quality of life or life for life's sake

[Jackie]

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.

The goal of all life is reproduction. But in scope of a 4 billion year old planet which has had 5 mass extinction events, and in the scope of a 13.8 billion year old universe, life is irrelevant.

Quality of life matters to humans but we all vary on what that word means. Some humans while not wanting to starve to death, also don't feel the need to have 3 mansions and a private jet. I've met plenty of miserable rich people. 

For humans resources matter and we have a tendency to be less likely to rock the boat when we have resources. But not all of us feel the need to be billionaires. But most people want a safe home, love, and good health.

[Angrboda]

QoL is a means to life for life's sake.

[tackattack]

[Jackie]

[awty]

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


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.

Because you have an old mythological view of what "goal" means. I gave you my answer, you not liking it is your baggage, not mine.

Humans are really not that different than other mammals. Lions kill rival cubs. Humans will save their own babies in their own societies, but when we get into wars those same kids are considered collateral damage. We do often treat animals, like horses, or cats or dogs, better than we treat each other as humans. We also invent very cruel weapons to murder each other with.

You are confusing our evolution which lead to our brain capacity which no other species has, and human language as making us an apex. We are not an apex, we are simply 1 species among many. And if we don't get a handle on our self caused climate change, we will be no different than any other invasive species that has wiped itself out because it got too big.

So the goal is to reproduce as you stated earlier but also to get a handle on climate control so we don't wipe out our own species because it has gotten too big.  

Got it.

[Dom]

I only know what my personal goal is - quality of life. I want to be able to remain self sufficient. Quantity - the idea of being 100 years old and looking like a prune in a wheelchair and my day's greatest achievement was to get to the bathroom and back -  not really interested.

The goal of the species needs to be to reduce reproduction until we can take care of everybody. People give birth just to watch the kid die of starvation. That is not a good thing. 

Our drive to reproduce has us make the stupidest decisions, especially when young. (Below middle age) It has become superfluous. Evolution is too slow to keep up with us and we are going to ruin the whole thing.

[tackattack]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

The goal of the considered life of a conscious being with the ability to plan is what the being would make it.

The goal of life itself is no goal.

[tackattack]

Are you struggling in the metaphysical, how about I rephrase

The goal of living is to reproduce (rephrased, not my belief)

The goal of living is whatever you want it to be (rephrased also not my belief)

I would agree that subjectively we can set any goal we want, but does life (not living) have a universal goal that could even be stated and supported?

I don't think that made any progress. How's that song go.. "two steps forward, two steps back... opposite's attract"

[Anomalocaris]

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 assemble 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.