So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News2 mins ago
The Pursuit Of Happiness
59 Answers
Radio 4 programme, "Something Understood," at 06:00 Sunday, raised an interesting question.
If evolution is true, then why are we programmed to pursue happiness, but end up pursuing our desires, which don't necessarily result in happiness? On the contrary, quite often, trying to satisfy our desires, with the promise of happiness, results in just the opposite, not only for ourselves, but for others also.
If we were programmed to desire the happiness of others, above our own, then we would have a better world.
Re-programming the human heart is one of the main tenets of Christianity, to subdue our own desires and put others first.
Other religions claim this as well, and people of no religion can share in this view obviously.
But, why is this re-programming necessary? Why aren't we made like this from our evolutionary history, presuming it to be true?
If evolution is true, then why are we programmed to pursue happiness, but end up pursuing our desires, which don't necessarily result in happiness? On the contrary, quite often, trying to satisfy our desires, with the promise of happiness, results in just the opposite, not only for ourselves, but for others also.
If we were programmed to desire the happiness of others, above our own, then we would have a better world.
Re-programming the human heart is one of the main tenets of Christianity, to subdue our own desires and put others first.
Other religions claim this as well, and people of no religion can share in this view obviously.
But, why is this re-programming necessary? Why aren't we made like this from our evolutionary history, presuming it to be true?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You're an early riser Theland!
I view the dilemma you outline as stemming from the fact that we are very little removed from the much simpler primates we evolved from. So many of our emotions and reactions are guided by our basic fear of being chased, eaten by a larger animal, starving or having no pack to run with.
Some of the early hominid skulls actually have sabre-tooth tiger incisor marks in them, where the poor little monkey man was run down an seized like a cat with a mouse.
For all our inventions, these are the terrors that still stalk our dreams.
I view the dilemma you outline as stemming from the fact that we are very little removed from the much simpler primates we evolved from. So many of our emotions and reactions are guided by our basic fear of being chased, eaten by a larger animal, starving or having no pack to run with.
Some of the early hominid skulls actually have sabre-tooth tiger incisor marks in them, where the poor little monkey man was run down an seized like a cat with a mouse.
For all our inventions, these are the terrors that still stalk our dreams.
Good morning, Theland. It would be more appropriate to ask why, if we were created by a super-power, there is such a fundamental flaw in the design?
Over time, we have changed. Although we are still governed by the basic animal instinct to put ourselves first, and the process of evolution is gradual, hopefully some day our intellect will develop sufficiently for us to recognise the selfishness, the futility, and the naivety of religion, and to finally realise that sincerely caring for others is the only way to achieve peace and fulfilment.
Over time, we have changed. Although we are still governed by the basic animal instinct to put ourselves first, and the process of evolution is gradual, hopefully some day our intellect will develop sufficiently for us to recognise the selfishness, the futility, and the naivety of religion, and to finally realise that sincerely caring for others is the only way to achieve peace and fulfilment.
Remember that a human is just a gene's way of making a new gene.
Desires are a main way in which genes control the animal. Without sexual desire there would be no new generation of genes, similarly without hunger the animal would die.
Most desires have a direct or indirect reproduction purpose - although these do get distorted sometimes - especially in the case of Tory ministers!
I guess happiness is what we might call the temporary respite we get when we have satisfied our gene masters until we get the next urge.
Putting others first is also seen in Nature. In any group of animals the genetic mix is such that it often makes sense to put the welfare of the herd above that of the individual.
We are decended from groups of apes, not solitary tigers!
So why doesn't everybody naturally put others first?
Because it doesn't always work - and there is a mix of group and individual orientated individuals neither having ever established dominance over the other.
It is this mix and varience which gives a species the ability to survive and resist extinction.
Diversity is everything
Desires are a main way in which genes control the animal. Without sexual desire there would be no new generation of genes, similarly without hunger the animal would die.
Most desires have a direct or indirect reproduction purpose - although these do get distorted sometimes - especially in the case of Tory ministers!
I guess happiness is what we might call the temporary respite we get when we have satisfied our gene masters until we get the next urge.
Putting others first is also seen in Nature. In any group of animals the genetic mix is such that it often makes sense to put the welfare of the herd above that of the individual.
We are decended from groups of apes, not solitary tigers!
So why doesn't everybody naturally put others first?
Because it doesn't always work - and there is a mix of group and individual orientated individuals neither having ever established dominance over the other.
It is this mix and varience which gives a species the ability to survive and resist extinction.
Diversity is everything
I personally do not believe in evolution. Because idea of evolution is the main reason behind raceism. I believe that God created people and gave them brain to think, told them what is right and what is wrong. Now if people are trying to manipulate their intellect only by thinking that we can over write rules which our creator (believe in that or not) has given us. Then that does not work. That is another reason why I believe that there is life after this and we are here only for a test. Test of the people who have Gods blessings in the shape of health, wealth and so on. That how they use these blessings for the benefit of human and the test of the patience of the one who have not been given, that how they behave. in the hereafter every one would be questioned about this. Every one knows that people who are poor and do nt have even basic facilities they are more happier than the others. If you are running after MORE & MORE, then you are neither satisfied nor happy. My mother always said that look at the one who has got less than you and not at the one who has more than you and you would be happy.
So, er, there was no racism before the mid-19th century, Keyplus?!!
I rather think you are in error.
I imagine you're probably referring to 'Social Darwinism', a creed that is based on a total misunderstanding of what Survival of the Fittest actually means. It certainly has nothing to do with evolution itself.
As for Theland's point, firstly, who says we're programmed to pursue happiness? (apart from the US constitution)
Secondly, we're perfectly capable of over-riding or defeating our genetic programming. For example, many people use contraception, which allow us to have sex without creating children.
I rather think you are in error.
I imagine you're probably referring to 'Social Darwinism', a creed that is based on a total misunderstanding of what Survival of the Fittest actually means. It certainly has nothing to do with evolution itself.
As for Theland's point, firstly, who says we're programmed to pursue happiness? (apart from the US constitution)
Secondly, we're perfectly capable of over-riding or defeating our genetic programming. For example, many people use contraception, which allow us to have sex without creating children.
Waldo, thanks for correcting me a bit. But I did not mean to say there was nor raceism before that. I meant to say that Darwin's theory was based upon evolution and then after that few people used that either you call it survival of the fittest or the elimination of the weakest - No it is happening on TV. The weakest link.
Again. what we think that we have been able to over riding our genetic programming. But if everyone would start using condoms then after about 85 to 90 years no body would be left here in this world. For few things they are out of our control, example can you bring the Sun out of West. Few things wer have been given the choice but were told about the consequences as well.
Because,Theland, evolution doesn't work like that.
Evolution has no plan, no aim, no idea of where it is going. It cannot think: it is an automatic process.
An organism will occasionally pass on a faulty genetic code to its offspring (random mutation). If that slightly modified organism is viable in the environment around it, it will survive (natural selection). In turn, it and its successors might also suffer random mutations until, over time, the modified organism is so different from the original that it can no longer mate with the parent strain. It has become, by definition, a new species.
Nobody planned it or its characteristics; nobody could possibly have predicted what form it would take.
The human being (like all present-day animals) is a product of countless zillions of such mutations-followed-by-natural selection. Different turnings anywhere along the way could have resulted in the most intelligent creature on earth (if that is how you would define us) being an eighteen-foot jelly with six brains.
(Incidentally, that is why we can all laugh with absolute confidence at reports that visiting aliens are hominid in shape.)
I never cease to be amazed at how many people on this site are happy to give their views on evolution when they plainly don't understand the first principles. I wonder how I'd get on in the Arts site giving my views on ancient Assyrian poetry, of which I know zilch.
Evolution has no plan, no aim, no idea of where it is going. It cannot think: it is an automatic process.
An organism will occasionally pass on a faulty genetic code to its offspring (random mutation). If that slightly modified organism is viable in the environment around it, it will survive (natural selection). In turn, it and its successors might also suffer random mutations until, over time, the modified organism is so different from the original that it can no longer mate with the parent strain. It has become, by definition, a new species.
Nobody planned it or its characteristics; nobody could possibly have predicted what form it would take.
The human being (like all present-day animals) is a product of countless zillions of such mutations-followed-by-natural selection. Different turnings anywhere along the way could have resulted in the most intelligent creature on earth (if that is how you would define us) being an eighteen-foot jelly with six brains.
(Incidentally, that is why we can all laugh with absolute confidence at reports that visiting aliens are hominid in shape.)
I never cease to be amazed at how many people on this site are happy to give their views on evolution when they plainly don't understand the first principles. I wonder how I'd get on in the Arts site giving my views on ancient Assyrian poetry, of which I know zilch.
Keyplus, you miss the point. Any individual that asbstains from having children through the use of contraception *has* defeated its genetic impulse. It matters not a jot that others have children.
You've again mischaracterised evolution again. Darwin's theory was not based on evolution, it was the first coherant explanation of it. Before Darwin, the concept existed, but no one had quite grasped its importance for life.
People who have used Darwinism in the sense you have used it (Might is right, weakest link) do not understand what the expression 'survival of the fittest' actually means. It does not mean the strongest, most vicious organisms will prevail over others (otherwise why doesn't this characterise human society - for the most part we co-operate).
It means that the organisms that are most fit for their environment - that is to say the best adapted to their environement' will survive. So, if you've adapted to a predator-rich environment by developing pigmentation that camoflages you against your environment, but other relatives insist on having dayglo yellow skin, you're fittest. A turtle is 'fittest' by dint of having armour, over those that do not. An organism that can feed without moving much is fitter for an environment which is nutrient poor than one whcih has to expend lots of energy to feed etc.
You can be the weediest, least active, non violent organism around, but if you're better adapted to your environment, then you're most fit.
You've again mischaracterised evolution again. Darwin's theory was not based on evolution, it was the first coherant explanation of it. Before Darwin, the concept existed, but no one had quite grasped its importance for life.
People who have used Darwinism in the sense you have used it (Might is right, weakest link) do not understand what the expression 'survival of the fittest' actually means. It does not mean the strongest, most vicious organisms will prevail over others (otherwise why doesn't this characterise human society - for the most part we co-operate).
It means that the organisms that are most fit for their environment - that is to say the best adapted to their environement' will survive. So, if you've adapted to a predator-rich environment by developing pigmentation that camoflages you against your environment, but other relatives insist on having dayglo yellow skin, you're fittest. A turtle is 'fittest' by dint of having armour, over those that do not. An organism that can feed without moving much is fitter for an environment which is nutrient poor than one whcih has to expend lots of energy to feed etc.
You can be the weediest, least active, non violent organism around, but if you're better adapted to your environment, then you're most fit.
Well done again, Waldo.
A little scenario I have invented to illustrate what "survival of the fittest " means , because so many people (like keyplus) get it wrong, goes like this:
A strong young elephant and a sickly little mouse are suddenly trapped in an enclosure from which there is apparently no escape (their ENVIRONMENT).
Then the mouse finds a tiny hole at the bottom of one of the walls, manages to enlarge it, escapes, finds food and becomes healthy. The elephant dies of starvation.
Survival of the fittest - the most suitable - for the environment. That's what Darwin meant, and explained. Nothing necessarily to do with the strongest.
A little scenario I have invented to illustrate what "survival of the fittest " means , because so many people (like keyplus) get it wrong, goes like this:
A strong young elephant and a sickly little mouse are suddenly trapped in an enclosure from which there is apparently no escape (their ENVIRONMENT).
Then the mouse finds a tiny hole at the bottom of one of the walls, manages to enlarge it, escapes, finds food and becomes healthy. The elephant dies of starvation.
Survival of the fittest - the most suitable - for the environment. That's what Darwin meant, and explained. Nothing necessarily to do with the strongest.
God has created every thing, few he gave strength, and few he gave sense to use the environment. Human he gave lots of things and mainly wisdom and ability to adapt according to the situation using that abillity. You can see that only by using that gift from God human has conquered so many obstacles. Only about 40 years ago people stopped going to the sea because of Sharks, now same human are earning living out of taking people under the sea to sea those Sharks. We human always think business.
Hello Theland, I think something went wrong with me and the lady I married 37 years ago, because we have never strived for, material wealth, only happiness, we have money, we have properties, but we have only ever looked for happiness, no look for is wrong, we found happiness, the properties we own will be signed over to our sons, and we will carry on being happy, Religion goes far to deep for me, but hope what I am saying makes a little bit of sense, material wealth is not wealth, it is possesions, health and happiness is priceless, Ray
Raysparks1 - I am 110% with you on that. Someone advised me once that you should never the blessings of God in the shape of wealth. Just look at this what do few people think about it.http://hotlist.uk.msn.com/
keyplus, if I can drag you down from your pulpit for a moment (do you share Theland's or do you have your own?) what do you mean when you say that you "don't believe in" evolution?
Evolution does not require people to "believe in" it: it is an established science. You need to "believe in" only those ideas for which there is no evidence, such as God, the Jesus story, astrology, and so on. The faithful say "I know there's no evidence, but I am going to believe it anyway". And that's fair enough.
Evolution needs no such blind faith; vast amounts of evidence support it. It makes sense. It is rational.
You might as well say that you "don't believe in electricity".
So what do you mean?
Evolution does not require people to "believe in" it: it is an established science. You need to "believe in" only those ideas for which there is no evidence, such as God, the Jesus story, astrology, and so on. The faithful say "I know there's no evidence, but I am going to believe it anyway". And that's fair enough.
Evolution needs no such blind faith; vast amounts of evidence support it. It makes sense. It is rational.
You might as well say that you "don't believe in electricity".
So what do you mean?
Scientists usually make very good U turns, Histroy of science is full of that. Only the things told by the one who created every thing The Almighty are there for ever. RAY- you keep on giving your view here. If majority of people start telling lies that does not become truth, so do not worry about the others.
