Death

So what's new in this thread? Rob having too much beer, JLocke feeling every word is out to get him, and Textbook making strange generalizations? 

Textbook wrote: JLocke: I'm going to start a thread about pollution, but you're not allowed to mention air.

I'm just teasing you there ;)

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Textbook wrote: Well you know, there's always that "choice" in movies where the hero has to pick between his kid and his wife. I've never really gotten that, the child is obviously the correct choice. Children are the future. I think it could be called a "logical" or "rational" choice ... but somehow I don't like the word "correct" in this situation, since at least to a certain degree it applies some kind of approval of the situation. I think that there may be situations where no "correct" choice can be made. The correct thing to do would be to not make a choice at all, but it is not available.

Let's be realistic. If you're a female, of course you'll choose the child. Childbearing is a large risk for you as well as a monumental investment, while finding a willing mate is rarely a trying task. For a man, however, much of the risk is in wooing a mate. Finding a new mate could prove deadly, and childrearing is a major drag on that task. You'd have one guaranteed offspring, but when the mate could replace it threefold, the odds-on favourite is the full-grown one. Therefore, as a male, you'd probably be more inclined to save the mate.

If you would make any other decision, nature is already well on its way to weeding you out.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Darwinism is not a guide for morality.

You said "logical" or "rational", so I gave you the rational response.

Textbook wrote: The world isn't an emotional process, it's a physical one. However they both need the other because physical prosperity without emotional joy is worthless. You don't want your child merely to survive, but also to be happy. The two priorities need to go hand in hand.   What I observe though is that many people find the practical/physical side of things which requires logic to understand and react to appropriately, just too much damn work and they give a much greater priority to their emotions, for which they need to do no work at all to appreciate. And we end up with all kinds of destructive silliness as a result.

Do you think this thread will ever die? 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Darwinism is not a guide for morality.

Neither is anything else, objectively.

stonebeard wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Darwinism is not a guide for morality. Neither is anything else, objectively.

Everything is nothing. Including nothing.