Isn't propagation itself enough of an explanation of the purpose of something's functions? In the end don't all adaptations, things that make organisms more survivable or versatile or intelligent or so on, simply provide better means of ensuring continued reproduction? In many cases there are ones that lead away from that end, but with time only the adaptations that move towards reproduction survive.

No, because I could just ask, "Why do we need to survive"?

A virus that inhibits itself from further transmission and reproduction by damaging its host too seriously is a failure and it dies out as soon as its means of reproduction do. A virus does not exist to harm anyone, a virus exists to propagate itself. So to say that one that one is "better" simply because it's more lethal is strange, because it's the exact opposite.

a good point, though it speaks nothing of a virus's evolutionary purpose (beyond the propagation of itself)

i think he was asking more in terms of the grand scheme--which, i don't believe there is one
but yeah, that's great that you picked up on that at least

1. Since evolution is a continuous process, with life forms evolving and adapting, with the most versatile surviving and eventually coming out on top, then what evolutionary purpose does a virus serve?

Efilism 101: Evolution is imperfect.

Not everything needs to have what you'd call an "evolutionary purpose", as though everything that exists is justified by its nature. There are some things that are completely unjustified by their nature, and viruses are indeed one of them. You could ask the same of a wide variety of things.

Why do we breathe out of the same hole that we shove food/liquid in?

If the purpose of pain is to kick ourselves into gear in crisis situations, why can't we tell our bodies, "Okay, I get it, I need to go to the hospital, stop hurting me now?"

Why do we have to be given incentives to do things in the first place?

All of these things are what you might call "unintelligent design", and, truthfully, viruses are a big part of it, too. There's no rhyme or reason for it--it's simply just another one of nature's many flaws. Just because evolution's purpose is to allow our species to survive in our environment doesn't mean that it's very good at it.

2. Survival instinct.

Can anybody here, give any sort of guess as to where it came from? Again, if we're going with the rule set of evolution, it's a trial and error process over a very long stretch of time. It's theorized that we have such a fear of things like spiders because it was an evolutionary development because traditionally, a fair number of spiders can be deadly.

But, from day one, if there was no survival instinct, there wouldn't be much in the way of complex celluar life on the planet at all. But, logically speaking anyway, from day one, how could you possibly have any sort of life form with a pre-established need to survive?

Whether it be eating, duplicating, or anything else?

Ehhh, I don't find these type of questions really worth asking, to be honest. I'm not terribly concerned about the "where" or the "how", and neither should you. What should really strike you as more important is the "why", and the "why" happens to be a lot easier. Because if we didn't have the survival instinct, we wouldn't care to survive. Of course.

But no, I don't think anyone really knows where that came from. I don't think we should really waste our time with such questions, though. There's nothing we could really glean from such information anyway.

That's very broad.

I would say Super Metroid, but given the general theme of the responses, I guess I'd say Wind Waker.

Quote from: Verbatim on June 23, 2015, 11:12:16 PM

that's the gayest thing i've ever heard/seen

It is the life you live after all.

wow i just got destroyed

i don't know if i'll recover from that one

Quote from: Verbatim on June 23, 2015, 11:00:00 PM

i can't, really

Cause dairy right?

Just try it mang q.q

i know what it tastes like

i haven't always been a vegan, genius

Why the fuck are they dragging him?
Pick him up and get rid of the blood trail for christ sake.

it's apparently fake anyway lol

Jim
Deci
Das (LOL i have no idea why)
Me
Rocketman
Aria
Jive
Sandtrap (again, dunno why)
Cindy

all right that's enough

You think that many people will be anti-natalists within two generations?

"hundred or so"

Interesting NPCs

lol oh my god

Duh. I don't give much of a fuck about the planet outside the ways it can benefit us as a species.

But I'm stuck having to guess the intention behind a shit question, so sue me.

fair enough, but i mean, what struck me about the things you cited the most is that none of them are particularly groundbreaking in terms of just how much of life on earth it actually helped

you can talk about how great animal preservation is, but in my opinion, intent matters
and the truth is, none of us actually care at all about animals--it's just that they benefit us

which is more an example of our selfishness than it is not

so it was just the pretense of, "humans don't suck! we help animals! we're selfless" that left a bad taste in my mouth
and maybe that's not even what you were trying to get at--that was just how i read into it

the first thing that came to mind for me was the vaccination thing
because that was huge, and they saved not only millions, but basically every generation since then

so i was just wondering about your priorities, i guess

Not really; he asks how we benefited the planet. Your list is just a list of the benefits we have created for ourselves.

well, we can't benefit the planet, as it's an inanimate object
it would be like saying we can benefit a rock

Tell me something, what have human beings done that actually benefit this planet and other life aside from just benefiting itself?

Practically everything "good" we could ever do involves cleaning up a mess we've made, which makes finding benefits a little bit difficult.

Since Meta's list was crap, I thought I'd make my own:

We vaccinated smallpox and polio.
We built cars, airplanes, and ships to transport goods across the world (we may not always use them for good, but...).
We have very successfully perpetuated the meme of recycling.
We have machines that can build other machines that can build other machines, effectively obsolescing human labor.
We gave the public complete access to the Internet--the most valuable medium we have to exercise our freedom of expression.
This movement exists.

And I'm sure there's a couple others I'm forgetting.

Certain animals used in agriculture have significantly better qualities of life and higher populations due to farming.

How do you measure the life quality of livestock?

And I'm not sure what population has to do with anything. It's certainly not a benefit.

We designated 120 million acres as "critical habitat" thus protecting a significant amount of land in the northern Alaskan coastal waters, thus helping polar bears avoid becoming technically endangered.

And did we do that for the polar bears, or did we do that for us? Most of the time, these measures taken to "save" endangered species isn't because we care at all about the well-being of these animals, but because without them, it would be a hefty blow to us in the grand scheme.

In 2010, UNESCO certified Hawaii’s Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as a World Heritage Site.

*golf clap*?

191 nations agreed to set aside 17 percent of the planet's land surface and 10 percent of the ocean as protected biodiversity sites during the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity summit.

Refer to the point I made above with the polar bears.

We're researching numerous ways to help induce biodegradability in plastic, and specifically the city of Agra banned polythene bags from shops, using the bags instead in material to help pave roads.

oh christ

how long did it take you to grasp at this straw

The Maldives set aside 22,400,000 acres as sanctuary for sharks in the Indian Ocean and is setting a precedent in the region with a move to ban trade in shark fins.

Refer to the point I made above with the polar bears.

0/10
deci is right
humans are garbage
gg no re

If no one is normal can they really be abnormal?

relative to the social concept of "normalcy"?

yes