This topic raises alot of questions, atleast to my mind. It seems to me that the thought of the universe existing forever is easier to comprehend to most people than the thought that the universe has always existed. most people tend to believe that it all must have started somewhere. so a common believe is that once upon a time it all started and that we will live forever after, just like the fairy tales. I find it reasonable to think that if it all started out of nothing, then it is not unlikely that everything is potent to wink out of existence sometime in the future, if not at anytime. philosofically i believe this point of view raises the posability for everything to continuely wink out and come back in to existence because we cant be aware of nothingness to realise this switching, and nothingness would by definition not affect existence without becoming something. but this is abstract hypothetical thinking without any practical relation to our existence.
As it is likely to think that something that has an ending must have a beginning, it is just as likely to think that something that doesn't have an ending also does not have a beginning. My question here is which is hardest to believe: 'something' created out of 'nothing', and 'something' being able to wink out and leave 'nothing', or 'something' to always have existed and never will cease to exist?
further discussion follows.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Monday, 12 July 2010
Is reproduction a purpose of life?
If you adopt the view of a scientist who is devoted to the theory of natural selection, reprodution would generally be believed to be his purpose of life. Is this true or is reproduction merily a prerequisite and a neccesarity of life but not a purpose? can you distinguish between a neccesarity of life and a purpose of life?
Imagine an instant population where 50% has the drive for reproduction, and the other half does not. How would the next generation look like? Is the 50% who does not have the drive for reproduction without a purpose of life (still with natural selection as the adopted point of view)
This subject need further explanation, maybe to even understand the issue i am adressing.
Let me first answer the questions above. The next generation of the instant population would in theory consist only of people with the drive to reproduce. If we then imagine this new population also is divided in two groups, one which consist of people who run from danger and one consisting of people who ignores danger. This population then faces a vital threat and only the people who were able to avoid the danger survives. This case is similar to the first case and if the first illustrates reproduction to be a purpose of life then the second case simulates that survival atleast until reproduction is a purpose of life aswell. Further examples can be done until almost everything we do today is illustrated as a "purpose of life".
When we speak of the purpose of life, it means that if you are given life you have a specific purpose. In other words you can not imagine a living person without this purpose. if we then return to the first case described where 50% of the population did not have this drive to reproduce then reproduction can be ruled out as a purpose of life. The population is imaginary though but it fits in to the theory of evolution. Considering mutations and other factors influencing our mental and physical capabilities, it is easy to imagine a person in our current population missing at least one vital treat which is neccesary for reproduction.
The thing is that the drive for reproduction is what ensures the future generation, and thus is the neccesarity for life to continue, but that does not mean that it is what we must do, but instead what must have been done. and fortunately for future generations these treats are inherited most of the time and in the the case where the treat is not inherited this person will still live his or hers life but deffinately not in favor to inherit down her genes.
conclussion: reproduction among other inherited behaviors is not a purpose of life but a prerequisite and a neccesarity for life to continue, if you adopt the view follower of natural selection that is.
Please leave a comment if you want any of the above explained in depth, or if you believe i am missing a point and got it wrong
Imagine an instant population where 50% has the drive for reproduction, and the other half does not. How would the next generation look like? Is the 50% who does not have the drive for reproduction without a purpose of life (still with natural selection as the adopted point of view)
This subject need further explanation, maybe to even understand the issue i am adressing.
Let me first answer the questions above. The next generation of the instant population would in theory consist only of people with the drive to reproduce. If we then imagine this new population also is divided in two groups, one which consist of people who run from danger and one consisting of people who ignores danger. This population then faces a vital threat and only the people who were able to avoid the danger survives. This case is similar to the first case and if the first illustrates reproduction to be a purpose of life then the second case simulates that survival atleast until reproduction is a purpose of life aswell. Further examples can be done until almost everything we do today is illustrated as a "purpose of life".
When we speak of the purpose of life, it means that if you are given life you have a specific purpose. In other words you can not imagine a living person without this purpose. if we then return to the first case described where 50% of the population did not have this drive to reproduce then reproduction can be ruled out as a purpose of life. The population is imaginary though but it fits in to the theory of evolution. Considering mutations and other factors influencing our mental and physical capabilities, it is easy to imagine a person in our current population missing at least one vital treat which is neccesary for reproduction.
The thing is that the drive for reproduction is what ensures the future generation, and thus is the neccesarity for life to continue, but that does not mean that it is what we must do, but instead what must have been done. and fortunately for future generations these treats are inherited most of the time and in the the case where the treat is not inherited this person will still live his or hers life but deffinately not in favor to inherit down her genes.
conclussion: reproduction among other inherited behaviors is not a purpose of life but a prerequisite and a neccesarity for life to continue, if you adopt the view follower of natural selection that is.
Please leave a comment if you want any of the above explained in depth, or if you believe i am missing a point and got it wrong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)