Evolutionists: Tell Me about Love (nh)

[Johnny Kilroy]

YOU were the one that asked are animals different from humans. I showed you a variance among similar species. mike tyson us not a species. mclovin is not a species. you gon fukk around and hurt yourself

...If they are different in terms of what this thread is about: love.

Yall boys gotta be playin coy.

 

[Reverend Jesse Jackson]

OP I understand what you were trying, but a better question would be "What is right and wrong?"

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Isn't it obvious what the benefit of love would have in terms of survival? Are you not an evolutionist? If not, it explains why you have so many questions and so little answers.

 

[NZA]

so is this romantic love or family love?

 

[Long Live The Kane]

Isn't it obvious what the benefit of love would have in terms of survival? Are you not an evolutionist? If not, it explains why you have so many questions and so little answers.

That's what i'm saying...now obviously the OP is trolling...but even then, the basis of his is so flimsy the entire thread has me like .... however the fukk you want to define love, it's benefits from an evolutionary standpoint (even if you don't even believe in evolution and approach it as just an exercise in thought) seem pretty fukking obvious...permanent or semi-permanent pair bonding between mates whose end result is the male mate sticking around during the pregnancy and after the birth of their offspring has clear evolutionary advantages...the widespread existence of promiscuity in people should make it clear that "love" doesn't completely replace and override a more base desire to procreate and just spread your seed whereever whenever you can (like other animals)...so to me it seems to be more of a supplemental trait that evolved because of the type social creatures we....there are some animals that have long term pair bonds too

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Isn't it obvious what the benefit of love would have in terms of survival? Are you not an evolutionist? If not, it explains why you have so many questions and so little answers.

I'm not really an evolutionist. Certain parts of it make sense to me but I still have some unanswered questions pertaining to it. I'm no expert like you. I have many questions with little answers but apparently you have many answers but drop little knowledge.

I wouldn't be asking if I knew. If it's so obvious just explain it.

OP I understand what you were trying, but a better question would be "What is right and wrong?"

You're right. It does extend to right and wrong. I think it's an issue of morality. There are benefits of love but what keeps me from slashing my neighbor's throat and taking his farm? That would be beneficial to my survival. And it's not like that doesn't really happen. I mean, drug dealers kill each other territory, militaries kill over territory. So what is it that stops us from committing cold blooded murder every day? Especially during harsh economic times. Just to be nice? shyt I'm starving, you gots ta go. Or I'm gonna at least snatch your wallet. But it's "wrong" to steal. Animals steal from each other.

@Sensitive Blake Griffin isn't it obvious what the benefit of stealing would have in terms of survival?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

I'm not really an evolutionist. Certain parts of it make sense to me but I still have some unanswered questions pertaining to it. I'm no expert like you. I have many questions with little answers but apparently you have many answers but drop little knowledge.

I wouldn't be asking if I knew. If it's so obvious just explain it.

Without love and bonding there would be no reason for parents to raise their children, greatly diminishing their chances for survival since human babies are essentially defenseless and weak creatures. Even with these chemical reactions going on in the brain causing the feelings of love, some parents STILL abandon their children. Consequently, Love is also what builds a family, a community. We can see what people without Love are like. Sociopaths, serial killers. Think about the survival time of a serial killer in the wild. He has no friends, no one to help him and is constantly looking for battle/combat just to feel alive.

The only answer there can be in regards to your question and evolution is that it increases survival. It's really not anymore complex than that.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Without love and bonding there would be no reason for parents to raise their children, greatly diminishing their chances for survival since human babies are essentially defenseless and weak creatures. Even with these chemical reactions going on in the brain causing the feelings of love, some parents STILL abandon their children. Consequently, Love is also what builds a family, a community. We can see what people without Love are like. Sociopaths, serial killers. Think about the survival time of a serial killer in the wild. He has no friends, no one to help him and is constantly looking for battle/combat just to feel alive.

The only answer there can be in regards to your question and evolution is that it increases survival. It's really not anymore complex than that.

So do you think morals increase survival? If so, do you think other animals have codes of ethics as well?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

So do you think morals increase survival?

Indeed they do. In terms of living within a group and bonding with other individuals.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Indeed they do. In terms of living within a group and bonding with other individuals.

So are we inherently good because of a natural need for survival? I can see how stealing could be beneficial to survival as well.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

So are we inherently good because of a natural need for survival? I can see how stealing could be beneficial to survival as well.

Morals are subjective I think baby humans are just a sponge and absorb whatever they see or are taught in their environment.

 

[thevarangian]

I see people in TLR everyday saying they don't want kids. So what does evolution say about these individuals?

Evolution isn't some tangible thing. It's a concept used to explain a process. It doesn't "say" anything. In any concept or process there are going to be exceptions. Humans evolved to have higher intelligence, the ability to identify and decide when having children is a good idea or to decide not to have children is a part of that higher intelligence. In the long run, the people who continue to have children will survive and the people who decide not to will not. Evolution in action.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Morals are subjective I think baby humans are just a sponge and absorb whatever they see or are taught in their environment.

So where do they derive from and why? If evolution is pushing forward it seems it would do so in the most efficient manner possible, which leads me to believe the way we act would be beneficial towards our advancement. For example, most of us are heterosexual if for no other reason it's deeply embedded in our subconscious that we must procreate. Or the fact that we eat and sleep because these things are essential to survival. So we're not just doing things, we're doing things to survive.

So it seems our morals, or the taking of time to set up laws would all be aimed at our survival. Even religion, which gives people hope, would thus be a natural stage in evolution. Sick people clinging to God may give them the strength and hope to survive even if no supernatural force is.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Evolution isn't some tangible thing. It's a concept used to explain a process. It doesn't "say" anything. In any concept or process there are going to be exceptions. Humans evolved to have higher intelligence, the ability to identify and decide when having children is a good idea or to decide not to have children is a part of that higher intelligence. In the long run, the people who continue to have children will survive and the people who decide not to will not. Evolution in action.

Hmmm I'm not so sure of your example. I understand evolution to be about change in characteristics over generations. I wouldn't call one person having kids and another not "evolution in action".

 

[thevarangian]

Hmmm I'm not so sure of your example. I understand evolution to be about change in characteristics over generations. I wouldn't call one person having kids and another not "evolution in action".

I would say it absolutely is though. The people who never have children never pass their genes to another generation. The people who do, obviously will. It's a more modern approach to the concept I feel.