Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 4:00 pm
I'm amazed that AI can spout illogical nonsense like this. One would think logic would be AI's forte. For example:
, "teleonomic preservation of the species" is a way of describing the fundamental, non-conscious purpose that drives all life: to pass on genetic material to the next generation and ensure the long-term continuation of the lineage.
Genetic material is passed from one generation to the next -- but that has nothing to do with the "preservation of the species". IN fact, species often fail to be "preserved", even when the genetic material is passed on. Instead, living beings "evolve". If certain genes are passed on with greater frequency than others, species may very well evolve into different species. Indeed, preserving the species is probably often genetically disadvantageous. Brown bears living in the arctic evolve into polar bears as distinct foot-size, coloration, etc. become more advantageous. Eventually, they become a separate species.
Also, how do genes "program" people? Are they sitting at tiny mini-computers writing programs? Behavior is always a complicated interaction between learned behavior (which could not occur if we had no brains) and supposedly "innate" drives or abilities. "Instinct" is a meaningless term that means nothing more than "we don't understand why this behavior occurs, so we' call it 'instinct'." There is variety in even such seemingly genetically advantageous "instincts" as sex. Some people are homosexual. Some prefer anal sex or oral sex. Hmmm. That doesn't seem very well "programmed". Fire the genes! They're shirking their responsibility as programmers!
I agree with you that evolution does not guarantee strict species preservation. Extinction and divergence are the rule rather than the exception — species often split, change, or disappear entirely, even while genetic material continues in new forms. Your examples of brown bears evolving into polar bears and the prevalence of extinction events are exactly right.
However, I think the concept of species preservation can still be used in a qualified, teleonomic sense, for two reasons:
No species emerges “aimed at extinction.”
While extinction is common, the traits that define a species arise because they initially confer survival or reproductive success in a given environment. In other words, the very fact that a species exists at all means it has already “solved” some adaptive problem, at least temporarily. There is no species whose evolved traits are selected for the purpose of self-annihilation. Even doomed lineages persist for a time because their members were viable enough to reproduce.
Empirical evidence of long-term persistence.
Some lineages exhibit remarkable stability. Cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, and sharks have remained recognizably similar for hundreds of millions of years. This shows that many species do, in fact, “preserve themselves” successfully across geological timescales, provided their ecological niche remains viable.
Qualified meaning of ‘species preservation.’
So rather than taking “species preservation” as an absolute law of nature, I’d frame it as a teleonomic tendency:
Evolutionary adaptations are shaped to maximize survival and reproduction, which indirectly promotes species continuity for as long as environmental conditions allow.
But this preservation is contingent, temporary, and always subject to change, mutation, or extinction.
In short:
I agree with you that species are not preserved forever and that evolution often undermines species stability. Still, I think there is some truth in saying that species, once emerged, carry traits that promote their own continuity — at least until external pressures or internal dynamics push them toward transformation or extinction.
...........
I think the “fire the genes!” joke misses an important point about how evolution works. Genes don’t “program” us in the sense of dictating identical behaviors for every individual. Instead, they bias development in ways that produce a spectrum of traits across the population. That diversity is not a flaw in the system — it’s one of evolution’s strengths.
Variation is built-in, not a mistake.
Sexual preferences, orientations, and behaviors vary widely, but that doesn’t mean genes aren’t involved. It means natural selection tolerates (and sometimes favors) variability because it helps populations adapt to changing conditions. If every organism behaved in exactly the same way, the species would be far more vulnerable to environmental shifts.
Outliers can be adaptive at the group level.
Note the variation of small percentile of risk-takers, small minorities of individuals with higher risk tolerance, exploratory drive, or non-standard behaviors can be essential for survival. They explore new niches, push boundaries, or provide social benefits that increase the resilience of the group, even if those traits don’t maximize reproduction in every individual case.
Non-reproductive behaviors don’t negate genetic influence.
Homosexuality, for instance, has been observed across many animal species, not just humans. Explanations range from kin selection (indirectly helping relatives reproduce) to maintaining social bonds and group cohesion. Whether or not those explanations are fully correct, the persistence of such traits suggests they are not “failures of programming” but tolerated or balanced variations within the evolutionary system.
In short:
Genes don’t “shirk responsibility” — they shape probabilities, not rigid scripts. Variation, including sexual diversity, is a normal and sometimes necessary outcome of evolutionary processes, helping ensure the long-term adaptability of populations.
The Claim: “All fear is ultimately fear of death”
Philosophical Lineage
Systems Analysis: Is Death the Root Node?
Logical Soundness vs. Generative Usefulness
Proto Systems Insight