Thread: Why do we struggle to survive?

Originally Posted by Xei

Balls.

First off, many populations of humans had not tasted chocolate until about a century ago. When they did, they already liked it. Natural selection was not involved at all.

Chocolate in excess is obviously not biologically beneficial. And for better examples, look at Big Macs. Many people would rather eat a Big Mac than anything else, yet in any quantity they are very detrimental to health.

Compare with vegetables, which are very good for us, yet many people don't like.

All these factors make it impossible for appreciation of taste to be based solely upon survival.

Another general example: heroin.

And nobody knows why we have evolved to appreciate melodies.

The idea that every single experience we enjoy we do so because of survival is absolutely untenable.

"All these factors make it impossible for appreciation of taste to be based solely upon survival."

I don't remember mentioning that appreciation of taste was key to survival. I do remember mentioning chocolate having sources of nutrients that help our body survive. The fact of the matter is that when you don't give your kid a lot of vegetables and rather pizza and other shit all the time, his taste buds just get used to it. Even a big mac has plenty of good nutrients in it, but not in excess. That is still a invalid arguement.

Heroin is a pain killer. Are you really arguing that Heroin has no correlation with survival. It has so many biological effects upon the body that create a satisfied feeling. It's mainly associated with tolerance of pain and anti-anxiety... Of course in the long turn it may have harmful effects, but on a fundamental immediate use, it is a strong reliever.
Therefore their are many physicological benefits from immediate use that show a correlation one way, or another.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Heroin is a pain killer. Are you really arguing that Heroin has no correlation with survival. It has so many biological effects upon the body that create a satisfied feeling. It's mainly associated with tolerance of pain and anti-anxiety... Of course in the long turn it may have harmful effects, but on a fundamental immediate use, it is a strong reliever.
Therefore their are many physicological benefits from immediate use that show a correlation one way, or another.

That is assuming that the initial use of heroin is inherently for said pain relief, which is just not true. Many people do it just to get high. They do it because they like the way it feels, even when they are not experiencing any pain. How is it that, when in an arguably pain-free state of mind, one can get caught up in something so dangerous for the sake of a temporary euphoria, and it be attributed to "survival," even when they know how detrimental it can be in the long run?

I wasn't "anxious" when I started smoking cigarettes. I was a carefree teenager, and I was curious. I had plenty of friends who didn't smoke, so it wasn't even for 'social' survival. I just wanted to see what it was like. Didn't like it at first, but I figured that, if so many people did it, maybe there was something I just wasn't understanding. I knew the risk before I even knew of the rewards (minimal as they are), and still, I picked up smoking.

How is that a habit that is attributed to survival?

(And please, combine your multi-posts, to different users, into one post.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is assuming that the initial use of heroin is inherently for said pain relief, which is just not true. Many people do it just to get high. They do it because they like the way it feels, even when they are not experiencing any pain. How is it that, when in an arguably pain-free state of mind, one can get caught up in something so dangerous for the sake of a temporary euphoria, and it be attributed to "survival," even when they know how detrimental it can be in the long run?

I wasn't "anxious" when I started smoking cigarettes. I was a carefree teenager, and I was curious. I had plenty of friends who didn't smoke, so it wasn't even for 'social' survival. I just wanted to see what it was like. Didn't like it at first, but I figured that, if so many people did it, maybe there was something I just wasn't understanding. I knew the risk before I even knew of the rewards (minimal as they are), and still, I picked up smoking.

How is that a habit that is attributed to survival?

(And please, combine your multi-posts, to different users, into one post.)

Read Kierkegaard.. your life lacked passion thereby you smoked cigarettes because obviously your life didn't satisfy you enough.. you needed something different to make it interesting. Without passion comes laziness, laziness in turn creates paralysis, paralysis in turn creates altered stats of mind, confusion. Etc... I appreciate the the questions though. I apologize for multi-posts, I'm trying to the format of dream views, and it has just been easier to post by quoting then elaborating.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Read Kierkegaard.. your life lacked passion thereby you smoked cigarettes because obviously your life didn't satisfy you enough.. you needed something different to make it interesting.

Pardon the expression, but I believe that's a crock. If you seek to experience something different from (or, more appropriately, "in addition to") what you are used to, that is because your life lacks passion, and you're turning to something else because you aren't content?

That doesn't hold up, in so many situations. I have handfuls of hobbies and things that I find interesting. I have plenty of different recreational activities that I'm into, that I don't always come into at the same time. Does the fact that I have so many areas of interest mean that I lack passion? If I experience something brand new, tomorrow, that I find intriguing, and I do it again, it is because my life 'lacks passion, and I'm not happy?"

So, to be happy, is to restrict yourself to a linear, complacent lifestyle, and to consider the wanton curiosity of different things as a sign of no passion for the things you already enjoy? Is that about right?

I may or may not read Kierkegaard. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Pardon the expression, but I believe that's a crock. If you seek to experience something different from (or, more appropriately, "in addition to") what you are used to, that is because your life lacks passion, and you're turning to something else because you aren't content?

That doesn't hold up, in so many situations. I have handfuls of hobbies and things that I find interesting. I have plenty of different recreational activities that I'm into, that I don't always come into at the same time. Does the fact that I have so many areas of interest mean that I lack passion? If I experience something brand new, tomorrow, that I find intriguing, and I do it again, it is because my life 'lacks passion, and I'm not happy?"

So, to be happy, is to restrict yourself to a linear, complacent lifestyle, and to consider the wanton curiosity of different things as a sign of no passion for the things you already enjoy? Is that about right?

I may or may not read Kierkegaard. We'll see.

I think you should, the post you quoted was a piss poor explanation of Kierkegaard's position.

My reason for choosing to continue to exist is constantly changing. My experiences and my mind shape the development of that reason. At the moment it goes a bit like this: I exist to be happy.

To the OP:
You have some interesting ideas but i think a bit more respect of others would help to facilitate more productive discussion. Your reasons for existence apply only to yourself.