Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hi, > > 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 >> goals. >> >> Cheers. > > I have to disagree, if human goals were not tied to evolution goals > then human should not have proliferated. > > Quentin
"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. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
