quality of life or life for life's sake

[tackattack]

---

Biologically, which is better or more the goal of a species:
quality of life OR life for life's sake?

new topic for me because I saw some flamers oon another site up in arms about it. Thoughts? I really haven't had time to cogitate yet.

I saw that too. Makes me feel like crap really. But then, I feel that way everyday. I, that thought the bosses at my work were just a bunch of no good do nothing pricks. Until I became a boss myself. Sucks. no win situations. Human beings have prides of their own and are bound to them.

It does makes me feel bad for all the work I have done here over the years. But then, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Not remotely scared of that imaginary place, it's a metaphore.

---

No you didn't, nothing here inspired that it was a post from kiwi farms regarding "tard babies". Methinks you are projecting mate.

---

Biologically, which is better or more the goal of a species:
quality of life OR life for life's sake?

new topic for me because I saw some flamers oon another site up in arms about it. Thoughts? I really haven't had time to cogitate yet.

Doesn't this depend on the species? Some just have life, there is no concern (the ability for concern?) for quality or quantity.

---

Yes it does depend on the species because Humans are far more likely to save a baby with a horribly painful mutation than to spare a horse with a broken leg. Are we the only species that does this? Something regarding personal morality and seeking emotional pain relief will probably justify that.


Brian, I'm not so sure that the goal of life is reproduction, but I could be convinced.