Why Have Children When Our Extinction is Inevitable? (evolution, heaven, behavior)

[Visvaldis]

We senseless ghouls must trudge onward. Ever forward, until falling and drowning in the pit of hollow existence.

[Phil75230]

CLARIFICATION.

I realized that my post looks at first glance like my acknowledging the validity of mike's comments. My apologies for not making my point more clear.

Originally Posted by mikebnllnb

Why not just off yourself right now? Your only going to die one day.

Stupid premise. Idiotic thread!

What I meant by mike "proving my point" is found at the bottom of my Post #27. So it's not like I'm conceding that my OP is idiotic. I only "praised" his reaction, for it supports my point about our survival instinct blinding us to deeper truths. Rather than thinking carefully and soberly about it (unlike others, particularly Stavemaster), his reaction is the result of petty personal distaste, as opposed to being the product of the rational thought process. This strongly supports my notion that the very survival instinct that gave us a higher than dumb luck chance of surving also blinds us to deeper truths about the nature of things. In other words, our survival instinct is often a bone in the throat of our ability to face the truth clearly.

As I said at the bottom of #27, nobody's gut/emotional reaction to the OP proves the truth or falsity of the claim, nor the truth of my opponents' claims.

Again, my apologies for not making the point more clearly.

[Reverend1111]

Originally Posted by mikebnllnb

Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
You must believe in the hereafter to attain it Huh? Yes

Why? Does it really matter since I'm the only one that should be concerned since this is my life I'm living?

What about those who's hereafter differ from those you believe in? Same as above

Do their hereafters exist?Absolutely. Even if they choose not to believe it.

Does belief make it so? Nope. Not at all.

The opposite? See above

Does the fact I don't believe in my own soul make it nonexistent? It exists. You just haven't been on the path where you have wanted to acknowledge it's presence.

Why does disbelief negate a well lived life?

Originally Posted by mikebnllnb

^Does this not contradict your answer to my first question above. And if you can't answer the why questions how can YOU justify saying that atheists don't move on after death.

Do you believe in one faith or that many faiths can exist? What makes an atheist any different than a Hindu in the eyes of a Christian?

I apologize. I answered the first question thinking that you directed that to me and my own thoughts.

The answer, for all, is no, a person does not have to believe in the afterlife. I never said athiests don't move on after death. All are children of God and the spirit world is for all. A belief or nonbelief doesn't make it any more or less real.

I believe there are many paths to God. We choose the one that is right for us and follow that path. If your an athiest, so be it as I have no qualms with any persons belief. Athiests are no different than any one else where God is concerned. Where religion is concerned, which is manmade and unnecessary, athiests are the outcasts, so to speak. My own beliefs promote that everyone has a right to believe in what they want. My beliefs don't judge nor do they discriminate. We live for the love of each other no matter waht their belief is.

[Melvin.George]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

In light of the fact that 99% of all species that lived are now extinct, why should we follow the dictates of our DNA and keep having them? Seems to me that all we're doing is postponing the inevitable, a futile battle when you consider that even if we do develop the technology to stop global warming (and even reverse it), and stop asteroids from hitting earth, the sun's slowly but surely brightening and growth over the eons will render the earth too hot for life (oceans boil away, in fact) - making it Venus' twin. For this reason, the earth's biosphere has another billion years of life at most. Even assuming we develop Star Trek type space craft that can warp us over to other stars where we can settle until that star too swells and bakes that planet (rise,wash, repeat) - the fact remains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says we will run out of usable heat/energy eventually. That certainly will make the entire universe hostile to life. All this is provable fact. No theories pulled out of my backside - facts beyond any scientific dispute.

If the Earth and the rest of the universe will eventually turn hostile to all life one day anyway, then that means our extinction is inevitable. We can't stop the Heat Death of the Universe any more than the dinosaurs could stop the asteroid. So what point is there in keeping the human race going at all, especially if we're delaying the inevitable.

The cold hard facts are that by the year 2050 this small planet will have nine billion live humans trying to inhabit it. The natural resources will be depleted and if there is enough food it will be barely enough. Our days are numbered alright but not because of some inter galaxy asteroid...we will become extinct because of our own selfishness.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

In light of the fact that 99% of all species that lived are now extinct, why should we follow the dictates of our DNA and keep having them? Seems to me that all we're doing is postponing the inevitable, a futile battle when you consider that even if we do develop the technology to stop global warming (and even reverse it), and stop asteroids from hitting earth, the sun's slowly but surely brightening and growth over the eons will render the earth too hot for life (oceans boil away, in fact) - making it Venus' twin. For this reason, the earth's biosphere has another billion years of life at most. Even assuming we develop Star Trek type space craft that can warp us over to other stars where we can settle until that star too swells and bakes that planet (rise,wash, repeat) - the fact remains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says we will run out of usable heat/energy eventually. That certainly will make the entire universe hostile to life. All this is provable fact. No theories pulled out of my backside - facts beyond any scientific dispute.

If the Earth and the rest of the universe will eventually turn hostile to all life one day anyway, then that means our extinction is inevitable. We can't stop the Heat Death of the Universe any more than the dinosaurs could stop the asteroid. So what point is there in keeping the human race going at all, especially if we're delaying the inevitable.

Maybe because we won't be around to care? Same reason I couldn't care less about preserving nature, because by the time it's to a point where it matters, I'll be long gone, so it doesn't matter how much I screw it up for anyone else.

[catman]

We are already "at a point where it matters"! We depend on the rest of nature. What you are saying is an ultimately self-serving excuse to be careless.

[TKramar]

I always serve myself.

I don't ask for anything, and I don't feel like I should provide for anyone else.

I tell no one what to do, and don't want anyone doing that to me.

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

This strongly supports my notion that the very survival instinct that gave us a higher than dumb luck chance of surving also blinds us to deeper truths about the nature of things. In other words, our survival instinct is often a bone in the throat of our ability to face the truth clearly.

I think you've provided an answer to your own question: instinct. Regardless of whether or not it "blinds us to deeper truths", there's the instinct to survive, not only for the preservation of one's own self, but for the continued reproduction of the species as a whole as well. Reproduction will continue on until extinction ultimately brings it all to a dead end one way or another. We can't do anything about any ultimate extinction, but just because we can't doesn't mean anyone is going stop reproducing any time soon. The real challenge humanity will eventually face is the need to either balance population growth at a manageable level, or find a way to successfully migrate (or become nomadic) and survive elsewhere in the cosmos.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Muchas Gracias for proving my point, mike! Were I a woman, i'd kiss you to smithereens.

On a more serious note, see post #13 for my response.



Not really. Just showing that the very survival instinct that gives organisms a better than dumb luck chance of survival might also be blinding us to deeper truths about the nature of things. In other words, we gain survival at the expense of seeing truth. Therefore, many of our “common sense” views of reality are more illusory than real. The many "ruffled feather" reactions and insults from so many posters (not you, but others) is very strong evidence of this (and I'd argue outright proof of, but that's for another time).

It doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and they wrong, of course. OTOH, neither do their reactions prove me wrong and they right. It's just that what I call "survival instinct bias" is just one thing we have to watch out for in our thinking. So, the ultimate question is "Which is more important, survival or knowing the truth?"

Doesn't seem very constructive.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by NightBazaar

I think you've provided an answer to your own question: instinct. Regardless of whether or not it "blinds us to deeper truths", there's the instinct to survive, not only for the preservation of one's own self, but for the continued reproduction of the species as a whole as well. Reproduction will continue on until extinction ultimately brings it all to a dead end one way or another. We can't do anything about any ultimate extinction, but just because we can't doesn't mean anyone is going stop reproducing any time soon. The real challenge humanity will eventually face is the need to either balance population growth at a manageable level, or find a way to successfully migrate (or become nomadic) and survive elsewhere in the cosmos.

Nothing to really disagree with here; although we can now wonder if conforming to white lies (and perhaps not so white) is a price worth paying for species survival. Ultimately it boils down to asking if truth is valuable for its own sake or only valuable to the extent that it helps us survive/continue? Additionally, we can ask what point there is to future existince - especially of those not yet born.

To stay on sight of the topic, if its true that the universe will devolve into essential nothingness (and take all life in this cosmos with it), then by continuing to procreate, we willfully ignore that truth (or blind to it at best). Which is more important, conforming to the truth no matter where it takes us, or the survival of our species?