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
If you accept that reproduction is THE purpose of life another logical question is why evolution seems broken.
ReplyDeleteWhy is our babies weaker and without means to surive for themself compared to more primitive lifeforms? Maybe because they are more complicated than primitive lifeforms you could say.
But then you will get a result like this: The purpuse of life is reproduction and the more your species evolve the longer the babies stay weak compared to the more primitive life....
That result seems broken to me somehow since if both are truth for 2 reasons (evolution as a fact and reproduction is the purpuse of life)(1) evolution SHOULD make reproduction easier as the speices progress, not harder. Unless both are random facts and therefor don't need to support eachother.
But... (2) if they are both random and don't need to support eachother how can you even talk about a "purpuse". Purpuse is the same as a meaning, and there can be no meaning if only randomness exists :)
/ksra