Is there any biological meaning in anything other than reproduction?

I mean, in fact, no matter what you do, what kind of person you are, your natural goal is to fuarrrk, but not just fuarrrk, but to reproduce yourself, share your genes, make your genes survive. That is, in fact, it doesn't matter at all what you did in your life - were you a doctor, a musician, an artist. All this is completely unimportant. The only thing that matters is, if you are a man, then did you cum in a beautiful/healthy woman. And if you are a woman, then what kind of man cummed in you and is he suitable for offspring. That is, you can really make a bunch of discoveries and all sorts of interesting things and feats, but if you haven't found a woman and you don't have children, you have lost the evolutionary race of life. But some simpleton who has done nothing and accomplished nothing - his genes will move on.

Yes, increasing consciousness of organisms by technological or social means is a valid goal besides reproduction. Reproduction is valid and important but in the abstract is a lower tier of focus. Without an appreciation of consciousness, the infinitely-replicating yeast is more of a winner at biology than humans are. Which seems like an insane position. For instance, organisms tend to become more sexually mature more rapidly in a stressful environment. And data significantly beyond DNA influence development of offspring. What they call "epigenetics" and is played out in studies of famine populations.

>>86488 Why aren't yeast the coolest? Why did we decide that humans are the most powerful creature? And if there was no consciousness, would we have become much worse in evolutionary terms? Yes, we have grown to a large number, built lots of cities, a bunch of everything. We began to use the laws of nature for our purposes, modify entire species at our discretion (those chickens or dogs or watermelons blah blah blah) But... would we have died out if we had no consciousness? If we had instincts (this is a rather controversial issue, we still need to understand what instinct is and how to distinguish it from reflexes), would something have prevented us from surviving?

assumption: the only meaning is "biological meaning" as in "reproductive success" even with this assumption in place, non-reproductive activities can still greatly influence your reproductive success you even point this out directly: "what kind of man cummed in you and is he suitable for offspring" implies that "suitability" matters, and suitability has to do with "what you did in your life" in a broader sense, we are all part of the same species, so actions that improve species survival still contribute positively to our genes in the broad sense- so all the things that help the species are contributing to the evolutionary race of life there is also an argument for adopting close relatives and things like that, since they share genes with you (iirc the name for the field is something like "genetic altruism") last option: if you can achieve physical immortality, you win the evolutionary race of life. actions that contribute to this happening could be considered "winning" (e.g: you give your life to advance fancy AI research, in the hope that said AI will resurrect you down the road) note that all of the above is based on the opening assumption, that only biological meaning e.g. reproductive success matters

>looking for a meaning You're going to be very disappointed as long as you're not religious. There's no real meaning as long as you don't want to satisfy a deity, you get born, you live 60-ish years and then you die. Having some random kid carry your last name and some of your genes means close to nothing, not to mention how many births are because of couples that thought that having a baby would fix their relationship. I feel like taking your genes in consideration is also very important (not only the physical ones) for example, my family carries generational depression which is something that I wouldn't wish in any possible way on my kid, hence I'm not going to reproduce (I also carry autism along with some other social/verbal disabilities). You might do more harm than good if you don't have the right genes and that's when your goal should be reproducing I don't believe that most people should reproduce since over-population is already becoming a burden, we also have Africans spreading like wild fire despite being mentally disadvantaged and living in horrible environments full of pollution and everything that can dumb you down even more >hurr durr only let the superior ones reproduce Sucks to hear but it's only fair to our future peers, I'm an antisocial autist who spends days on his computer, and I just reflect upon myself and ask: Should I put another kid through a similar life? I'm sure the answer for a lots of people is a plain no, but they like to say that they'll grow them better than their abusive/manipulative/insert bad word parents!!!!!! but the biological aspect takes too much of an impact on a kid, you're basically gambling with a persons life.

>>86494 >You might do more harm than good if you don't have the right genes and that's when your goal should --NOT-- be reproducing I'm tired

>>86494 the correct framing is not: "I should only reproduce if my genes are optimal" the correct framing is: "I should only reproduce if my genes are above average" and, as you pointed out, the average of the reproductive gene pool at the moment is stupendeously low- so pretty much ANYONE should be reproducing as hard and fast as possible to balance it out

There is no meaning or purpose in biology. It's all consequential. Even if you presume this to have meaning someone / something completely sterile can help the survival of others regardless. It also can be someone / something that reproduces a lot might be spreading genes that have negative effects enough that in time if they mutate in such ways may lead to lack of ability to reproduce for this bloodline. There is no absolutes, no inherent value.

>>86489 > Why aren't yeast the coolest? This is where "rationalism" of genetic dogmatism leads you. You all would do well to study the works of Trofim Lysenko, Ray Peat, and Evald Ilyenkov. Read "Mind and Tissue" by Ray Peat. > But... would we have died out if we had no consciousness? Like Watson and Skinner, you seem to think that consciousness is unreal or optional, as opposed to a fundamental part of even lower vertebrates like dogs. >>86494 > You're going to be very disappointed as long as you're not religious. Aesopic Translation: you need to understand The Real. Lenin's Matter. >>86498 There is inherent value in increasing Energy and Structure.

There is a pretty simple counter to this in that what all of us discover, accomplish, etc. ideally creates circumstances which better the survival of our children. Furthermore this drive to do all of that would probably not cease even if we had solved enough problems to where our children always lived the longest they could and were always able to produce children of their own. We assign motives on biology based on the effect it seems to cause, but biology obviously does not inherently have any motives. Think of it like this, you can not solve the problems you are facing unless you at least live to the next day, and the next day. Humans can not solve the problems they are facing unless they survive to the next generation, and the next generation. So purely biologically maybe you are somewhat right in that the only imperative is to reproduce and survive (which we survive by reproducing). But really thats the only thing it can do, or all it needs to do. There isnt any need for biology to have some further imperative because as long as we are surviving to the next day, the next generation, we have the space for all other imperatives. Its the bottom of the metaphorical mazlows hierarchy of needs but that doesnt mean it is the ultimate or most important or most defining motive/imperative/whatever.

>>86494 >looking for a meaning >You're going to be very disappointed as long as you're not religious. There are countless ways to find meaning and ethics in life without religion. Humanism is one.

>>86494 I don't think it's about the best genes surviving. It's about your genes surviving. And it doesn't matter how wrong you think things are. The point is that if you've adapted to survival, you survive. And it doesn't matter if you're the most genetically unsuitable. You have a chance to survive, meaning your genes have a chance to survive. And your future generation, if they survive, will adapt and change. Even the most ideal genes are prone to negative mutations. People tend to be close to those who share their genetics (unless it involves incest, oops) We are all selfish. I don't want to offend anyone, but most people want to have offspring. Of course, there are people whose impulses in the brain work differently or they strongly believe in something or are passionate about something all their life or some kind of trauma, but everyone at least thought about it.

>>86499 > There is inherent value in increasing Energy and Structure Are you talking about how life speeds up entropy but also somewhat slows it down in isolated pockets creating order in the chaos? Id say from our perspective it has value but from a grand perspective it is no better no worse than chaos. I also question if entropy is even for sure an end all be all. Physicists could be wrong.

you can defone "best genome" two ways. 1. the genome best adapted to current conditions (the usual usage), or 2. the genome best adapted to any possible conditions. the way it wiorks is that genomes change randomly through random mutations, and conditions change more or less randomly, like ice ages, biomes, etc. the organisms that have the random genome best suited to the current random conditions survive and reproduce, but continue mutating. when conditions change, some other organisms will be better suited to it, and they will do better. the organisms with the best track record, having survived 4 billions years of massive, massive changes in conditions, are microbes. so by one definition you could say that they have the best genomes. the multicellular organisms best suited to a small range of conditions over the last few thousands of years are arguably humans. but as conditions change, and if humans don't change, they will become extinct.

>>86487 as real meaning is concerned reproduction with a female ? prob not reproduction with another male ? yes

>>Biological meaning. Last I checked, I'm not Gaia. My genes can't make value judgements and don't have feelings. What the fuarrrk does this mean and why should I care? It's like saying my life has no linguistic meaning if I take a vow of silence. I might be built to talk, but it's as arbitrary and unsupported thing to derive "meaning" from as any other.

>>86507 Genetic diversity is best because variation allows for survival so there is no best gene. Multiple genes in combination or independently can accomplish the same things or different things can accomplish similar survival of same scenarios.

>>86508 Agreed, this is the true answer to this thread.

one aspect of a brain is the big bundle of urges and impulses that make survival more likely. the "sexual competition" impulse is one of the strongest ones. "making decisions" is really just deciding which impulses to allow to become actions. some people are better at it than others. once you understand this, it makes human behavior seem a lot simpler and easier to understand. if you ask any detective what are the strongest motivations that cause people to do extreme things, they will give you the same three: love, money, and justice. that's human behavior in a nutshell..

Biology does not perpetuate itself for reasons of meaning or goodness but rather out of mechanical necessity, natural properties interacting in particular ways to produce a result. The meaning-making mind slices reality down to a certain analytical level, calls it "biology," and then creates ideology out of it as it does out of many frameworks. One can say that reproduction is the apparently reliable result of biological processes; does this in itself make of it a "meaning"? Meditate on this and maybe become enlightened.