michael: Everyone does everything just to get laid.
Karen: Who said that? Freud?
Michael: No, I did.

[RaftPeople]

@ITR_champion

Are they to be classified as failures because they ignored “the purpose of life”? If not, why not?

Classifying something as a failure is something humans made up.

There are no failures. There are no classes. This is all a construct of human brains and culture.

You keep using arguments based on what humans think, it’s irrelevant.

[steronz]

@ITR_champion

I don’t believe this is true. If it were, then the United States (pop. 300 million) would have only three persons who abstain from sex.

Sounds about right to me.

[begbert2]

@steronz

Sounds about right to me.

You realize that this number technically counts children?

And geeks?

And persons who formerly engaged in sex but do not do so any longer?

[jackdavinci]

There are no reasons outside of human cognition. At best, there are explanations of phenomena.

That said, even if metaphorically speaking procreation was the big cheese for the animal world, in humans there is a second competing unit of natural selection called the meme. So procreation is still key, but sexual procreation is no longer the only horse in the race.

[vison]

even sven, you make a great deal of sense.

You’re right, too.

[ITR_champion]

@RaftPeople

Classifying something as a failure is something humans made up.

There are no failures. There are no classes. This is all a construct of human brains and culture.

If failures and classes are products of human brains and culture, then obviously they do exist. If they didn’t exist, then it would follow logically that human beings had never constructed them. You might as well say that buildings don’t exist because humans built them.

You keep using arguments based on what humans think, it’s irrelevant.

I find what humans think to be highly relevant. If you call it “irrelevant”, it begs the question “irrelevant to who?”

[ITR_champion]

@steronz

I found it comforting (and still do, in fact) when the reality of my existence finally became perfectly clear to me – that is, I’m the result of over 2 billion years of atomic particles bumping around in order to accidentally, yet inevitably, create a machine that’s as effective as possible at making more copies of itself. Not because there’s any special reason for a machine to make more copies of itself, but rather because machines that don’t do this don’t make the historical record, and since I’m here, I’m clearly evident of the history of this mechanism. I am simply an example of the machine that works best (so far) at existing. And in that sense, I agree with the quote in the OP, that I exist because my ancestors were effective fuckers.

But, see, I’m the type of person who’s “reason for being” needs to be definable as “why do I physically exist right now,” and that’s what sets me at peace. Other people, like ITR Champion, I imagine, consider themselves to have an entirely different “reason for being,” specifically some religous purpose, and therefore find the thought of existing solely because of 2 billion years of success at fucking to be somewhat repugnant.

My mother was born in Germany and lived there until she was nineteen. Then, because she was unsatisfied with the social roles offered to women in German society, she moved to the United States, where she had a chance to get a real college education and a real job. In the United States she met my father, and four years later I was born.

If my mother had only been interested in procreating, then I wouldn’t be here. I do not exist because my ancestors had a great deal of success at having sex, but rather because at least one my ancestors refused to be satisfied with only that much in life.

So in summary, I do not reject your idea for being repugnant, but rather for being untrue.