Hi everyone!
I just had this idea I felt like I had to share so I registered. Anyway here it goes:
Do you realize that the perceived success of a person nowadays has nothing to do with the success in the natural, evolutionary sense? Life itself is the force that drives us to do what we do. To keep living and to reproduce, that is the purpose of our existence if you dense it down to just the bare bone. The success of a species or an individual is defined by the number of healthy offspring they produce and in the case of sexual reproduction to do so with an attractive (a person with "good" DNA) partner.
Look at the most powerful people in the world today. Do they have the most children with the most attractive partners? No they don't. Maybe they could, but they don't. Some poor person who has no power at all and no influence in society but has 10 children, in a natural sense, easily outperforms any of the much more powerful and by us perceived as more successful person. Aren't we somehow fooling ourselves by replacing natural success by our new definition of it? Aren't we a failing form of life if we start to have less children than we could have?
I actually don't believe that we are failing life ;-) since with our capability of understanding the world we are able to break free from our evolutionary background. We can't keep growing the population so much anyway, since there is no space nor resources to support it. It still is a very weird spot for us to be in. To have to leave our natural existence as a form of life, in a sense.
You know how big "pro life" issues are for religious people? No contraception, no abortion, not accepting homosexuality (since no children can arise from such a relationship), in an extended sense marriage. All of this is assuring a maximization of success of the religious group in the original natural and evolutionary sense. That is the irony I was trying to explain here. Many religious groups deny the existence of evolution all together while from any groups in society fighting the hardest to be as evolutionary successful as possible.
Now, to me what is called God is most likely originally the driving force behind life itself, which somehow must be the DNA as of what we know today.
Ok that's it. What do you think? I know nothing of this is really new but I don't think i have seen this particular thought expressed and discussed before.
I just had this idea I felt like I had to share so I registered. Anyway here it goes:
Do you realize that the perceived success of a person nowadays has nothing to do with the success in the natural, evolutionary sense? Life itself is the force that drives us to do what we do. To keep living and to reproduce, that is the purpose of our existence if you dense it down to just the bare bone. The success of a species or an individual is defined by the number of healthy offspring they produce and in the case of sexual reproduction to do so with an attractive (a person with "good" DNA) partner.
Look at the most powerful people in the world today. Do they have the most children with the most attractive partners? No they don't. Maybe they could, but they don't. Some poor person who has no power at all and no influence in society but has 10 children, in a natural sense, easily outperforms any of the much more powerful and by us perceived as more successful person. Aren't we somehow fooling ourselves by replacing natural success by our new definition of it? Aren't we a failing form of life if we start to have less children than we could have?
I actually don't believe that we are failing life ;-) since with our capability of understanding the world we are able to break free from our evolutionary background. We can't keep growing the population so much anyway, since there is no space nor resources to support it. It still is a very weird spot for us to be in. To have to leave our natural existence as a form of life, in a sense.
You know how big "pro life" issues are for religious people? No contraception, no abortion, not accepting homosexuality (since no children can arise from such a relationship), in an extended sense marriage. All of this is assuring a maximization of success of the religious group in the original natural and evolutionary sense. That is the irony I was trying to explain here. Many religious groups deny the existence of evolution all together while from any groups in society fighting the hardest to be as evolutionary successful as possible.
Now, to me what is called God is most likely originally the driving force behind life itself, which somehow must be the DNA as of what we know today.
Ok that's it. What do you think? I know nothing of this is really new but I don't think i have seen this particular thought expressed and discussed before.
