Philosophy Now Forum

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:02 amAt this point of the discussion, the critical target is the survival of the human species.

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

I don't agree with the above kind of thinking.
It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

* i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:02 amAt this point of the discussion, the critical target is the survival of the human species.

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

What do you PRESUME is the 'attitude' here?

What I SEE is a two CLARIFYING questions.

Sure, the writer of those two questions MAY have an 'attitude' behind those questions, but ANY ASSUMPTION there is one is just 'that', an ASSUMPTION.

I suggest just LOOKING AT what is written ONLY, after all that is ONLY what you can Truly go on, and then responding to those words ONLY. That way you will NOT be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN, as you ARE.

The first question is asking, "What does it matter?" And, really, and seriously, what does it matter?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am I don't agree with the above kind of thinking.

Who cares?

Also, what exactly is, the above kind of thinking? As I have ALREADY SAID, the ONLY thing you can go on here, are the written words. And, from what I can SEE is there are JUST two clarifying questions, ONLY.

Did you EVER clarify with the author of these two questions what "their kind of thinking" is? Or, have you, just once again, ASSUMED what it is?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

You make the majority noted because there are people like 'you', "veritas aequitas", who want to kill off "others" of the species, like "muslims" and such, correct?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am * i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

Reproducing, and, taking care of, are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

Also, what is, "the inevitable"?

And, if "the inevitable" is death, then, as you have already been asked, seriously, "What does it matter when 'we' die out?"

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:02 amAt this point of the discussion, the critical target is the survival of the human species.

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 amI don't agree with the above kind of thinking.
It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

* i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

I agree with Age, you seem to be doing a great deal of assuming. I've had five children...how about you? That's a reasonable amount of reproduction, wouldn't you say?

How I live my personal life has nothing to do with how I view the survival of our species. When it's time for homo sapiens to say good-bye, so be it. What makes us different than any of the other thousands of species that have done the same? As a matter of fact, there are many species that disappear every day. Do you care about them?

I try to care about those things which I can have a positive effect on and not worry myself over those things that I have no control over what-so-ever. I believe this comes from taking a step-back and viewing life as a continuum, no beginning, no end, just different forms. There is no particular reason to attach to this one.

There wouldn't be anyone around to 'care' so it's a moot point really...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:43 pm There wouldn't be anyone around to 'care' so it's a moot point really...

Exactly!

It's like those who live in perpetual fear of, "the end of the world," or, "we're all going to die."

Well, we are all going to die, and if it happens to be everyone, no one care.

simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:51 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 amI don't agree with the above kind of thinking.
It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

* i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

I agree with Age, you seem to be doing a great deal of assuming. I've had five children...how about you? That's a reasonable amount of reproduction, wouldn't you say?

How I live my personal life has nothing to do with how I view the survival of our species. When it's time for homo sapiens to say good-bye, so be it. What makes us different than any of the other thousands of species that have done the same? As a matter of fact, there are many species that disappear every day. Do you care about them?

I try to care about those things which I can have a positive effect on and not worry myself over those things that I have no control over what-so-ever. I believe this comes from taking a step-back and viewing life as a continuum, no beginning, no end, just different forms. There is no particular reason to attach to this one.

Age, that 'crank' is on my ignore list, so no credibility for me at all.

When you wrote 'who cares' that imply you don't give a damn about the survival of the human species.

As I had implied, ALL humans are 'programmed' with an obligation to care for the survival of the human species.
Thus when you have 5 children, it implied you have had cared as programmed but that is 'probably' on a blind basis perhaps driven by lust and not weighed rationally.

Whilst ALL humans are programmed to reproduce to facilitate the survival of the species, any blindly driven reproduction driven by lust could have a negative effect i.e. generate over-population which will have a negative effect to the 'programmed' 'purpose' of the survival of the human species.

That is why for humans the point 'who cares!!' [don't give a damm] imply one is not a good natural human being.
Point is human beings are also 'programmed' to be rational and moral, thus one has to "take care" to ensure the instinctual reproduction do not go haywire to risk the survival of the species.

I don't have 5 children but 2 which is upon thinking, weighing rationally and wisely within optimal circumstances.

Therefore re survival of the species, one cannot take the 'who cares', don't give a damn attitude or is ignorant of the facts of evolution.

Morally, ALL humans are programmed to focus on the survival of the human species, but to do so, humans has to take into consideration of the survival of other species that is critical to its own survival.
As such, there should be no qualms that we exterminate the Covid19 species unless it is proven [beyond doubt] its survival [& our battle with it] is critical to the survival of the human species.

children do not necessarily ensure survival of the species; but in certain cultures, children ensure the survival/comfort of the parental units when the parents reach a certain age...

-Imp

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

I do and I tell you why; because otherwise, everything I am and do is pointless. All I'm left with is masturbation. There is no other reason to do anything but to tickle my pickle. No genetic, intellectual or economic legacy. There's no hope; so there is only self pleasure while waiting to die, and I'd like to think I'm more than that.

Secondly, countless generations have struggled to survive and breed, to build all this, and in my view, I have a duty to their struggle to use what is bequeathed to me to provide the best possible chance for future generations. A pickle tickler cannot recognise such a duty, less yet fulfil that obligation.

Third, human intellectual awareness must be afforded the opportunity to play out to its fullest - because it is qualitatively unique, so far as we know, and the opportunity cost of checking out early is potentially infinite. If there's a way to travel to the stars, we will find it - given enough time.

So there's three good reasons continued existence matters.

simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:51 pm How I live my personal life has nothing to do with how I view the survival of our species. When it's time for homo sapiens to say good-bye, so be it. What makes us different than any of the other thousands of species that have done the same? As a matter of fact, there are many species that disappear every day. Do you care about them?

I try to care about those things which I can have a positive effect on and not worry myself over those things that I have no control over what-so-ever. I believe this comes from taking a step-back and viewing life as a continuum, no beginning, no end, just different forms. There is no particular reason to attach to this one.

Well, I suggest that you "step-back" even further from what seems to be a purely materialistic outlook on life and try to be open to at least the "possibility" that there may be a "higher intelligence" behind the creation of the universe, and that the human consciousness (mind/soul) may have a greater purpose that will play-out in a higher (transcendent) context of reality.

However, before this higher purpose could be made available to another being, it was necessary that a particular species on this planet - (humans, in this case) - could reach a level of consciousness that may very well be a necessary step in the process that allows one to survive physical death.

Now, of course, the "intelligence" behind the creation of the universe could have achieved this goal through any other line of earthly beings. For example, through an avian line...



...or a reptilian line...



...or perhaps an insectoid line...



...just to name a few.

However, for whatever reason, the mammalian line was chosen...





And my point is that if one of the primary purposes of the unthinkable order of the universe is to awaken new (death-surviving) minds/souls into existence,...

...and that this purpose can only be achieved by bringing (evolving) certain lifeforms within the universe to a high enough level of consciousness and self-awareness to where that "higher purpose" then becomes possible for them,...

...then if the human species were to simply vanish via extinction, then all of the tedious evolutionary processes that brought us to the point where the "purpose" of the universe could be achieved, would need to start all over again from a point that would perhaps take millions of years to simply return us (or some other species) to where we are right now.

Now why in the world would the "intelligence" behind the creation of the universe, want (or allow) that to happen?

Yeah, yeah, I realize that there's a lot of highly speculative "ifs" in that scenario. But again, you need to at least be open to the possibility that there may be more to reality than meets the eye,...

...and that your "so-what if humans go extinct" attitude may be a misguided result of, again, your materialistic outlook on life.
_______

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:02 amAt this point of the discussion, the critical target is the survival of the human species.

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?
...
Your views?

Why "should"? Every individual is free to generate attitudes. If chosen attitudes prove disadvantageous then individuals are free to change their attitudes.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 2:33 pm

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

I do and I tell you why; because otherwise, everything I am and do is pointless. All I'm left with is masturbation. There is no other reason to do anything but to tickle my pickle. No genetic, intellectual or economic legacy. There's no hope; so there is only self pleasure while waiting to die, and I'd like to think I'm more than that.

Secondly, countless generations have struggled to survive and breed, to build all this, and in my view, I have a duty to their struggle to use what is bequeathed to me to provide the best possible chance for future generations. A pickle tickler cannot recognise such a duty, less yet fulfil that obligation.

Third, human intellectual awareness must be afforded the opportunity to play out to its fullest - because it is qualitatively unique, so far as we know, and the opportunity cost of checking out early is potentially infinite. If there's a way to travel to the stars, we will find it - given enough time.

So there's three good reasons continued existence matters.

At least you are trying your best to be 'being human' rather than is merely a 'human being' that is that the mercy of evolutionary and natural forces.

The question is how to optimize 'being human' morally as a member of Team Humanity.

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 5:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?
...
Your views?

Why "should"? Every individual is free to generate attitudes. If chosen attitudes prove disadvantageous then individuals are free to change their attitudes.

"Simplicity" is the one who proposed we Should adopt the attitude 'Who Cares?"
I don't agree the 'normal' average human being should be indifferent [Who Cares?] to the survival of the species, since ALL humans are programmed fundamentally to facilitate the survival of the species.

In a way, every 'normal' individual is free to generate attitudes, but not freely in the absolute sense.
As such, each human being must strive to understand what is the fundamental normative that one need to live by to facilitate the survival of the species.

A suicidal person [thus not normal] may find continuing to live, a disadvantage to himself, thus is 'free' to change his attitude to plan to commit suicide. If this 'freedom to choose' were to be a universal principle, then the human species is bound for extinction.

So a person is free to generate attitudes but has to take into account the limitations.
The question is how to ensure each individual do that naturally and spontaneously with optimal results.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:18 pm However, for whatever reason, the mammalian line was chosen...

You implied the mammalian line happened to appear wholesale uniquely or dropped from nowhere?

You do not know?
The mammalian line is a resultant of 4 billion years of very gradual evolution and is thus conditioned upon random conditions not of its choice.

Your approach is bottom-up with speculation of something pre-existing as a sort of higher intelligence.
There is no way you will ever be able to nail exactly what is that Original Intelligence. Your drive to nail the impossible is purely due to your own psychology, i.e. seeking consonance to relieve dissonance.

What is most effective is the top-down approach where we start with real empirical evidence on hand then inferred [with credible approaches] the possible principles therefrom. Then we test the principles to real experience and possibilities which can be confirmed subsequently.

simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:51 pm When it's time for homo sapiens to say good-bye, so be it.
<....>
I try to care about those things which I can have a positive effect on and not worry myself over those things that I have no control over what-so-ever.

That's precisely it though. We have control over the "when it's time to say goodbye".

Human life expectancy 2000 years ago was 35-40.Today it's 70-75.
Given current news headlines and global pandemics, vaccines are literally one thing which gives you control over the "when".

Other examples... The dinosaurs went extinct WHEN their only planet became uninhabitable.
For any multiplanetary species one planet becoming uninhabitable is a huge tragedy, but not an extinction event.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:14 am

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 5:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:32 am

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?
...
Your views?

Why "should"? Every individual is free to generate attitudes. If chosen attitudes prove disadvantageous then individuals are free to change their attitudes.

"Simplicity" is the one who proposed we Should adopt the attitude 'Who Cares?"
I don't agree the 'normal' average human being should be indifferent [Who Cares?] to the survival of the species, since ALL humans are programmed fundamentally to facilitate the survival of the species.

In a way, every 'normal' individual is free to generate attitudes, but not freely in the absolute sense.
As such, each human being must strive to understand what is the fundamental normative that one need to live by to facilitate the survival of the species.

A suicidal person [thus not normal] may find continuing to live, a disadvantage to himself, thus is 'free' to change his attitude to plan to commit suicide. If this 'freedom to choose' were to be a universal principle, then the human species is bound for extinction.

So a person is free to generate attitudes but has to take into account the limitations.
The question is how to ensure each individual do that naturally and spontaneously with optimal results.

I don't think the way you do. As I said above: I think that if attitudes chosen by an individual prove disadvantageous for this individual (which can only be assessed by the individual her-/himself) then the individual is free to change her/his attitudes.