quality of life or life for life's sake

[tackattack]

OK traits.. I get it I've seen the movie lucy too. I didn't ask what the traits of life were, I asked the Goal of life. If you only speculate that it's anything we want it to be then that ceases to be a productive conversation.

[Angrboda]

OK traits.. I get it I've seen the movie lucy too. I didn't ask what the traits of life were, I asked the Goal of life. If you only speculate that it's anything we want it to be then that ceases to be a productive conversation.

That's not what he said, tack. You're just attacking a straw man.

[Anomalocaris]

OK traits.. I get it I've seen the movie lucy too. I didn't ask what the traits of life were, I asked the Goal of life. If you only speculate that it's anything we want it to be then that ceases to be a productive conversation.

Why is a conversation only productive if it makes the topic out to be what it is not in reality?

If the goal of life is what we want it to be, that does not mean all goals we could possibly want really address the reasons why we might want them equally well.

You can discuss to find out whether there is some commonality in the reasons why we want these goals.  You can discuss whether some goals, inspite what needs they are formulated to serve, doesn’t;t really serve these needs well, and others do better.

[tackattack]

Ok fair enough, allow me to revisit.

No.  Life has no goal anymore than a random rock does.  Just as for rocks to continue to exist, rocks must have certain properties, such as hardness, resistance to chemical processes that would break it down, etc, so for life to continue, it too must have certain properties, such the ability and propensity to make copies of the information and mechanisms that channels biochemical processes to assembles available minerals and amino acids into functioning organism similar to itself.  These are necessary traits for life to continue to be.  But these are traits, and should not be confused with goals.

Rocks have properties, people have properties we call them traits. I agree
The ability and propensity to biochemically process to assemble functioning organisms we call reproduction. No argument here.
It is a trait of life to continue to be. I agree
Tack is confused. yes I am sometimes, but not about the definition of a trait and a goal. I think that touched everything and is just as pointless and doesn't move the conversation forward at all BECAUSE it's not what I asked.

And now that all that craps is revisited could we move those goalposts back to my question: What is the goal of life OR what is the goal of living?
As it correlates to the OP: Should their be a purpose to bettering quality of life OR Is life for just life's sake enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

[Anomalocaris]

Ok fair enough, allow me to revisit.

No.  Life has no goal anymore than a random rock does.  Just as for rocks to continue to exist, rocks must have certain properties, such as hardness, resistance to chemical processes that would break it down, etc, so for life to continue, it too must have certain properties, such the ability and propensity to make copies of the information and mechanisms that channels biochemical processes to assembles available minerals and amino acids into functioning organism similar to itself.  These are necessary traits for life to continue to be.  But these are traits, and should not be confused with goals.

Rocks have properties, people have properties we call them traits. I agree
The ability and propensity to biochemically process to assemble functioning organisms we call reproduction. No argument here.
It is a trait of life to continue to be. I agree
Tack is confused. yes I am sometimes, but not about the definition of a trait and a goal. I think that touched everything and is just as pointless and doesn't move the conversation forward at all BECAUSE it's not what I asked.

And now that all that craps is revisited could we move those goalposts back to my question: What is the goal of life OR what is the goal of living?
As it correlates to the OP:  Should their be a purpose to bettering quality of life  OR  Is life for just life's sake enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

Again, what is the need that you are trying to consciously address in setting the purpose for life?

If you are happy when other people are happy, and you need to be happy, then it seems a poor choice of goals to make other people less happy just so,there will be more other people.

If you are happy when other people are desperate, and you need to be happy, then it would seem to be a good choice of goals to encourage the making of more of other people because too many other people makes them mostly more desperate.

[Angrboda]

Ok fair enough, allow me to revisit.

No.  Life has no goal anymore than a random rock does.  Just as for rocks to continue to exist, rocks must have certain properties, such as hardness, resistance to chemical processes that would break it down, etc, so for life to continue, it too must have certain properties, such the ability and propensity to make copies of the information and mechanisms that channels biochemical processes to assembles available minerals and amino acids into functioning organism similar to itself.  These are necessary traits for life to continue to be.  But these are traits, and should not be confused with goals.

Rocks have properties, people have properties we call them traits. I agree
The ability and propensity to biochemically process to assemble functioning organisms we call reproduction. No argument here.
It is a trait of life to continue to be. I agree
Tack is confused. yes I am sometimes, but not about the definition of a trait and a goal. I think that touched everything and is just as pointless and doesn't move the conversation forward at all BECAUSE it's not what I asked.

And now that all that craps is revisited could we move those goalposts back to my question: What is the goal of life OR what is the goal of living?
As it correlates to the OP:  Should their be a purpose to bettering quality of life  OR  Is life for just life's sake enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

Asked and answered. Bettering quality of life is life for life's sake. You seem to simply want to turn aside any answer that doesn't appeal to you, and then cast that as a problem with the person giving it. That's a 'you' problem not a 'them' problem. And yes, the definition of things like goal and trait do matter very much, a subject you don't appear interested in engaging in good faith.

[Brian37]

But you stated it without support Brian. Please support your assertion that

The goal of all life is reproduction

so I can see your reasoning and possibly come to the same conclusion.

Also to clarify my definition of "goal" is an observable and measurable end result having one or more objectives to be achieved within a more or less fixed timeframe.

Also if you want to discuss this in another thread I'm down:
You don't believe we are apex because =

brain capacity which no other species has, and human language as making us an apex.

You assert we are simply another animal

We are not an apex, we are simply 1 species among many.

Tantamount to this point, if we were any other animal .. like a cat, a deformed offspring would just be left to fend for it's own.

I didn't say we were any other animal, I said we have common social structures with other mammals. We are not the only social animal, other primates, and dolphins and whales and elephants also socialize and care for their young. 

And you also ignore all the abandon children in the world, that happens all the time in our species as well, to claim we don't is bullshit. Adults in our species also abuse their children too.

[brewer]

---

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.

Emotional pain relief how, for who? I don't think personal comes into it on a species level. But we can take about personal positions.

[Brian37]

Ok fair enough, allow me to revisit.

No.  Life has no goal anymore than a random rock does.  Just as for rocks to continue to exist, rocks must have certain properties, such as hardness, resistance to chemical processes that would break it down, etc, so for life to continue, it too must have certain properties, such the ability and propensity to make copies of the information and mechanisms that channels biochemical processes to assembles available minerals and amino acids into functioning organism similar to itself.  These are necessary traits for life to continue to be.  But these are traits, and should not be confused with goals.

Rocks have properties, people have properties we call them traits. I agree
The ability and propensity to biochemically process to assemble functioning organisms we call reproduction. No argument here.
It is a trait of life to continue to be. I agree
Tack is confused. yes I am sometimes, but not about the definition of a trait and a goal. I think that touched everything and is just as pointless and doesn't move the conversation forward at all BECAUSE it's not what I asked.

And now that all that craps is revisited could we move those goalposts back to my question: What is the goal of life OR what is the goal of living?
As it correlates to the OP:  Should their be a purpose to bettering quality of life  OR  Is life for just life's sake enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

We answered that and you didn't like our answers.

In evolution, the goal is reproduction, I should have added "the ability to adapt" as well. Adaptation increases the chances of offspring. No super cognition needed to explain that reality.

And please, do not think we have not seen this tactic before. When theists cant flat out sell their club/holy writing, they attack science. When they cant get away with that they try to get science to point to their club/writing. If you think you are the only apologist in the only religion who tries these tactics you'd be wrong. EVERY religion in the world, bar none, have apologists who either attack science, or try to use science to point to their club. 



As individual humans our goals are what we set for ourselves, Humans do different things in life so our goals as individuals are different. Our lives matter while we are alive. But my life did not matter 4 billion or 13.8 billion years ago, and it wont matter 5 billion years from now.  No, that is not sexy, but it is reality. It makes me at least, value what I have here and now.

[tackattack]

OK, now that I'm off my phone I can do a better job to sum up on life and goals and where we're at

I agree with Gae that there's a middle ground or other variable because neither is better, qol for the few or misery for many?

I agree with wyzas that it's species dependant some just have life, there is no concern (the ability for concern?) for quality or quantity.
But I think for us

Jor stated that QoL is a means to life for life's sake. I agree that it could be a variable QoL as defined within a species.

Dom made a nice point that it's a personal goal - quality of life.
And he gave several good examples such as -
A. I want to be able to remain self sufficient.
B. Quantity of years, even though he's really interested in it.
C. reproduction
that is qualified with until we can take care of everybody. People give birth just to watch the kid die of starvation. That is not a good thing. which I agree with and like

Brian clarified that we're an animal, but not just any animal, that we have some common social structures
He also later added that the ability to adapt would be a goal.


He also made a side point I would like to take a moment to address. People do abandon their kids, and it's a sad thing. My point was that in a case like anecephaly doctors generally encourage aborting the fetus and the parents go through more of a moral struggle and a cat birthing a deformed kitten.

Emotional pain relief how, for who? I don't think personal comes into it on a species level. But we can take about personal positions.

see example above

Jor, I wasn't dismissing the importance of any definition, as I even defined what I meant earlier, nor am I dismissing idea becaue I don't like them. I don't have the ideas which is why I made the post.


Brian et all,
As far as all the fucking straw men and goalpost moving and ad hominem, look folks I'm not trying to sell any holy writing or attack science. None of this had/has jack to do with God, I was just trying to find a list of humanist reasons and goals for life. I would really appreciate it if people stopped misrepresenting me and learned that shit isn't that serious and we should all take a lot of things at a more surface level. There's not as many conspiracies as your think, unless you're that one guy who used to post here who was a total conspiracy nut. I'm aware of the definitions used, I'm aware of some of the science involved in biology, I'm aware I'm an apologist and I'm sure you've seen a butt load of them. I'm sorry you've only seen those that can only talk about God and the Holy Bible, and pretend that God makes their life easy and they're perfect. That's BS, but this entire paragraph is moot because it has ZERO to do with the question.

Reproduction and adaptations are traits not goals. If your goal is to reproduce it's because you're a pre-pubescent teen that wants to screw anything with a hole and a warm apple pie will do. If you want to define traits of life I'm certain we can find common ground, but I'm much more interested in Goals. Let me try one last rephrase:
Should there be a species wide goal to bettering quality of life and what would that be OR Is life for the fundamental traits of life (ability to adapt, procreation) enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

I was honestly expecting things like:
-Passing knowledge to offspring is better than just breeding
-Overcoming hardships is inspiration to a society and guides social constructs better than just genetic adaptation
-Increasing life expectancy is good if it's not a burden to the environment the species exists in
-The perfect Rueben is better than sex

all of those are things we were headed towards and I agree with. If you can't wait the 2 minutes it takes to read the post and another 2 minutes to actually cogitate on what's being said then don't post please, or do whatevs. Could we please get back on track though?
Are there any societal goals, universal goals or subjective goals out there that you can list that are better than just existing? Are there any traits that are fundamentally defined as life/existing in your mind?