Why are we here? A polite discussion..., page 1

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
While instictively our existence is to pass on genes, some would beg the question. Are we merely the sum of our genes, and our need to pass them on, or are we here for a more "esoteric or spiritual" purpose?

Actually, it does not beg the question. The question is an unrelated one, a byproduct of consciousness, perhaps. Whatever its origin, it certainly does not follow from the preceding statement.

The fact that some people find a mechanistic, gene-based answer to the question 'why are we here?' unsatisfactory does not mean it is not true. Neither does it mean that there is some other, 'higher' answer above this.

While the seeking to belong to a group has proven beneficial for our biology, it has created havoc in our society.

But is also creates society, don't you see? You cannot have the one without the other.

The need to fit in is overwhelming. It can drive people to lengths of insanity when they do not feel as if they belong.

That is because they recognize, instinctively, how important it is for human beings to be part of a social group. Outcasts mostly suffer short, miserable lives.

Or if those in an existing group exclude others who desperately need to feel a part of that group.

But perhaps such people need to be excluded, for the good of the individuals already inside the group -- which is instinctively assessed in terms of the reproductive prospects of their genes.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold...

Were possibly individuals of this kind, people whom others instinctively recognized as a reproductive threat. Perhaps whatever it is that made them killers was somehow, unconsciously, evident to others. Perhaps that was why their schoolmates regard them as creepy, losers, etc. I agree that this is only speculation, but then, so is this:

...would have not become murderers that fateful day, had they been made to feel a part of the school social system.

You cannot be certain of that, ever. You see an apparent cause-and-effect relationship between their exclusion and their crimes, but is it the correct one? Looking at the same facts, one could just as easily draw the opposite conclusion, as I have done, and insist that their evident instability and overall creepiness was what caused their exclusion -- and for good reason.

Not every adolescent excluded from his or her peer group grows up to be a murderer. Many more grow up to be successful and reasonably well-adjusted adults, and quite a few, leveraging the psychic tensions of their excluded adolescence, grow up to be great tycoons, athletes, entertainers or scholars. It all depends on the individual, which suggests that heredity is as powerful an influence in this sort of outcome as environment.

Who was at fault here? I fully blame instinct.

Blame it all you want, but there's no getting rid of it.