Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 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.
"Tied to" is pretty loose. Most individuals goals are "tied to" evolution (I
wouldn't say that evolution has goals except in a metaphorical sense), but it
may be a long and tangled thread. I like to eat sweets because sugar is a high
energy food and so a taste for sugar was favored by natural selection.
But my fitness and the fitness of the human species are not the same thing. I
have type II diabetes and so a taste for sugar is bad for me and my survival.
But natural selection cares nothing for that; I've already sired as many
children as I ever will.
The individual goal of living forever is at odds with evolutionary fitness - if
you're not going to have any more children you're just a waste of resources as
far as natural selection is concerned.
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