Survival

Post Reply New Topic

I was talking to a friend who told me that he was fed up with life at 19. He's 43 now. But he said that it is strange this need for life to continue. If you asked him what date he would like to die on, he couldn't give you one.

It's a curious thing this need to survive. It is an instinct that all animals have and an instinct to pass on our genes to the next generation to keep our line going. But why? What does it matter if species continue on or not? What is this urge, this need inside to keep living?

Because any genetic influence that causes a creature to live to reproductive maturity and to reproduce results in more off-spring compared to an absence of such. So when any influence in this direction arises it propogates readily and has a propensity to outcompete alternative genome elements that do not entail such influences.

People change. The wisdom of a nineteen year old should look different from the perspective of someone 43. If it does not he is in trouble.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Och, I've not made myself clear again. We were having this conversation when he was 42 and he is still fed up with life. So time hasn't changed him that much. He has decided not to have children, so I'm not sure this thing about a genetic need to reproduce is relevant. We both don't want children, and we are both a bit depressed at the moment, but still hold out that life will improve.

You're alive and probably not hungry or diseased. Not that many people are that lucky.

I am not sure why you think anyone claimed that a genetic need to reproduce was responsible for your friend's continued survival.

Life in general merely presents a large spectrum of opportunities to any living being. No doubt some have more than others but even the mere physical existence is a biological accomplishment of great gifts to be taken advantage of and with a good working body and minimum survival supplies of food and habitation merely being alive is a fascinating experience and a great gift. To disdain these things, whatever the limitations is, to me an act of supreme insensitivity, ignorance and stupidity.

Be we great or small, famous or obscure, we are all the offspring of survivors.

ruveyn

^- Wouldn't that be an oxymoron in itself? If they "survived" (to reproduce), wouldn't that imply that we are their offspring in some way? <.<

Not quite, as most of our ancestors haven't survived. Most have died. Whether we have 400 generations of ancestors or 350 million generations of ancestors. The ones that have currently survived are bound to succumb to death as well.

You missed the point completely.

No, I comprehended the point about the evolutionary notion of survival through offspring, that they survived long enough to reproduce and so forth. Or is that also not the point? As for the "great or small, famous or obscure", it only goes further to reinforce this interpretation, that the ones who have reproduced are those who have "survived".

However, my view of the word "survive" means to continue living, not via the children made from ones genetic material, but in ones own body. Survival implies overcoming a life threatening event and remaining alive. As such, if the event of death, whether by violence, disease, cellular degeneration/"aging", is considered the life threatening "event", then there are very few who have survived to this day in terms of either chronology, whether evolutionary or by written documentation and temporal accounting. So, by my definition of "survive", very few have survived. But in the sense of evolutionary "survival" it is only the "survivors" who live long enough to produce progeny.

Also, in terms of my definition of "survival" both the OP and their friend have "survived". In terms of evolutionism, though they have had plenty of time to "survive" they have not yet "survived". In terms of what ruveyn said, this may not be the exact case of what he means, but I think it is along similar lines as Darwin. If everyone is the offspring of survivors, then only those who have had offspring have survived. But if you have not had offspring, then you have not survived.

So, have I actually missed the point by not regurgitating my understanding in my first reply? Is it that if I post something contradictory or askew in reply that it appears that I don't "get the point"? If I don't agree with something, therefore I don't understand it? If I don't accept something, thus I don't comprehend it? If I contradict something, then I am ignorant of it? But lets pretend that I still have missed the point Sand, would you please elucidate it for me so I can understand ruveyn's post correctly?

It's not a matter of actually surviving through offspring, merely that if your offspring carry on the same or similar genetic traits that means they are a successful design. Anyone still existing fits the current ecological conditions reasonably well. Of course, ecology marches on and there will be occurring problems.

I think it's part of the living condition to fight death. It's hard-wired into the brain. For several reasons, I consider that my life effectively ended at 18 (choices I made that really set an unhappy path for my life). I'm now past 40 and in spite of efforts to make things better, I've changed very little. Still, life isn't too bad, so it's not like I really wish I was dead. Life stays interesting enough to not want to just chuck it away.