nobleplatypus | Pet Peeve of the Random Time Increment

I really, really hate it when people act like reproduction is the meaning of life.

I hate it when idiots assert that humanity's meaning is tied up in the same base instinctual drives that every other creature possesses. I hate it when they act like this "knowledge" is something to be smug about, like all the fools who think otherwise will soon see the error of their ways. I hate it when they cite Darwin, who must be rolling in his grave to hear his theory so misapplied.

If the meaning of life was procreation--if that is all anyone honestly cared about, if that was the only thing many people found important--there wouldn't be a theory of evolution. There wouldn't be literature, there wouldn't be science, we'd still be in the damn TREES because our innate curiosity would have taken a back seat to the Grand Purpose of banging the nearest member of the opposite sex. Darwin had ten children as is; do you think he would have set foot on the Beagle if he thought procreation was the be all and end all of his existence?

But what annoys me most is the ingratitude these idiots demonstrate with their dumbing down of humanity, the lack of appreciation for the gifts we have been given. Don't they realize how great and special it is that human beings are the only creatures on earth who can defy instinct? It's like whining, "I can't believe God gave me self-awareness, curiosity, and a moral compass for Christmas instead of the fuck-buddy I asked for! I'm not writing a thank-you note!"

No.

I would say "fuck you," but I don't think anyone should.

(x-posted)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think overall you're right and I love your metaphor...but just to defend evolution for a second. Evolution doesn't predict that reproduction should overwhelm drives like intelligence and morality, nor is the existence of such drives outside the explanatory range of evolution. Evolution predicts that drives like intelligence and morality will exist to serve the need to reproduce. Human beings are intelligent because smarter proto-humans were better able to figure out how to get food and resist predators, and therefore could reproduce more. We're moral because a society in which each human is willing to sacrifice him or herself for the good of the group is a more cohesive society and, on average, is able to reproduce more (source: studies with prairie dogs (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-inclusive-fitness.htm)). As such, I don't believe we ever defy our instinctual drives, only strike a balance between various instinctual drives of different levels, all of which originally existed to perpetuate genetic material.

(This is all sort of reminding me of Paul Erdös and his "Sex is the mathematics urge sublimated" spiel)

But to treat evolution as if it has feelings or preferences is silly. It sounds like the people about whom you're talking want to think that you're somehow offending evolution and making baby Darwin cry. On the other hand, for you to accuse people with a stronger sex drive than intellectual drive of "ingratitude" sounds like the same "heresy". From an evolutionary standpoint, there is no meaning to life that makes one set of drives better than another. Evolution is just the observation that things that self-perpetuate tend to be around more than things that don't.

I hope you don't mind that detailed and contrarian a response. If you ask me not to do it again, I'll listen.

On the other hand, for you to accuse people with a stronger sex drive than intellectual drive of "ingratitude" sounds like the same "heresy".

But that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm not saying that any particular drive is more important than the other, I'm saying that to focus on any one individual thing and act as if that's everything is limiting and, to an extent, ungrateful because there's more to life than any one thing. Evolution isn't really what I was trying to focus on.

And you should probably know this was prompted, yet again, by someone on the asexual community (someone commented on her Coming Out post and told her that because she didn't want children, she had "lost the game of life." WTF).

In other words, I think you're saying, the original post is valid when the reproductive urge is considered on a purely individual level. It is not programmed into each and every human that they, personally, must breed. However, evolution has taken humanity in a direction in which survival -- and, with it, reproduction -- of the species as a whole is tantamount.

Fine, explain exactly what I was trying unsuccessfully to say in three simple and perfectly clear sentences, why don't you? ;)

Okay, but you should keep in mind that without your comment I'd probably be asked to explain the three sentences in more detail. ;)

Pet Peeve of the Random Time Increment

no subject

no subject

I just wandered in from metaquotes...

Re: I just wandered in from metaquotes...

Re: I just wandered in from metaquotes...