Re: Putting Life and Energy into perspective
[quote=sunson] Whether it was me or others, CAPS LOCK ON is not a good Netiquette. Anyway, we can move on with some constructive debating. [quote]
That’s okay… you don’t have to like it. I LIKE WRITING IN CAPS SOMETIMES. Sometimes I don’t. That’s up to me, right? I really could care less if it’s not good "Netiquette". I also don’t call this constructive debating. I call it debating. Again… whether or not I find it constructive is up to me, right?
[quote=sunson] Sure. But do you really want to set your ‘end goal’ to be ‘survival of the human species’. For that, we need take no action – it will happen, whoever left will continue to propagate their genes and natural selection will shape us. [/quote]
My "end goal"?? I don’t have one. If I had to try and guess what my "end goal" is, I’d say it is to live the best way I know how and to enjoy whatever time I have left.
[quote=sunson] Dawkins questions and points out one important thing that I take it you’ve not read and hence your view of what he is trying to say. He says something to the effect of "Each individual is just a mere carrier of the genes. They are pawns in the whole game and it is not a system designed for the good of the pawn but instead for the good of the ultimate engine that shapes each pawn – the genes." [/quote]
I don’t think it’s a game. You wrote about "games" but, by definition, "games" imply a purpose/goal, don’t they? If you believe that genes have a purpose, in that their purpose is to survive/propagate, then we probably agree upon that. Otherwise, I don’t consider it a "game"; at least it I don’t think Dawkins believes that.
[quote=sunson] Some pawns become horses, some pawns become knights – their struggle and battle is the ultimate thing that will decide who lives. Now that I know the meaningless pursuit of this mindless process of Natural Selection, why should we succumb to its rules?". Just look at those species that struggle to survive in the Kalahari. Nature hardly ever ‘builds’ things with a design in mind and its not for the ‘happiness’ of the individual. But man can. However, thus far man has been satisfying the desires above needs… [/quote]
Nature builds things according to calculations/algorithms ( & trial and error). I’m not a geneticist so I will cease to comment further upon the nature of genes. I know some things, regarding genes, only through Dawkins’ book.
[quote=sunson] My point is more philosophical – Isn’t it worth applying this knowledge that we’ve gathered thus far in making a society that lives in harmony – living with a sense of appreciation of nature… for the small speck of dust that we are in this universe… and that the instincts are mere tools for survival. There is an alternate tool called knowledge and humility that will let us live in harmony for several generations. It is "worth applying this knowledge"– only to some; others could care less but that’s what makes life all that more challenging. But I’m just fantasizing here. Reality is: those that are unwilling to live this way, will continue to multiply (maybe even more so) and essentially natural selection will weed us ‘wise ones’ out. [/quote]
Probably so; or maybe the increase/decrease of "wise and intelligent" people is determined according to the need at the time which would fall in line with theory of Natural Selection.