The origins of life, WHY ARE WE HERE?

College Majors
1

<p>I thought that title would get a lot of attention. Now I’m a sophmore and I figured out what I want to do. I want to become a scientist and solve the mystery on the origins of life, and/or find alien life (not necessarily intelligent). For a while I’ve been struggling with lots of philosophical questions, like what is my purpose here. </p>

<p>I came up with the following:</p>

<p>Suicide is pointless unless we can ensure all living creatures are dead forever and will n ever come back. Because we don’t know how life formed, if we end all life, how do we know it won’t re-grow here or somewhere else? (I am basing this on the fact that we as the supreme animal must solve the problem of life - that there is more suffering then there is pleasure for the collective human consciousness so something must be done to end the suffering: Either through solving problems in life, or by destroying life itself. Since it is impossible for there to be less suffering in life, it must be destroyed.</p>

<p>So I want to start by majoring in biology, but what major would be best? Are there any organizations that beleive we would all be better off dead? I mean please try to look at this from a emotionless and objective point of view, please try to understand.</p>

<p>Also I may have an IQ anywhere from 90-120 is it likley with determination I would be able to get a Phd and run experiments and be smart enough to interpret results and contribute to better understanding the mystery of the origins of life?</p>

2

<p>Those are three VASTLY different fields there mate (In terms of what you’d actually be working on, they’re very much connected in the bigger picture).</p>

<p>First off: [url=<a href=“http://www.vhemt.org/]VHEMT[/url”>http://www.vhemt.org/]VHEMT[/url</a>] would sate your nihilistic philosophy up there (I’ve been using the word nihilistic far too much).</p>

<p>As for searching for the origin of life you’d likely be working in something along the lines of Ethnoarchaeology. While for life on other planets you’d be working with people like NASA and the types of sciences you’d be using would be as varied as the methods for the search for life.</p>

3

<p>It’s not nihilistic, its true and objective.</p>

4

<p>Why are we here? Because we’re here. Roll the bones.</p>

5

<p>Just to clarify, your goals are:</p>

<p>1) Discover the mystery of life
2) Find aliens
3) Attain a PhD to run experiments with an agenda of destroying all life</p>

<p>Right… you sound like a business major to me.</p>

6

<p>I saw the thread title, and got VERY excited. I’m going to directly attack your argument:</p>

<p>Your question is what “what is the purpose of life”. You start off by talking about suicide, which is not relevant to the question. You also make some pretty big assumptions that 1. We are supposed to or must solve the problem of life, 2. That there is more suffering with more pleasure, 3. That there is suffering or pleasure at all, 4. That it is impossible for there to be less suffering in life. These are baseless assumptions which you must first prove if you are going to use them as premises. Especially as you are using them with a priori knowledge. </p>

<p>I would be happy to continue this :)</p>

7

<p>There IS more suffering in life for the entire human collective consciosness then there is pleasure. Life itself is pain. Requiring nurishment requires a need that must be satisfied, the wants and needs only go away when they are satisfied. Being born has to hurt like hell. Theres so much starvation in the world, so much pain. </p>

<p>Like look at it from this perspective and answer me honestly on this. Before you are born God gives you a choice. You can either take a gamble and risk being born into pain and suffering for your entire life, (including possible horrors experienced during WW2 like being disected alive) or choose to never be born and to simply go out of existence in a state of infinite sleep. Which would you choose?</p>

<p>If you choose the latter, then my point is made.</p>

<p>Also I did explain the relationship between suicide and the origins of life, its relevent because we can choose to end life, and possibly (POSSIBLY) prevent life from starting again by mass suicide. (and not just of humans but all life)</p>

<p>As the dominant creatures of the life as we know it I think its our responsibility to look out for the welfare of all life, and to act in their best interest (which I beleive is the greatest good for the greatest number).</p>

8

<p>You can’t repeat yourself to make your argument. You have to explain why. Prove that there is more suffering than pleasure. You use God in your argument, but fail to prove that God exists. You assume that a person has a choice to be born, as well? Please explain that. Choosing to end life does not explain life itself. You have not shown a relationship between the two (at least the “origin” of life). </p>

<p>:)</p>

9

<p>It was a hypothetical question. Given my hypothetical question (assuming it is all true), how would you answer it?</p>

<p>And I never said suicide explains the purpose of life. Simply that it can be a means to solve lifes problems (be it life itself, or some smaller obstacle). </p>

<p>And again the relationship between suicide and my: if there is more suffering then pain for most people, then by following the utotalitarianism philosophy then suicide is the best choice. So by learning how life started, we could perhaps figure out how to prevent life from starting again after a mass suicide of all life. I clearly said this already and I beleive I have shown the relationship.</p>

<p>But I’m not interested in making petty little arguments about the relationship between suicide and the origins of life, I am struggling with issues like the purpose of life, its origins, and whether suicide for everyone would make us better off.</p>

10

<p>That is if the purpose of life is stricly for pleasure, and if theres more pain then suffering, then its logical to assume that life would be better off dead.</p>

11

<p>I would agree (assuming your conclusion wasn’t subjective as you describe it), but you have to prove your premises, which you haven’t done.</p>

<p>There are still “ifs” in your premises which you haven’t explained, such as your argument that there is more suffering than pain for most people. I can just say “there isn’t”, and your entire argument falls. </p>

<p>If you’re at all seriously interested in the field of philosophy, then all questions and arguments matter, including the “petty little” ones.</p>

12

<p>You are kidding me? Of course I cannot prove theres more suffering then pleasure in the world, how the hell can anyone? Its just not possible. </p>

<p>My conclusion you say is subjective, how so? I think its not only perfectly logical but the only logical objective conclusion one can arrive at after the God “scenerio” (assuming of course you answer to not be born). </p>

<p>I am not interested in being a philosopher, if things are thought into too much the original question becomes abscure, and simmingly unrelated to the “petty” arguments. I want to be a medical scientist, a biological one, to actually understand the origins of life, and through our understanding develop philosophies that agree with the scientific fact.</p>

<p>Things like does God exist, can probably never be answered. But things like how does life form, can eventually be understood. I personally think there are UFO’s out there. I think that theres “ingredients” to make life, and when they combine in a certain way you have living organisms. There are probably billions of intelligent life forms throughout the galaxy!</p>

<p>And I’m on a quest to prove it!</p>

13

<p>Uh huh. I still have no idea what your philosophical ranting has to do with the rest of your thought stream there.</p>

<p>Anyway medical biology isn’t really the field you should be looking into to do this sort of thing. Medicine is to Biology what Mechanical Engineering is to Physics (A bit of a strained analogy but a valid one nonetheless).** Someone looking to understand the origins of life would be mostly doing research (And not medical research) into things like fossils (both living and otherwise) and the nature and requisites for abiogenesis.**</p>

<p>You’ll want to go into something where you’ll be studying the chemistry of life’s formation on earth so you can contribute to the search for planets suitable to life. There isn’t really a field called “Determining how life formed on earth and applying those properties to the search for extraterrestrial life” but that might be the name of your thesis. Perhaps Biochemistry if you’re really determined to combine these questions.</p>

<p>A final cautionary note: Going into science proclaiming that you will answer some great question of the ages is slightly childish and arrogant. It is not impossible for a single man of science to make enormous changes to the current paradigm of their field but it is not to be expected. Always remember that you are standing on the shoulders of giants and the most you can ever hope to offer is a place for your successors to stand as well.</p>

14

<p>My goal is to understand the mystery of life at a level more closer to the truth then we understand today. I know I can’t solve the mystery. Though I have considered the possibility of becoming a billionare, and making hundreds of thousands of genuis’ join me on my quest to search for alien life!</p>

15

<p>“You are kidding me? Of course I cannot prove theres more suffering then pleasure in the world, how the hell can anyone? Its just not possible.”</p>

<p>Then why do you say that there’s more suffering than pleasure? Because I seem to think otherwise. I cannot prove it, so I’m not even going to try to state it as a fact like you did. I’m going to keep it as a mere opinion.</p>

<p>But fine, I’ll grant you your assumption that there’s more suffering than pleasure. But that does not mean mass suicide is the option, even if the purpose of life is to attain more pleasure than pain. The way you see it, since humanity is on the negative side of the scale, why not end life to push us back to zero? That, I think, is a narrow view. You must take future potential pleasure into consideration. If you end all life now, sure, we’ll benefit from having a positive increase to zero. But how sure are you that by mass suicide we will not lose out on some future happiness, some ‘opportunity cost’ that will bring us to the positive side? Of course, the future may hold worst pains for us. Because we cannot attain such knowledge, the question must remain inconclusive. So granted your assumption, mass suicide is still not a certain answer.</p>

16

<p>But life is too dangerous you fool! Did you read my hypothetical about choosing to be born above?</p>

<p>I know there is more suffering then there is pain in the world. Thats a fact. Can I prove it? No, thats ridiculous. Can you prove what the equivalent happiness is of being slapped in the face? Of course not, they are apples and oranges, but you know if you had sex with that person it would cancel out the slap, the pleasure far exceeds the pain. Hell some people enjoy slapping eachother just before having sex. (again I’m not judging you thats just how it is for me)</p>

17

<p>Also although there would be the opportunity cost, the fact that its possible for anyone to be disected alive is so painful that the possible “goodness” we could receive in the future no matter how good could not possibly justify the risk of such pain. Opportunity cost is irrelavent when dealing with excruciating, indescribable pain.</p>

<p>I’ve experienced pain man, if you were in my shoes you would be saying the exact same things I am right now. I have experienced both extreme happy times, and extreme bad, and I think because I’ve had more of the extreme bad I’m more knowledgable of pain, and how it is to experience it firsthand.</p>

18

<p>Well you’re a philosopher. Maybe apply at Borders or Starbucks??</p>

19

<p>Whats your IQ 10?</p>

20

<p>“But life is too dangerous you fool! Did you read my hypothetical about choosing to be born above?”</p>

<p>Please learn some manners if you’d like to be treated respectfully.</p>

<p>Yes I did read it and I don’t think it pertains to what I have to say.</p>

<p>“I know there is more suffering then there is pain in the world. Thats a fact. Can I prove it? No, thats ridiculous. Can you prove what the equivalent happiness is of being slapped in the face? Of course not…”</p>

<p>I believe that standing behind you right now is Napoleon’s spirit. That’s a fact. Can I prove it? No, that’s ridiculous. Can you prove that the spirit is not there? Of course not…</p>

<p>“Also although there would be the opportunity cost, the fact that its possible for anyone to be disected alive is so painful that the possible “goodness” we could receive in the future no matter how good could not possibly justify the risk of such pain. Opportunity cost is irrelavent when dealing with excruciating, indescribable pain.”</p>

<p>Suppose you can take a gamble. There’s a 0.0000000000000001% chance that you lose the bet and lose all your wealth. If you win, you earn a lifetime worth of wages. You can only either win or lose the bet. Would you take the gamble? Most rational people would. I’m thinking that the chances of you getting dissected alive is around that much too (and may be reduced in the future since, like I said, the future may be more pleasant). For the same reason, most rational people wouldn’t choose mass suicide too. In fact, we don’t need such extreme cases to see my point here. Just take a look at rational people and why they choose to have babies. There’s a risk that their children will suffer much pain throughout their lives, but the parents (at least the ones in developed countries) know well that their children’s lives will be filled with more happiness than pain. Would you want a baby if you know he’ll grow up to live in a prison and get tortured every day of his life?</p>

<p>“I’ve experienced pain man, if you were in my shoes you would be saying the exact same things I am right now.”</p>

<p>Wait a second. I thought you were talking about humanity collectively, not just your personal experiences. Because if that’s the case, 1) your so-called “fact” becomes weaker and 2) I have no reason to argue with you.</p>

<p>There’s so much more in your arguments that I can refute. But I don’t have the time. Indeed, if you go on being so rude and giving such irrelevant arguments, I don’t think I want to continue arguing anymore.</p>