[Christian +]

Originally posted by Rat

quote

Quote:

Where, exactly did those come from? (what book, I mean).

** The Prophet** by Khalil Gebran
William Heinemann distibuted by ** Pan Books**
First piblished 1926 and reset 1964 by William Heinemann Ltd Printed in Great Britain.

[edraket]

Strata.

quote:

---

just a reply to edrakets responce... the general concensus is that our most primal instinct is to carry on our genes, not the survival of the species. What we want is basically to shag and have kids so our families specific genepool doesn't die out.
Which is again, selfish =)

---

That sounds like we would have a whole lot of inbreeding.
I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am just sure that I am missing something here.

[Gimbal8]

edraket: yes you are missing something. Inbreeding doesn't help carry on our genes. In fact, lack of genetic diversity can cause the demise of a species, let alone just ones genes. Inbreeding pairs produce genetically inferior offspring which are less likely to mate and therefor less likely to carry on ones genes.

This is a big problem with species that have gone into decline, like the bald eagle. Its population has bounced back high enough now that they took it off the endangered species list, but since the population had to grow from a limited gene pool there isn't enough genetic diversity to ensure predaptation to changes in the environment or other such conditions.

Ugh...why am I talking about this. I have work to do. I need to stay away from random musings. Too distracting.

[edraket]

Exactly.
Well thats what I thought. Thats why we have to reproduce with the opposite genders. So we can mix our genes. etc etc...
It's just not clear to me how the survival of our species does not automatically mean the same thing as carrying on our genepool.

Hmm..actually..Maybe we should just drop it. This is just one of those things where we are probably all thinking the same thing but not communicating right.
Back to work then..

[strata]

well it works something like: We all want to carry on our specific chain of genes in the long run of things. Obviously nature has taught itself that inbreeding is a bad thing, but having our genes be the ONLY genes does not appear to be the main target... the main target appears to be that we only want to have our genes be part of the cake. Of course if inbreeding didn't exist (I mean the actual event of inbreeding) then I have no doubt that we'd all bang our daughters to keep our genes pure.

So yah, everybody wants to carry their own specific genes forward, but obviously we're not successful.

hehe I agree, and since none of us are arguementing from a completely educated standpoint we're probably just teaching each other jibberish anyways ;D

[edraket]

Ok..back to art then. Not that I know much about that.
Maybe I should go back to the 3d forums... you know the ones with the grey untextured cartoony robots rendered with some fancy renderer.

[Gimbal8]

Saying that we desire to carry on our genes is a bit of a misnomer. Not even inbreeding keeps genes pure. Only cloning can attempt to do that, but then there are problems with chromosome length and therefor lifespan.

Anyway, I think what we all mean when we say 'to carry on ones genes' is to carry on part of our genes, because not every aspect of ones DNA is duplicated in our offspring, there is a mix of the parents DNA (and lets not get into the obligatory gene mutation etc). To carry on our genes successfully requires a form of mutualism. Altruicial ...--- Damnit... nevermind. I'm going to do some work and try not to get fired.

I am Jack's failing willpower.

[strata]

ok, it can be explained by this arguement: Why do men like thing women with nice hips, breasts, complexion etc? It gives us unconcious signs that this is a healthy female. What do healthy females do? They give birth to our children. Why do we want healthy females? Because healthy females give better children then unhealthy ones. Why do we want better children? Because the chance of good and healthy children carrying on our genecode is greater then that of retarded kids.

Tadaaa! =)

[ken]

i think the zen way of answering that problem is that it doesn't really matter what your intentions are, it's the good deed that counts.

i mean, is a man who unselfishly does good deeds all his life any better than one who does the same, but selfishly?

-Ken

[Chris]

Doesn't this all go to the ultimate question of "What is the meaning of life?"

I mean is it to do good deeds for others or to to do good deeds for one self's satisfaction.

I think it is the selfish in part. What is the meaning of life? I think it is to live on forever. Either that be in genes, memory, or history books. Look at all of these scientists and philosophical people throughout our history.

Do you really think they made the first airplane to help us win wars or to transport cargo? I don't. I think they made it to be known that THEY made the first airplane. Not the Anderson brothers, but the Wright brothers.

They knew they were making history for their family, friends and themselves. In turn it benifited us.

Even Jesus was selfish. He didn't heal people by touch just to do it as a good deed. He did it to make people believe in his cause and his way of life.

So in essence, the meaning of life, is to live.

[Jyashuwa]

I think we have all forgotten the ultimate words of wisdom gained from the 80's

"Don't worry, be happy"

[Giant Hamster]

I'm not going to bother reading all the replies...but here's what I say:

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH BEING SELFISH? Selfishness is actually a great thing. Why? If you were never selfish, you'd never own anything, you'd never buy stuff for people, and you'd always be "Used" by people. According to your friend here: if everything is selfish, and no one did any selfish acts...then nothing would get done...and everyone would die.

[Giant Hamster]

Another:

"blah blah My father is happy when I smile cause it makes him feel good about himself, etc, etc."

Wether you walked to the store or you drove to the store you still got there...So what's the fucking problem?

[-- Transcendent --]

Actually, after giving this whole topic some thought, I've actually come up with a contrary theory - that all selfish acts are in fact motivated, and rooted in selflessness.

Example : A man refuses to give money to a starving beggar.
According to me : He wants to feel guilty about not donating the money, as he observes that feeling good about donating money is selfish in itself. He cares about the starving beggar, but weighing the selfishness of both acts, he chooses the more selfless one..

Example : A father abandons his only son, even though he's financially capable of supporting him.
According to me : The father in fact, does not want to thrive on the fact that he's leeching happiness from his only son. Though he realizes the potential ramifications of his move, (attack from the media and law), he acknowledges that such "material" discomforts, imprisonment and fines, weigh little in contrast to his selfless act.

[travis travis]

there's the prophet online:
http://www.columbia.edu/~gm84/gibtable.html


I've always liked the part on children:

On Children
And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children."

And he said:

Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.

Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;

For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.


one of my favorite writers, without a doubt

[edraket]

Is he serious?