2007/6/7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 7, 3:54 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Evolution has not had a chance to take into account modern reproductive
> > technologies, so we can easily defeat the goal "reproduce", and see the goal
> > "feed" as only a means to the higher level goal "survive". However, *that*
> > goal is very difficult to shake off. We take survival as somehow profoundly
> > and self-evidently important, which it is, but only because we've been
> > programmed that way (ancestors that weren't would not have been ancestors).
> > Sometimes people become depressed and no longer wish to survive, but that's
> > an example of neurological malfunction. Sometimes people "rationally" give
> > up their own survival for the greater good, but that's just an example of
> > interpreting the goal so that it has greater scope, not overthrowing it.
> > --
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> Evolution doesn't care about the survival of individual organisms
> directly, the actual goal of evolution is only to maximize
> reproductive fitness.
> If you want to eat a peice of chocolate cake, evolution explains why
> you like the taste, but your goals are not evolutions goals. You
> (Stathis) want to the cake because it tastes nice - *your* goal is to
> experience the nice taste. Evolution's goal (maximize reproductive
> fitness) is quite different. Our (human) goals are not evolution's
I have to disagree, if human goals were not tied to evolution goals
then human should not have proliferated.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at