# Biology Says Point of Life To Make Babies



## wmu'14

So biology says that only the best find a mate and pass on their genes. Does this mean that those of us who are unable to do so are genetic failures? Does it mean that we are inferior? Given a billion years does it mean that we'd die out? Lot of animals, all they do is make babies. If humans are only animals, how are we any different in that regard?


----------



## tehuti88

Yes. We are all doomed and we should all just die off right now because the whole point of life is making babies.

Because That's What You Want To Hear. :serious:


----------



## SplendidBob

If you are trying to tease out guidelines as to how to live your life from evolution you are an idiot.


----------



## Lohikaarme

Ew, no.
Just because I happened to be born with a vagina doesn't mean I'm ecstatic at the prospect of letting something the size of a watermelon squeeze out of there :-|


----------



## JH1983

Babies are gross.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## komorikun

Eventually the sun is going to eat Earth when it becomes a Red Giant. Before that happens though, Earth will become uninhabitable because the oceans will disappear. The sun doesn't give a flying **** about your genes.


----------



## truant

I wasn't aware that biology was a person with opinions about things. I believe what biology says is ... nothing.


----------



## Rains

You're talking about survival of the fittest, and what happens to be fit is often dependent on the current environment. But anyway, if you don't have babies then yes your genes won't pass on. That's a separate issue to what the point if life is though.


----------



## Neal

wmu'14 said:


> So biology says that only the best find a mate and pass on their genes. Does this mean that those of us who are unable to do so are genetic failures? Does it mean that we are inferior? *Given a billion years does it mean that we'd die out?* Lot of animals, all they do is make babies. If humans are only animals, how are we any different in that regard?


Are you asking if people with SA will become nonexistent?


----------



## Persephone The Dread

I'd be lying if I said this didn't bother me at all. For (mostly) all the wrong reasons.

But ultimately the point of life is subjective, you're confusing the narcissistic need to continue your genetic legacy with ultimate meaning lmao.

If you want to circumnavigate your competitive instinct, donate sperm.


----------



## Rains

^ Tbh even that's competitive because they screen for health, education, wealth, family background (for eggs as well). And at least with eggs, they have photos of the female donors, so you can see whether they resemble your family and how attractive they are. If you're not very desirable your gametes aren't in high demand. It's still 'survival of the fittest' going on.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Rains said:


> ^ Tbh even that's competitive because they screen for health, education, wealth, family background (for eggs as well). And at least with eggs, they have photos of the female donors, so you can see whether they resemble your family and how attractive they are. If you're not very desirable your gametes aren't in high demand. It's still 'survival of the fittest' going on.


Well I tried lol.


----------



## Tetragammon

Yes. It means that those too weak or flawed to find mates (like us) are supposed to die out and not pass on those genes. Because spreading those genes will just produce more people with the same problem. Obviously it's not "fair" but then, nature is seldom if ever fair.

Fortunately for us, with our higher intelligence, sentience and imaginations we can make the "point of life" whatever we want it to be. We're less enslaved to instincts and nature. I personally never want to get married or have children so the fact that biology makes it the "point" is irrelevant to me. So stop worrying about what biology says and find your own point.


----------



## Barakiel

I like this quote from Steven Pinker a lot:



> Nature does not dictate what we should accept or how we should live our lives. Well into my procreating years, I am so far voluntarily childless, having squandered my biological resources reading and writing, doing research, helping friends and students, and jogging in circles--ignoring the solemn imperative to spread my genes. By Darwinian standards, I am a horrible mistake, a pathetic loser, but I am happy to be that way, and if my genes don't like it they can go jump in the lake.


----------



## Were

Jesus didn't have kids.


----------



## Reset Button

wmu'14 said:


> So biology says that only the best find a mate and pass on their genes. Does this mean that those of us who are unable to do so are genetic failures? Does it mean that we are inferior? Given a billion years does it mean that we'd die out? Lot of animals, all they do is make babies. If humans are only animals, how are we any different in that regard?


We have free will and intelligence to make decisions that aren't governed solely by 'needs' but also 'wants/desires'. Even your question sets you apart from animals, your ability to self-reflect.
Our intelligence is ruled by our head, heart and gut, unlike any other species.


----------



## Blue Dino

In biology, all organisms live to maintain their genes for as long as possible. So best to do that is act base on instinct and evolution. 

With humans, once we develop high enough intelligence, we start striving for emotional well being and happiness more and more, to the point where it started going against the principles of biology. We became too smart to act solely on our instincts and start acting in favor of our emotions.


----------



## a degree of freedom

splendidbob said:


> If you are trying to tease out guidelines as to how to live your life from evolution you are an idiot.


Well, maybe unknowing at least. It's funny though that certain arguments are countered, "so why did God give you such a nice brain?" and others, "so why did evolution give you a such a nice brain?" Either way, you're meant to think and decide for yourself what is worthy, and this isn't nothing, some side note that can be tucked away in private. This mental activity actually occurs and has effects in the real world that are non-negligible.

OP, the world is a two-way road. If it makes you what you are, you are also making it what it is. Many things are only what you assert and value.


----------



## Act to fall

Words like purpose, failure and inferior are not terms that exist in or apply to nature, they are human value judgements.


----------



## michaelthedepressedmess

I'm gay and biology can suck dis dik. Idk I have no interest in babies or having babies. They sound like nightmares.


----------



## a degree of freedom

Blue Dino said:


> In biology, all organisms live to maintain their genes for as long as possible. So best to do that is act base on instinct and evolution.
> 
> With humans, once we develop high enough intelligence, we start striving for emotional well being and happiness more and more, to the point where it started going against the principles of biology. We became too smart to act solely on our instincts and start acting in favor of our emotions.


Which is fine, I tend to think: all of genetics will soon enough be engineered and everyone can just get over their precious genes. True or not, it at least exposes how ridiculous any attempt to identify with one's genetics is. And without that, anyone can just keep what "biology" tells them to do. Whatever anyone does, it's biology, chemistry, physics, anyway. May as well be God. Just some rules to follow from your own sock puppet.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Blue Dino said:


> In biology, all organisms live to maintain their genes for as long as possible. So best to do that is act base on instinct and evolution.
> 
> With humans, once we develop high enough intelligence, we start striving for emotional well being and happiness more and more, to the point where it started going against the principles of biology. We became too smart to act solely on our instincts and start acting in favor of our emotions.


 Hopefully that might end up making people feel like they're too good to breed and will result in drastically fewer babies. I can dream.....


----------



## Blue Dino

senkora said:


> Which is fine, I tend to think: all of genetics will soon enough be engineered and everyone can just get over their precious genes. True or not, it at least exposes how ridiculous any attempt to identify with one's genetics is. And without that, anyone can just keep what "biology" tells them to do. Whatever anyone does, it's biology, chemistry, physics, anyway. May as well be God. Just some rules to follow from your own sock puppet.


Yeah I guess this is what makes us different to the other organisms and animals.


----------



## Blue Dino

WillYouStopDave said:


> Hopefully that might end up making people feel like they're too good to breed and will result in drastically fewer babies. I can dream.....


Yeah I think this is already starting to become the trend for the more educated couples. And the ones who opt to just enjoy life over expected societal benchmarks and responsibilities. Not sure if this is necessarily a good thing though.


----------



## wmu'14

Okay, lot of comments. Thanks everyone for responding to the thread.


tehuti88 said:


> Yes. We are all doomed and we should all just die off right now because the whole point of life is making babies.
> 
> Because That's What You Want To Hear. :serious:


Actually yes it is. Thank you for confirming it. I don't like how people act as if it's not when there's this subconscious part in most of us that want an intimate relationship, sexual or not. It stems from biology saying 'reproduce reproduce reproduce' in all other species.



splendidbob said:


> If you are trying to tease out guidelines as to how to live your life from evolution you are an idiot.


Why? Evolution is science and science is right. You can't argue with chemicals inside everyone's brain.



Cyan22 said:


> The good news is humans aren't inclined to care about biological purpose when it comes to selecting a mate. Other animals do it out of pure instinct and are no better or worse for it.


Thing is, our desire for an intimate relationship stems from that 'pure instinct.'



Rains said:


> You're talking about survival of the fittest


Correct. The strong survive and mate, the weak don't.



Rains said:


> what happens to be fit is often dependent on the current environment.


Correct. Those who are not able to find a mate in their current environment are weak.



Neal said:


> Are you asking if people with SA will become nonexistent?


No but I guess the question can include that.



Tetragammon said:


> Yes. It means that those too weak or flawed to find mates (like us) are supposed to die out and not pass on those genes. Because spreading those genes will just produce more people with the same problem. Obviously it's not "fair" but then, nature is seldom if ever fair.
> 
> Fortunately for us, with our higher intelligence, sentience and imaginations we can make the "point of life" whatever we want it to be. We're less enslaved to instincts and nature. I personally never want to get married or have children so the fact that biology makes it the "point" is irrelevant to me. So stop worrying about what biology says and find your own point.


Okay, first paragraph right, second paragraph not as much.

Thanks for agreeing me with the first paragraph. Obviously when you say 'people like us who can't find mates', that doesn't just include social anxiety, because mine's pretty much cured but I have other issues like my looks are below average. Also, yes, nature isn't fair and I'm happy that you at least agree with me on that even if no one else is willing to admit it.
But I disagree with your second paragraph because even if you can think otherwise, the fact in the first paragraph doesn't change.



Barakiel said:


> I like this quote from Steven Pinker a lot:


Good quote, but I disagree with it. I was watching a documentary on the brain and, sorry can't remember the exact words, but it pretty much disagreed with that quote because biology. I'm sure he's had several intimate partners.



Act to fall said:


> Words like purpose, failure and inferior are not terms that exist in or apply to nature, they are human value judgements.


See my responses to Rains.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Why? Evolution is science and science is right.


Evolution is just a process. The study of evolution is scientific, if done in a scientific way.



wmu'14 said:


> You can't argue with chemicals inside everyone's brain.


This isn't related to anything.

Let's look at your original statement for some reason (I guess you won't pay any attention though, so not sure why I am bothering)



wmu'14 said:


> biology says that only the best find a mate and pass on their genes.


If by biology you mean evolution then, no, on two counts.

1. Evolution makes no determination about what is "best", since "best" depends on the environment at that time. It might also depend on strange (unfathomable) sexual selection, such as whether a birds beak is particularly blue. You can't make any kind of universal law / judgement of superiority based on transient environmental conditions or peculiar sexual selection.

2. Plenty of individuals that aren't the _optimum_ for the environment (most fit) will get to pass on their genes. Most people pass on their genes, they are by no means the most fit.



wmu'14 said:


> Does this mean that those of us who are unable to do so are genetic failures?


If you fail to procreate, you are in a sense a genetic failure, in that you have failed to pass on your genes. That doesn't mean anything though, unless you are weirdly religious about genetic propagation. Nobody is anything special and there are so many people nothing will be lost from the gene pool if an individual fails to reproduce. It literally makes 0 difference to the species if any one individual doesn't reproduce, no matter how awesome their beards.



wmu'14 said:


> Does it mean that we are inferior?


Given that passing on your genes doesn't in any way signify "superior" then no.



wmu'14 said:


> Given a billion years does it mean that we'd die out? Lot of animals, all they do is make babies. If humans are only animals, how are we any different in that regard?


Humans won't die out no.


----------



## gnomealone

Forget Biology, that guy wants to make us suffer. I did what Biology supposedly wants, but he makes me linger here still. I'm ready to be
worm food. Wouldn't that suit a dual purpose Biology?


----------



## Tetragammon

wmu'14 said:


> But I disagree with your second paragraph because even if you can think otherwise, the fact in the first paragraph doesn't change.


True, the facts won't change; that's what makes them facts. But perception is also important. You can choose to focus on the negatives such as your looks or whatever else, and be miserable for it. Or you can choose to say "**** biology" and find your own "point." I'm forever aware of the fact that, by nature's standards, I'm inferior and a failure. But that's only one, narrow perception.

And frankly I'd suggest that this focus on the negative is at least part of why you're failing at the mating game in the first place.


----------



## DerSchweinehund

Man, why is everyone giving him so much flak?

Yeah, in a biological sense, mating is the primary goal of every living organism. Actually, replication is the primary goal of every living organism, and mammals happen to mate. It's true that humans have greater goals in life, and that the theory of evolution has shifted into the theory of group evolution, but our primary goal is still the same. Those of us who do not pass down our genes could be seen as failures in that regard. If everyone with a certain trait stopped mating, after a very long time, that trait would probably disappear completely, rendering it a failed trait.

A successful gene is one which survives the longest and offers the organism the greatest survivability. If a trait dies out, it means that those individuals carrying said trait did not succeed in passing it down. In the case of humans, some people do not wish to pass it down. Then we enter philosophy.

It's alright not to want to pass down genes. I don't want to do it either. But it's foolish to claim that mating isn't the primary biological goal of our lives. I, for one, agree with you, unlike most people here.


----------



## sad1231234

Cyan22 said:


> The foundation is instinctual, but as sentient beings who know where this instinct comes from and why it is there, we can make of it what we will and *not* let it be our; ultimate reason for living, source of worth as a potential partner, or true desire for wanting to be with someone. The notion that our biological purpose is to evolve and pass on the most 'optimal' genes from one generation to the next (which btw is a very simplified way of viewing evolution) is a scientific inference made by us, but isn't tantamount to existential purpose. Someone's reproductive ability - or lack of - really doesn't say anything about them or the point of life in any way.


It really depends on what viewpoint. From the viewpoint of evolution, our biological purpose is to reproduce. As for the viewpoint of something else, it depends obviously on the person's idea of existence.


----------



## DerSchweinehund

sad1231234 said:


> It really depends on what viewpoint. From the viewpoint of evolution, our biological purpose is to reproduce. As for the viewpoint of something else, it depends obviously on the person's idea of existence.


But then we find ourselves in the realm of philosophy, the separation of man and beast, etc..


----------



## Karsten

michaelthedepressedmess said:


> I'm gay and biology can suck dis dik. Idk I have no interest in babies or having babies. They sound like nightmares.


I agree. **** babies.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity

splendidbob said:


> If you fail to procreate, you are in a sense a genetic failure, in that you have failed to pass on your genes. That doesn't mean anything though, unless you are weirdly religious about genetic propagation. Nobody is anything special and there are so many people nothing will be lost from the gene pool if an individual fails to reproduce. It literally makes 0 difference to the species if any one individual doesn't reproduce, *no matter how awesome their beards.*


Lol just slip in a little reference there to yourself.



Karsten said:


> I agree. **** babies.


Actually no don't do this. :lol


----------



## SplendidBob

Post_Punk_Proclivity said:


> Lol just slip in a little reference there to yourself.


nooooooo


----------



## tehuti88

Okay, let's say the OP is absolutely right for a moment. If science is always right and biology is immutable, then I don't see the point in complaining about it and *questioning it* in thread after thread.

Questioning/complaining about it so often makes me think the OP doesn't _really_ believe science is the unchanging, immutable, all-powerful force he claims it is. He should be a lot more resigned if he truly believed that.* If you can't argue with science...then why are you arguing with science?* :con

Science is just the most convenient scapegoat for one's failures (self-inflicted or inflicted by others). "I've failed with relationships...well, because science, that's why. So I needn't bother anymore, because you can't fight science."

All right then. No point complaining or questioning it or asking anyone here to prove you wrong. It's like complaining that you can't flap your arms and fly, isn't it? Science? :stu


----------



## wmu'14

tehuti88 said:


> Okay, let's say the OP is absolutely right for a moment. If science is always right and biology is immutable, then I don't see the point in complaining about it and *questioning it* in thread after thread.
> 
> Questioning/complaining about it so often makes me think the OP doesn't _really_ believe science is the unchanging, immutable, all-powerful force he claims it is. He should be a lot more resigned if he truly believed that.* If you can't argue with science...then why are you arguing with science?* :con


I'm wondering why more people don't agree with that's what life/biology is all about. I'm questioning why other people try to deny it when it's obvious. That a few other posters agree with me show that.



DerSchweinehund said:


> Man, why is everyone giving him so much flak?
> 
> Yeah, in a biological sense, mating is the primary goal of every living organism. Our primary goal is still the same. Those of us who do not pass down our genes could be seen as failures in that regard. If everyone with a certain trait stopped mating, after a very long time, that trait would probably disappear completely, rendering it a failed trait.
> 
> A successful gene is one which survives the longest and offers the organism the greatest survivability. If a trait dies out, it means that those individuals carrying said trait did not succeed in passing it down. In the case of humans, some people do not wish to pass it down. Then we enter philosophy.
> 
> It's alright not to want to pass down genes. I don't want to do it either. But it's foolish to claim that mating isn't the primary biological goal of our lives. I, for one, agree with you, unlike most people here.


Thank you



Tetragammon said:


> But that's only one, narrow perception.


Is it really a narrow perception when it governs all life?



Cyan22 said:


> The foundation is instinctual, but as sentient beings who know where this instinct comes from and why it is there, we can make of it what we will and *not* let it be our; ultimate reason for living, source of worth as a potential partner, or true desire for wanting to be with someone.


We'd be lying to ourselves then.


----------



## SplendidBob

*Physics Says Point of Life To Get Close To Ground As Possible*



wmu'14 said:


> So gravity says that things get pulled towards the earth. Does this mean that those of us who are able to escape gravity (even temporarily) are failures? Does it mean that we are inferior? Lots of animals, can't leave the ground at all. If humans are only animals, how are we any different in that regard?


The above is how your argument reads to me.


----------



## Mc Borg

splendidbob said:


> The above is how your argument reads to me.


Sorry to be pedantic, :b but there is no 'escaping' gravity in physics, so that analogy doesn't really work.


----------



## SplendidBob

Mc Borg said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, :b but there is no 'escaping' gravity in physics, so that analogy doesn't really work.


Bah, I wasn't sober, was the best I could come up with .

Nobody quote it and I will go back and fix it to something better later


----------



## sad1231234

Cyan22 said:


> The point is we're able to look past that.


Exactly. But when you think about it long term, is there really any benefit of us reproducing, or existing for that matter?


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Cyan22 said:


> But you're deciding to stop there when concluding why we're here and why our relationships are formed :? (and objectively there is no real point to life, which is why emphasis is being placed on making your own) *it doesn't hurt to try and see beyond the surface of things....*


 I would call that pissing in the wind. But have fun.


----------



## sad1231234

Cyan22 said:


> Just so you know, no one really denied the biological component of our lives, it's also already been said from a reproductive pov that if a person is unable to pass on their traits that makes them a 'genetic failure'.
> 
> But you're deciding to stop there when concluding why we're here and why our relationships are formed :? (and objectively there is no real point to life, which is why emphasis is being placed on making your own) it doesn't hurt to try and see beyond the surface of things....


Yes exactly, our brains are wired to want to exist for more than just reproductive purposes.


----------



## SplendidBob

As a slight aside, I always found it mildly amusing that our genes gave us (the gene carriers) so much freedom of choice we could elect to not pass on our genes (being smart enough to invent birth control) and it still worked out in favour of passing on our genes.

But no, re my earlier point, deriving the "point of life" from evolution makes about as much sense as deriving it from gravity. You are infusing evolution with some kind of godhood. Evolution is just a process why would it be prescriptive of anything we _should_ do?


----------



## sad1231234

splendidbob said:


> As a slight aside, I always found it mildly amusing that our genes gave us (the gene carriers) so much freedom of choice we could elect to not pass on our genes (being smart enough to invent birth control) and it still worked out in favour of passing on our genes.


Good point.


----------



## ShatteredGlass

The difference is that us humans aren't bound by 'biological instinct'. We have other ways of seeing and explaining the world. Existing only to reproduce is one explanation, but really, who wants to believe that? What is the life in between?


----------



## Junpanda

Act to fall said:


> Words like purpose, failure and inferior are not terms that exist in or apply to nature, they are human value judgements.


That is so true. A lot of things we set out to achieve are actually social constructs that only has meaning when you apply them to society. I find thinking of them as not actual realities helps me sometimes. But sometimes i fall into the trap where i see them all meaningless and unattractive. I do not want to live my life according to what society says i should do. Like somehow getting a 9 to 5 well paid job should be what i strive for, when they are all imagined realities that we human create to keep our society running.


----------



## sad1231234

ShatteredGlass said:


> The difference is that us humans aren't bound by 'biological instinct'. We have other ways of seeing and explaining the world. Existing only to reproduce is one explanation, but really, who wants to believe that? What is the life in between?


I think generally we exist so that we can experience as much pleasure as we can. We are living for nothing more than a bunch of electrical signals within our brains.


----------



## sad1231234

Junpanda said:


> That is so true. A lot of things we set out to achieve are actually social constructs that only has meaning when you apply them to society. I find thinking of them as not actual realities helps me sometimes. But sometimes i fall into the trap where i see them all meaningless and unattractive. I do not want to live my life according to what society says i should do. Like somehow getting a 9 to 5 well paid job should be what i strive for, when they are all imagined realities that we human create to keep our society running.


Exactly. But unfortunately a 9 to 5 job is pretty much the only way we can survive in this society. As for me, im only getting a 9-5 job so that i can get the money and so it will boost my self esteem, i dont see it as any other sense of accomplishment or as something to strive for my whole life only to enjoy the benefits when im already one foot in the grave.


----------



## Junpanda

sad1231234 said:


> Exactly. But unfortunately a 9 to 5 job is pretty much the only way we can survive in this society. As for me, im only getting a 9-5 job so that i can get the money and so it will boost my self esteem, i dont see it as any other sense of accomplishment or as something to strive for my whole life only to enjoy the benefits when im already one foot in the grave.


Yup even though there are people that are really "living their dreams", or having a career that they really like, its hard for some of us because of this additional burden on us. It greatly limits our potential. Its really unfortunate the way i see it.


----------



## Typhoid Mary

Babies creep me out.

Never wanted any. Had my baby making organ removed and it was the best thing ever. Wish I'd done it twenty years ago. 

For some reason people think it's entertaining to thrust their babies at me. I tell them, "Unless you want to see me drop it like a hot potato, keep it to yourself." If someone brings their child to work, I'll make myself scarce until it's gone. *shudder*

Oddly, children seek me out. I think it's because I'm the only one in the group not engaging the adults. I sit awkwardly on the fringe not speaking, so they view me as accessible. I'm more than happy to slip away and play with them since it's a valid excuse to get out of socializing.

Babies, though...ew. Keep me away from their evil, judgemental, squishy faces.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> The above is how your argument reads to me.


We don't have an id for gravity like we do for sex though.



Mc Borg said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, :b but there is no 'escaping' gravity in physics, so that analogy doesn't really work.


Exactly. I'd also add the above.



splendidbob said:


> Bah, I wasn't sober, was the best I could come up with .


Thing is, other people have argued like I did, and, not wanting to offend anyone, the scientists came out with a response similar to what you did.



Cyan22 said:


> Just so you know, no one really denied the biological component of our lives, it's also already been said from a reproductive pov that if a person is unable to pass on their traits that makes them a 'genetic failure'.
> 
> But you're deciding to stop there when concluding why we're here and why our relationships are formed :? (and objectively there is no real point to life, which is why emphasis is being placed on making your own) it doesn't hurt to try and see beyond the surface of things....


I don't stop there because I see the desire for sex in what everyone does/did.



sad1231234 said:


> Yes exactly, our brains are wired to want to exist for more than just reproductive purposes.


Like what?



splendidbob said:


> Evolution is just a process why would it be prescriptive of anything we _should_ do?


Because it affects what we do/did. We are the evolved.



ShatteredGlass said:


> who wants to believe that?


Exactly. People don't want to so they come up with other crazy ideas - even though they lived/live like it is very important in their choices.


----------



## mt moyt

i just think its really boring for the point of life to be passing down your genes. and even if biology says so, i dont care tbh. i would prefer to find my own reason for living rather than having it dictated previously/automatically for me.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

mt moyt said:


> i just think its really boring for the point of life to be passing down your genes. and even if biology says so, i dont care tbh. i would prefer to find my own reason for living rather than having it dictated previously/automatically for me.


 Now see. That's the kind of thinking that causes J. Robert Oppenheimer.


----------



## mt moyt

WillYouStopDave said:


> Now see. That's the kind of thinking that causes J. Robert Oppenheimer.


lol i guess it is rather dangerous thinking. but thats still more interesting


----------



## Mc Borg

mt moyt said:


> i just think its really boring for the point of life to be passing down your genes. and even if biology says so, i dont care tbh. i would prefer to find my own reason for living rather than having it dictated previously/automatically for me.


I agree with this, but I'm also not a naturalist/physicalist, so it's not really a problem for my worldview. Here is a quote from Dawkins illustrating OPs whole point:

"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That is exactly what we are here for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living."


----------



## kageri

There are animals that do not make it their point in life to produce babies but they usually play a supporting role in a social group that helps others produce and care for babies. Such as extra males being guards and subordinate or infertile females and males being baby sitters. Less social animals are pretty much driven to survive and reproduce with less complexity. Their existence is often not very ensured and they need to keep working toward population increase. However, you do have some very complex animals like orcas, possibly true whales but we have too little info, and apes who will choose to have offspring or not based on various things that _seems_ to come down to living conditions and risks to offspring most of the time but is sometimes unknown and may cause a die out of the population partially by choice. The orca pod off the western US has mostly stopped giving birth for not entirely known reasons. Possibly knowing there is a reduction of food before the offspring are born and starve rather than simpler animals that will just keep giving birth until the whole population is starving off or orcas even remember the roundups of their offspring that used to happen for human entertainment and still avoid areas that were used to run them into dead ends for capture so may not feel safe having offspring for that and other reasons we don't know of. Theories only since no one can talk to them but the intelligence and memory has been shown to exist in some of these apes and ocean animals to make such choices over biological drive to continue the population.

Humans are far more complex than that in their reasons. It may be we've simply reached such a huge population it no longer matters if everyone reproduces and may be beneficial not to in some situations so the choices have become greater. Particularly those who are less capable of fitting the changes to modern society and social structure. If we are being totally honest part of evolution is to cut out those that haven't evolved to match the changes in the living style of the population regardless of species and lack of ability to fit in may apply even to humans. Humans though can go do what they want and the population is far from dying out at the moment. If a whole bunch of people, like me, don't want kids it's not going to do much to population stability worldwide on at least the relative (several generations) short term. It may however alter society in a direction you do not want or that is not even beneficial to our continued existence. If a certain group/culture/living style of people chooses more often to have less children and another chooses more often to have children, and especially lots of children, which way is society going to go? Probably not the preferred direction of the first group because you aren't increasing the population that follows that way of life. Instead you need "converts" to it from other lifestyles that produced more children. We can get into some very questionable discussions on the reproduction of various groups of people and where it will take us at that point....


----------



## andretti

Life is what you want it to be. Who cares the path everyone follows ot what everyone else says it should be. Long as you aren't hurting anyone, live your life how you see fit. I have a bunch of kids and it doesnt make your life any better or significant. Your life is insignificant regardless if you have kids or not 

So do what you want.


----------



## reese444

biology is lies


----------



## SplendidBob

Mc Borg said:


> I agree with this, but I'm also not a naturalist/physicalist, so it's not really a problem for my worldview. Here is a quote from Dawkins illustrating OPs whole point:
> 
> "We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That is exactly what we are here for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole _reason_ for living."


Reason for living (as in, the reason why they are alive, which I assume he means) isn't the same as their _life's purpose_. In fact, in later editions of The Selfish Gene (if memory serves) I am pretty sure Dawkins spends a good while dealing with silly arguments like the OP makes, because after he wrote the book a lot of people tried to invoke evolution as some kind of moral / social prescription. I am sure you will agree (whatever your views) this is silly .

@wmu'14 I was off my head when I wrote that, so gravity was probably a mildly weak choice, but you still are trying to make some kind of weird lifestyle guide out of a biological process.

For example, to illustrate, evolution also gave us the capacity to invent birth control and condoms, therefore, it is evident evolution's _actual_ end goal was to stop humans having babies.

Don't you see how empty both of these arguments are? You are ascribing what amounts to godhood to a natural process "what does the mighty god evolution want us to do?".

Its poo.


----------



## tehuti88

wmu'14 said:


> I don't stop there because I see the desire for sex in what everyone does/did.


For at least 1% of the population, including myself, you're seeing something that isn't there.


----------



## Mc Borg

splendidbob said:


> Reason for living (as in, the reason why they are alive, which I assume he means) isn't the same as their _life's purpose_. In fact, in later editions of The Selfish Gene (if memory serves) I am pretty sure Dawkins spends a good while dealing with silly arguments like the OP makes, because after he wrote the book a lot of people tried to invoke evolution as some kind of moral / social prescription. I am sure you will agree (whatever your views) this is silly .


Well yeah, because I reject the idea that we're merely "biological machines" from the outset, so all that other stuff is like talking about square circles to me.  Physicalism/naturalism does a terrible job of explaining human consciousness, which is a necessary prerequisite of purpose, meaning, etc. Imo, the logical conclusion of those positions is eliminative materialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism


----------



## SplendidBob

@Mc Borg yeh, i'm not gonna bite, but you should be honest and say the OP's point is ridiculous. You can state something is a horrible argument even if it goes against your personal beliefs. You also shouldn't misrepresent what Dawkins is saying, cos he sure as hell isn't making the same argument as the OP


----------



## Neal

This thread got deep as hell.


----------



## Mc Borg

splendidbob said:


> @Mc Borg yeh, i'm not gonna bite, but you should be honest and say the OP's point is ridiculous. You can state something is a horrible argument even if it goes against your personal beliefs. You also shouldn't misrepresent what Dawkins is saying, cos he sure as hell isn't making the same argument as the OP


Man, why are you being so hostile? If you want me to reply, you're going to have to be more cordial. 

I already said that I think it's a bad argument, because I reject the premise that it rests on. I also don't see how I misrepresented anything. They're both talking about biological purpose. Whether or not people create their own meaning and purpose _in life_ is irrelevant to that point.


----------



## Mc Borg

splendidbob said:


> @Mc Borg, wasn't aware I was being hostile, apologies if it came across that way.
> 
> Dawkins isn't talking biological _purpose_, it seems you just misunderstood him, an error of comprehension not a misrepresentation, fair enough.


It was a joke. 

What _was_ he talking about then? You realize that he's a biologist talking about biology, right?


----------



## SplendidBob

Mc Borg said:


> It was a joke.
> 
> What _was_ he talking about then?


What kind of joke? (jokes work best when they have humour, I find).

He is talking about the purpose of DNA, not the purpose of the entity. If you had read any of his work this would be immediately obvious.

And the "purpose" of DNA he notes is a mental shorthand, numerous times, so readers don't misunderstand (since DNA isn't conscious)


----------



## Mc Borg

splendidbob said:


> What kind of joke? (jokes work best when they have humour, I find).
> 
> He is talking about the purpose of DNA, not the purpose of the entity. If you had read any of his work this would be immediately obvious.


A throwback to when you made that claim against me. :b (I found it funny) But tbh, you telling me that I should "be honest" was slightly unnecessary.

Secondly, in the quote he specifically says that "we" are biological machines. How is that not directly mentioning the entities purpose? DNA doesn't even make sense separated from living things.


----------



## SplendidBob

Mc Borg said:


> A throwback to when you made that claim against me. :b (I found it funny) But tbh, you telling me that I should "be honest" was slightly unnecessary.


Jesus, that's going back what, a year? I don't remember things from last week :b. Re honest, I assumed you understood what Dawkins was saying, sorry.



Mc Borg said:


> Secondly, in the quote he specifically says that "we" are biological machines. How is that not directly mentioning the entities purpose? DNA doesn't even make sense separated from living things.


We _are_ biological machines, what has that got to do with purpose?

A friendly suggestion, you might benefit from the principle of charity. If you are going to critique an argument your should consider it in the strongest possible variation (presumably this would mean having read it). But Dawkins isn't even making this argument, as you would know if you read his book.

There is a _very_ good reason that viewing evolution from the perspective of the gene (and thus viewing it in some way separate from the organism) is exceptionally useful. It's all there in the The Selfish Gene. One extremely useful insight for example is in helping to explain altruistic behaviour in species, there is probably more but it's been a few years since I read it.


----------



## Mc Borg

splendidbob said:


> Jesus, that's going back what, a year? I don't remember things from last week :b. Re honest, I assumed you understood what Dawkins was saying, sorry.
> 
> We _are_ biological machines, what has that got to do with purpose?
> 
> A friendly suggestion, you might benefit from the principle of charity. If you are going to critique an argument your should consider it in the strongest possible variation (presumably this would mean having read it). But Dawkins isn't even making this argument, as you would know if you read his book.
> 
> There is a _very_ good reason that viewing evolution from the perspective of the gene (and thus viewing it in some way separate from the organism) is exceptionally useful. It's all there in the The Selfish Gene. One extremely useful insight for example is in helping to explain altruistic behaviour in species, there is probably more but it's been a few years since I read it.


And you were using said principle in claiming that I was misrepresenting a quote, when all I did was _post_ it?

Dawkins isn't even making an argument in the quoted text. He's just explaining that we are biological machines for propagating DNA. And he is talking about "our" purpose not "DNAs" in that text contra your claim. I'm also completely aware that he's not using "purpose" in the way that it's normally understood. I always find it odd when materialists use teleological language. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing how I misrepresented anything. I think you may be reading too much into what I quoted and what OP is saying.


----------



## Mc Borg

Alright, so I think I figured out what the problem is here. You're conflating the term Purpose with a capital P (the sort that religious people believe in) and purpose as in _function_ (specifically "biological function" - what the thing _does_). What Dawkins and OP are saying (OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's pretty clear) is that our function is to propagate DNA (it certainly isn't to have fun and enjoy life). We're by nature the _sorts of things_ that do that, no different than lemurs, amoeba, etc. - the propagation of DNA is the only reason why we are here writing stuff on the internet. It's a chain that goes back to the beginning of life on earth. He's saying that if that's all we are, then _in that very limited sense_ (biologically), people like him are failing to achieve that. I really don't see why this is controversial at all.


----------



## truant

Mc Borg said:


> Alright, so I think I figured out what the problem is here. You're conflating the term Purpose with a capital P (the sort that religious people believe in) and purpose as in _function_ (specifically "biological function" - what the thing does). What Dawkins and OP are saying (OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's pretty clear) is that our function is to propagate DNA. We're by nature the _sorts of things_ that do that, no different than lemurs, amoeba, etc. - the propagation of DNA is the only reason why we are here writing stuff on the internet. It's a chain that goes back to the beginning of life on earth. He's saying that if that's all we are, then in that very limited sense (biologically), people like him are failing to achieve that. I really don't see why this is controversial at all.


It's controversial because the OP isn't restricting the meaning of failure to a functional sense. He's mixing teleology and function ("point, best, inferior"). He's saying that it's _bad_ to fail at the task of reproducing, and bad is pure teleology. That's the kind of conclusion Dawkins warned against making. So no, they're not saying the same thing.

"Genetic failure" is not bad from "biology's perspective" because biology has no perspective at all. It's pure process. Your genes don't care if you reproduce because your genes aren't conscious beings with opinions about things. They're chemicals. They've simply evolved in such a way that they DO reproduce given the proper conditions. It's only self-aware humans comparing themselves to other self-aware humans that care. And at the level of consciousness and value formation, individuals are free to decide for themselves what kind of value (if any) to attach to the act of reproducing.

All this alpha/beta stuff is pure mythology. Thinking that your genes care about reproducing is sort of like imagining that water molecules are racing each other to be the first one on the beach when the tide comes in.


----------



## Mc Borg

truant said:


> It's controversial because the OP isn't restricting the meaning of failure to a functional sense. He's mixing teleology and function ("point, best, inferior"). He's saying that it's _bad_ to fail at the task of reproducing, and bad is pure teleology. That's the kind of conclusion Dawkins warned against making. So no, they're not saying the same thing.
> 
> "Genetic failure" is not bad from "biology's perspective" because biology has no perspective at all. It's pure process. Your genes don't care if you reproduce because your genes aren't conscious beings with opinions about things. They're chemicals. They've simply evolved in such a way that they DO reproduce given the proper conditions. It's only self-aware humans comparing themselves to other self-aware humans that care. And at the level of consciousness and value formation, individuals are free to decide for themselves what kind of value (if any) to attach to the act of reproducing.
> 
> All this alpha/beta stuff is pure mythology. *Thinking that your genes care about reproducing is sort of like imagining that water molecules are racing each other to be the first one on the beach when the tide comes in.*


I didn't read him as saying that at all. Let's let him come in here and confirm or deny that that is what he meant. Again, I think you guys are reading way too much into what he's saying.


----------



## komorikun

Genes get extremely diluted quickly. I mean I doubt you have much in common with your great-grandparents. You probably don't even remember your great-grandparents. Probably know next to nothing about your great-great grandparents if you even know their names. It will be the same with your great-grandchildren. So I don't really see the whole point in it all.


----------



## wmu'14

Bottom line is if a female doesn't want to pass on your genes it means you are a genetic failure.



Mc Borg said:


> Alright, so I think I figured out what the problem is here. You're conflating the term Purpose with a capital P (the sort that religious people believe in) and purpose as in _function_ (specifically "biological function" - what the thing _does_). What Dawkins and OP are saying (OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's pretty clear) is that our function is to propagate DNA (it certainly isn't to have fun and enjoy life). We're by nature the _sorts of things_ that do that, no different than lemurs, amoeba, etc. - the propagation of DNA is the only reason why we are here writing stuff on the internet. It's a chain that goes back to the beginning of life on earth. He's saying that if that's all we are, then _in that very limited sense_ (biologically), people like him are failing to achieve that. I really don't see why this is controversial at all.


Yep, exactly.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Bottom line is if a female doesn't want to pass on your genes it means you are a genetic failure.


Well, if it makes you feel any better, every single one of your ancestors, _every single one_, stretching back all the way to the earliest form of life that reproduced sexually managed to reproduce. Each of them effectively being selected for the goal of reproducing resulting in the biologically perfect woman attraction machine that is you. All of your genes hopes and dreams are resting on your shoulders wmu, they gave you all of the raw tools for the job and all you need to do is go to the gym consistently to become a Chad.

Your genes are screaming out for Chadularity. Why won't you gain chad form?


----------



## komorikun

Got to find a dumb woman who isn't careful with birth control and believes abortion is a sin.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> Well, if it makes you feel any better, every single one of your ancestors, _every single one_, stretching back all the way to the earliest form of life that reproduced sexually managed to reproduce. Each of them effectively being selected for the goal of reproducing resulting in the biologically perfect woman attraction machine that is you. All of your genes hopes and dreams are resting on your shoulders wmu, they gave you all of the raw tools for the job and all you need to do is go to the gym consistently to become a Chad.
> 
> Your genes are screaming out for Chadularity. Why won't you gain chad form?


Well, I guess it's because I'm so skinny I'm afraid of what people would say if I showed up at the gym. I don't really know how to use any of the equipment or anything either. I have some 75 pound weights at home that I use, but those can only get me so far.



komorikun said:


> Got to find a dumb woman who isn't careful with birth control and believes abortion is a sin.


What you have against people against abortion bro? And a woman can have a baby and not believe abortions a sin, dude.

Also, I can't find a woman who wants to have sex/date me so I can't even get that far!!


----------



## komorikun

I thought good Christians didn't have sex before marriage.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Well, I guess it's because I'm so skinny I'm afraid of what people would say if I showed up at the gym. I don't really know how to use any of the equipment or anything either. I have some 75 pound weights at home that I use, but those can only get me so far.


You have stated that you no longer have anxiety. You must get to the gym somehow or you are letting down all of your ancestors who managed to reproduce and have all their genetic hopes resting on you. If you don't unleash the Chad in you, what has the point been of their endless struggle back throughout all of time?

Don't you care about the efforts your ancestors made? Don't you know this is all resting on your (narrow) shoulders? Chad form awaits you, and you don't have anxiety, so get to the gym and start making gains so you can fulfil your genetic destiny.

If you want to get laid, then you need Chad form, that much is undeniable. If you want Chad form, then you have to get to the gym, because Chads have to work on their physiques. You don't seem to understand the effort it takes to get 14 inch biceps. It takes a lot of work curling in the squat rack and not training legs. You are basically saying "I want to get laid, but I don't want to gain Chad form, I am too scared to grab hold of my genetic destiny".

Do you, or do you not want Chad form?


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> You have stated that you no longer have anxiety. You must get to the gym somehow or you are letting down all of your ancestors who managed to reproduce and have all their genetic hopes resting on you. If you don't unleash the Chad in you, what has the point been of their endless struggle back throughout all of time?
> 
> Don't you care about the efforts your ancestors made? Don't you know this is all resting on your (narrow) shoulders? Chad form awaits you, and you don't have anxiety, so get to the gym and start making gains so you can fulfil your genetic destiny.
> 
> If you want to get laid, then you need Chad form, that much is undeniable. If you want Chad form, then you have to get to the gym, because Chads have to work on their physiques. You don't seem to understand the effort it takes to get 14 inch biceps. It takes a lot of work curling in the squat rack and not training legs. You are basically saying "I want to get laid, but I don't want to gain Chad form, I am too scared to grab hold of my genetic destiny".
> 
> Do you, or do you not want Chad form?


You're right of course but who are you and what have you done with the real splendidbob?

Also this is what I was saying when I said the SAD still haunts my life. I don't know how to use any of the equipment, would look silly with all the Chads there, and wouldn't know how much to train what parts
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmu'14

komorikun said:


> I thought good Christians didn't have sex before marriage.


Eh? Christians have sex outside of marriage all the time bro
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> You're right of course but who are you and what have you done with the real splendidbob?
> 
> Also this is what I was saying when I said the SAD still haunts my life. I don't know how to use any of the equipment, would look silly with all the Chads there, and wouldn't know how much to train what parts
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, nobody knows how to use the equipment initially. Chads aren't born with the knowledge of how to curl in the squat rack. You have to go in and do an induction course or whatever.

If you want 13 inch biceps, and to wear tight little muscle shirts to get laid you are going to have to take the hit and get down the gym and skip leg day like the other Chads.

This is one of those things you just have to do if you want to get laid.

1. Must be Chad to get laid
2. To become Chad need gym

therefore

3. Must join gym.

Your genes are counting on you.


----------



## komorikun

wmu'14 said:


> Eh? Christians have sex outside of marriage all the time bro
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I thought only rotten ones that have gone astray do that.


----------



## JH1983

I guess my life is pointless because I'm highly allergic to babies.


----------



## wmu'14

komorikun said:


> I thought only rotten ones that have gone astray do that.


You'd be surprised.

Keep in mind a few of Jesus's companions were prostitutes, too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SplendidBob

Well, there is of course the whole "biology says point of life isn't to be Christian" thing, being a literal weird genetic determinist and treating your genes as god is incompatible with having, well, god as god, but then the OP is very selectively picking and choosing which instructions to follow here.

I think how it works in his mind is something like this:

"Does this idea help me justify my pre-existing absurd beliefs?"

If the answer is a yes, run with it to its extreme. If a no, then ignore it.

Q: What can you achieve in life without magnificent 12.5 inch biceps?
A: Nothing at all. It's even _impossible_ to start in a gym without them.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> Well, there is of course the whole "biology says point of life isn't to be Christian" thing, being a literal weird genetic determinist and treating your genes as god is incompatible with having, well, god as god, but then the OP is very selectively picking and choosing which instructions to follow here.


I'm sorry I'm not a nerd, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. Can you please put it in layman's terms. Thanks in advance.



splendidbob said:


> Q: What can you achieve in life without magnificent 12.5 inch biceps?
> A: Nothing at all. It's even _impossible_ to start in a gym without them.


It's not _impossible_ but it's not easy. I want to talk to my counselor on this, maybe he knows a good gym or someone who can help me on this part.

But yes, it will be _impossible_ for me to get a girlfriend/a girl interested in me without getting ripped.


JH1983 said:


> I guess my life is pointless because I'm highly allergic to babies.


then eventually people like you will get weeded out of the genetic pool.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> I'm sorry I'm not a nerd, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. Can you please put it in layman's terms. Thanks in advance.


This thread: we should do what our genes suggest. Yet you are a christian.

Your genes: "**** thy neighbours wife, and **** her hard"
Christianity: "no, don't do that".

i.e. you are simply selectively plucking out of thin air whatever supports your preconceived beliefs.



wmu'14 said:


> It's not _impossible_ but it's not easy. I want to talk to my counselor on this, maybe he knows a good gym or someone who can help me on this part.


1. I can't believe your counsellor isn't a proper therapist.
2. You think he will be able to advise on a gym
3. You took what I said earlier as being serious
4. You think you have been trying to become all buff because you are certain that is where success lays, don't have anxiety, and haven't joined a gym



wmu'14 said:


> But yes, it will be _impossible_ for me to get a girlfriend/a girl interested in me without getting ripped.


It's total hogwash, but you don't have anxiety and you haven't even joined a ****ing gym, yet you believe this. Your effort levels = 0%

And yeh, this is harsh, but come on. If you actually seriously believe this nonsense about being muscular, and you are claiming you don't have anxiety, then what have you been doing?

i.e. something isn't right here and my money is on massive denial about still being anxious.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> This thread: we should do what our genes suggest. Yet you are a christian.
> 
> Your genes: "**** thy neighbours wife, and **** her hard"
> Christianity: "no, don't do that".
> 
> i.e. you are simply selectively plucking out of thin air whatever supports your preconceived beliefs.


Not as 'Christian' as I used to be. I recognize that it was preventing me from getting a girlfriend. I was too strict in my beliefs and girls don't want that. 
Also, you don't have to be Christian to recognize that ****ing thy neighbor's wife could lead to some problems.



splendidbob said:


> 1. I can't believe your counsellor isn't a proper therapist.


What do you mean by proper therapist? (Before I offer my thought on this.



splendidbob said:


> 2. You think he will be able to advise on a gym


Yes.



splendidbob said:


> 3. You took what I said earlier as being serious


No. But I was playing along.



splendidbob said:


> 4. You think you have been trying to become all buff because you are certain that is where success lays, don't have anxiety, and haven't joined a gym
> 
> It's total hogwash, but you don't have anxiety and you haven't even joined a ****ing gym, yet you believe this. Your effort levels = 0%
> 
> And yeh, this is harsh, but come on. If you actually seriously believe this nonsense about being muscular, and you are claiming you don't have anxiety, then what have you been doing?
> 
> i.e. something isn't right here and my money is on massive denial about still being anxious.


Yes, this post was very harsh. I'm trying to figure out what you did with the real splendidbob because I definitely recognize a change in tone!

Anyways, yes, it's fully possible to be cured of social anxiety but still get 'gymtimidation.' There's gyms in my area that advertise saying that people can exercise there without 'gymtimidation.'

My effort levels are not 0%. I've posted numerous times how I'm trying / did improve myself. If you think my effort really is 0%, then you are admitting being buff really is the answer.

And for sure: I would definitely need to have gym staff show me the equipment. It's pretty sad though someone who's in their mid 20s almost 30 wouldn't know how to use any of the equipment.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Not as 'Christian' as I used to be. I recognize that it was preventing me from getting a girlfriend. I was too strict in my beliefs and girls don't want that.
> Also, you don't have to be Christian to recognize that ****ing thy neighbor's wife could lead to some problems.


Yeh, this was in reference to what I posted earlier. You made this thread citing biology as your true god, i.e. you are perfectly happy to say biology dictates something is a failure when it agrees with you, but not when something else exceeds it.

And for the record, ****ing your neighbours wife is fine so long as her husband is out and she doesn't say anything.

Well no, it isn't but that's not the point, the point is your genes would totally be behind this action, but you aren't saying "biology says it is ok to **** your wife". You only invoke biology as guidance when it suits you.

For the record, its stupid to invoke biology / evolution in this way_ at all_.



wmu'14 said:


> What do you mean by proper therapist? (Before I offer my thought on this.


You said he was a christian counsellor. I took that to mean like a christian university (basically fictional). My mistake if he has qualifications etc.



wmu'14 said:


> No. But I was playing along.


Good, then you recognise this line of thinking is totally absurd then, because it was meant as a total absurdity.



wmu'14 said:


> Yes, this post was very harsh. I'm trying to figure out what you did with the real splendidbob because I definitely recognize a change in tone!


I got tired of trying to help people who are totally resistant to help. Not that I am in any position to help anyone. But I figured I would just run with your idea and you would realise how silly it is.

Honestly, I don't really care much any more. I am at the point with SAS where so much of it is blocked because it's been overrun with trolls and crap posts I am just posting what I feel like posting at any particular time.



wmu'14 said:


> Anyways, yes, it's fully possible to be cured of social anxiety but still get 'gymtimidation.' There's gyms in my area that advertise saying that people can exercise there without 'gymtimidation.'
> 
> My effort levels are not 0%. I've posted numerous times how I'm trying / did improve myself. If you think my effort really is 0%, then you are admitting being buff really is the answer.


I joined and go to a gym as an exposure exercise and I have social anxiety. It was hard, but I did it, and I don't think it is the magical cure all for getting laid. As _you do_ that must mean that either:

1. You have worse social anxiety than me (meaning, you still have it)
2. You wanted to go to the gym less than I did (and I wanted it just as something to check of my exposure list). That isn't wanting it very much.



wmu'14 said:


> And for sure: I would definitely need to have gym staff show me the equipment. It's pretty sad though someone who's in their mid 20s almost 30 wouldn't know how to use any of the equipment.


That _is_ social anxiety. Someone without it wouldn't mind (or see a problem with) asking.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> Yeh, this was in reference to what I posted earlier. You made this thread citing biology as your true god, i.e. you are perfectly happy to say biology dictates something is a failure when it agrees with you, but not when something else exceeds it.
> 
> And for the record, ****ing your neighbours wife is fine so long as her husband is out and she doesn't say anything.
> 
> Well no, it isn't but that's not the point, the point is your genes would totally be behind this action, but you aren't saying "biology says it is ok to **** your wife". You only invoke biology as guidance when it suits you.
> 
> For the record, its stupid to invoke biology / evolution in this way_ at all_.


Biology also says 'keep me out of trouble (i.e. pissed-off husband might shoot me)' Open a Biology 101 textbook. 2 of the main 'goals' of a species are 'survive and reproduce.' Can't reproduce if you don't survive.

When I look at a beautiful woman, you bet I want to **** her hard.

If it wasn't 'life's goal', we or the abundance in animal life wouldn't have flourished for millions of years. Think about it. That's how long things have been ****ing each other. It's crazy. To say that not making babies isn't the point of life is ignorance. Animals go out of their way to ****, and that includes humans.



splendidbob said:


> You said he was a christian counsellor. I took that to mean like a christian university (basically fictional). My mistake if he has qualifications etc.


 Psychology and dealing with life's frustrations/stresses don't change no matter what religion - or not religion - you are.



splendidbob said:


> Good, then you recognise this line of thinking is totally absurd then, because it was meant as a total absurdity.


It's not totally absurd. Lots of buff guys have girlfriends.



splendidbob said:


> I got tired of trying to help people who are totally resistant to help. Not that I am in any position to help anyone. But I figured I would just run with your idea and you would realise how silly it is.
> 
> Honestly, I don't really care much any more. I am at the point with SAS where so much of it is blocked because it's been overrun with trolls and crap posts I am just posting what I feel like posting at any particular time.


Yah, it's coming across as hostile. I thought you recognized my thinking problem and was going to help but now you're just being hostile.



splendidbob said:


> I joined and go to a gym as an exposure exercise and I have social anxiety. It was hard, but I did it, and I don't think it is the magical cure all for getting laid. As _you do_ that must mean that either:
> 
> 1. You have worse social anxiety than me (meaning, you still have it)
> 2. You wanted to go to the gym less than I did (and I wanted it just as something to check of my exposure list). That isn't wanting it very much.
> 
> That _is_ social anxiety. Someone without it wouldn't mind (or see a problem with) asking.


Fair enough. But it doesn't mean that I still have Social Anxiety Disorder. Just because I'm still anxious to go to a gym doesn't mean I'm not cured in other areas. 
I know that people cure their social anxiety and still don't like talking to large groups of people. Doesn't mean they didn't cure it. You have flawed logic in regards to what it means to have social anxiety cured.

And I am _seriously_ considering joining a gym. That's something I didn't even consider back when I had SAD. Just a 'nope never' kind of thing.

Also, part of me thinks that I shouldn't have to get super buff to get a girlfriend. Part of me thinks that maybe a girl won't be so shallow. Seems like my thinking is leading me astray and that I'll have to get super buff and that's the only option. Being skinny as a string bean hasn't gotten me *****.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Biology also says 'keep me out of trouble (i.e. pissed-off husband might shoot me)' Open a Biology 101 textbook. 2 of the main 'goals' of a species are 'survive and reproduce.' Can't reproduce if you don't survive.


So if you could **** her and not get caught, or, you could **** her but were buff enough to not care about the husband (or had more guns etc) that would make it ok?

Doesn't the entire notion of ****ing your neighbours wife go against christianity?

You are missing the point. You pick and choose from whatever you want to pick and choose from so long as it backs up your preexisting viewpoint.



wmu'14 said:


> When I look at a beautiful woman, you bet I want to **** her hard.


If only you had joined that gym a year ago.



wmu'14 said:


> Psychology and dealing with life's frustrations/stresses don't change no matter what religion - or not religion - you are.


The competency of the therapist potentially does though. In what way is a christian counsellor different from a non christian one? Why is christian even there at all if there isn't a difference?

I mean, I have no clue, you checked out the guys credentials, what are his qualifications?



wmu'14 said:


> It's not totally absurd. Lots of buff guys have girlfriends.


Lots of skinny guys have girlfriends therefore you have to be skinny to get a girlfriend.

Is that not a totally absurd comment?



wmu'14 said:


> Yah, it's coming across as hostile. I thought you recognized my thinking problem and was going to help but now you're just being hostile.


Whether you perceive me as hostile is of no consequence to me. I am under no obligation not be be hostile towards you, in fact, shouldn't I be hostile?

What help are you open to exactly? People have listened to your bleating and whining for how long now? What have you changed? What opinions of yours have changed? I have offered to help you and you turned me down. You couldn't even manage to post a nice post somewhere else in the forum, you just ripped on attractive people in the pics thread.

How about you don't _expect_ help from others, how about you ****ing _earn it _for once?

Why do you deserve help?



wmu'14 said:


> Fair enough. But it doesn't mean that I still have Social Anxiety Disorder. Just because I'm still anxious to go to a gym doesn't mean I'm not cured in other areas.
> I know that people cure their social anxiety and still don't like talking to large groups of people. Doesn't mean they didn't cure it. You have flawed logic in regards to what it means to have social anxiety cured.


Evidently you aren't cured when dealing with women. It isn't a problem other than that you don't admit it and instead blame women, then it's a problem.



wmu'14 said:


> And I am _seriously_ considering joining a gym. That's something I didn't even consider back when I had SAD. Just a 'nope never' kind of thing.


It's too late now, you need the buffness and you put it off, buffness takes time.



wmu'14 said:


> Also, part of me thinks that I shouldn't have to get super buff to get a girlfriend. Part of me thinks that maybe a girl won't be so shallow. Seems like my thinking is leading me astray and that I'll have to get super buff and that's the only option. Being skinny as a string bean hasn't gotten me *****.


Yes, that's right, sign up to the gym tomorrow and don't forget the steroids, its the only way.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> So if you could **** her and not get caught, or, you could **** her but were buff enough to not care about the husband (or had more guns etc) that would make it ok?
> 
> Doesn't the entire notion of ****ing your neighbours wife go against christianity?
> 
> You are missing the point. You pick and choose from whatever you want to pick and choose from so long as it backs up your preexisting viewpoint.
> 
> If only you had joined that gym a year ago.
> 
> The competency of the therapist potentially does though. In what way is a christian counsellor different from a non christian one? Why is christian even there at all if there isn't a difference?
> 
> I mean, I have no clue, you checked out the guys credentials, what are his qualifications?
> 
> Lots of skinny guys have girlfriends therefore you have to be skinny to get a girlfriend.
> 
> Is that not a totally absurd comment?
> 
> Whether you perceive me as hostile is of no consequence to me. I am under no obligation not be be hostile towards you, in fact, shouldn't I be hostile?
> 
> What help are you open to exactly? People have listened to your bleating and whining for how long now? What have you changed? What opinions of yours have changed? I have offered to help you and you turned me down. You couldn't even manage to post a nice post somewhere else in the forum, you just ripped on attractive people in the pics thread.
> 
> How about you don't _expect_ help from others, how about you ****ing _earn it _for once?
> 
> Why do you deserve help?
> 
> Evidently you aren't cured when dealing with women. It isn't a problem other than that you don't admit it and instead blame women, then it's a problem.
> 
> It's too late now, you need the buffness and you put it off, buffness takes time.
> 
> Yes, that's right, sign up to the gym tomorrow and don't forget the steroids, its the only way.


No one ever really gives me advice on here. They just say "not all girls are like that."

I'm short on time now so I'll just ask a couple quick questions:

1.) How do I find a good gym?
2.) Will there be a staff member to teach me to use the equipment or do I just start trying to use it on my own and prepare myself for someone to say I'm doing it wrong? (The few times I've been to one they always say that as if I'm a loser who doesn't belong there)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> No one ever really gives me advice on here. They just say "not all girls are like that."


It's because they aren't. You are simply wrong about women, they don't even like muscular guys particularly, on average. @HiddenFathoms was insanely patient and helpful to you, I have tried, @LonelyLurker has tried, @TheWelshOne has tried amongst others repeatedly, but if it isn't what you want to hear you just dismiss it.

Have you ever actually researched into what body women find attractive, you know actual studies and whatnot? Or just assumed they prefer muscular guys? Because the actual research says that:

1. It's varied (duh, surprise)
2. A lot of women like a bit of fat
3. A lot of women like skinny

It's just endlessly annoying for people to constantly tell you this stuff, even when there are studies on it, and you just say "no". People are giving you advice, they have given you a **** tonne of advice, you just have ignored all of it because it wasn't what you want to hear.

I mean I have blocked frustration because I couldn't handle the endless repetition any more, but I assume your threads are still going on as they always have.



wmu'14 said:


> 1.) How do I find a good gym?


My advice, find a relatively cheap 24 hour one which caters for fitness and not just muscle, has a lot of cardio machines and a lot of weight machines. You can use the machines safely and very effectively until you are ready to progress to free weights (I can't do much free weights atm cos of my neck). My gym has free inductions. Honestly, just go to a chain gym they will be best suited to cater to you.

This is the one I go to: https://www.thegymgroup.com/ it's cheap, local, 24 hour, has good machines, nice free weights section and you can even look on google and go when its quiet.

Yes, it was a major ****ing task to go there (7-8/10 anxiety), yes it was a major task to just start using the equipment, but it was worth it, not only cos my physique is getting pretty good, but cos it gets me out.



wmu'14 said:


> 2.) Will there be a staff member to teach me to use the equipment or do I just start trying to use it on my own and prepare myself for someone to say I'm doing it wrong? (The few times I've been to one they always say that as if I'm a loser who doesn't belong there)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I can't even fathom people doing that in a gym, the gym I go to nobody has ever commented to my knowledge on anything anyone else has done in that way (been going 4 months now). I have been spoken to maybe 3 times, excluding those who I spoke to (well one person, cos  ).

Yeh, when you join just say "are there inductions for the equipment", and they will show yo how to use them. No problem. Just don't go to a bro gym to begin with.

I mean you are totally wrong about muscular physiques and males, but tbh it won't harm you to start lifting weights, if just to help your confidence. Don't expect magic though, and my advice:

1. Read up on what you are doing re gaining muscle, and losing bodyfat
2. Do one of the two at any one time, if gaining muscle make sure the weight goes up over time and you eat a surplus
3. It takes consistency for results
4. Women aren't going to be falling all over you in a year or two when you get the physique you want.


----------



## tehuti88

splendidbob said:


> It's because they aren't. You are simply wrong about women, they don't even like muscular guys particularly, on average. @*HiddenFathoms* was insanely patient and helpful to you, I have tried, @*LonelyLurker* has tried, @*TheWelshOne* has tried amongst others repeatedly, but if it isn't what you want to hear you just dismiss it.


I've just gotten sick of the "Michigan women are more shallow than everyone else" comments. Like being slapped in the face *every time I step into one of these threads*. Don't know why I ever bothered. (Not sure why you're still bothering, either, @*splendidbob* . :/ Sorry.)



And the really stupid thing is, those comments aren't going to stop even though I've pointed out how insulting and _judgemental/shallow_ this is. (And weirdly, OP _still_ has more romantic experience than this so-called shallow Michigan woman who is fifteen years older...not that he'd ever admit it. "It was _barely_ even a date!")

Yeah, it's _women_ who are the problem here.

...There, got that out of the way. Bugging me for ages. Resume the Michigan-woman bashing now and then wonder why none of them want to date. :roll

(PS--25 years old is not "almost 30." It's right in the middle.)


----------



## wmu'14

tehuti88 said:


> I've just gotten sick of the "Michigan women are more shallow than everyone else" comments. Like being slapped in the face *every time I step into one of these threads*. Don't know why I ever bothered. (Not sure why you're still bothering, either, @splendidbob . :/ Sorry.)
> 
> 
> 
> And the really stupid thing is, those comments aren't going to stop even though I've pointed out how insulting and _judgemental/shallow_ this is. (And weirdly, OP _still_ has more romantic experience than this so-called shallow Michigan woman...not that he'd ever admit it. "It was barely even a date!")
> 
> Yeah, it's _women_ who are the problem here.
> 
> ...There, got that out of the way. Bugging me for ages. Resume the Michigan-woman bashing now and then wonder why none of them want to date. :roll
> 
> (PS--25 years old is not "almost 30." It's right in the middle.)


Oh sorry. I thought that meant Lake Michigan. (Not to be a nerd, but Wisconsin and Illinois and Indiana touch the Lake too)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> It's because they aren't. You are simply wrong about women, they don't even like muscular guys particularly, on average. @HiddenFathoms was insanely patient and helpful to you, I have tried, @LonelyLurker has tried, @TheWelshOne has tried amongst others repeatedly, but if it isn't what you want to hear you just dismiss it.
> 
> Have you ever actually researched into what body women find attractive, you know actual studies and whatnot? Or just assumed they prefer muscular guys? Because the actual research says that:
> 
> 1. It's varied (duh, surprise)
> 2. A lot of women like a bit of fat
> 3. A lot of women like skinny
> 
> It's just endlessly annoying for people to constantly tell you this stuff, even when there are studies on it, and you just say "no". People are giving you advice, they have given you a **** tonne of advice, you just have ignored all of it because it wasn't what you want to hear.
> 
> I mean I have blocked frustration because I couldn't handle the endless repetition any more, but I assume your threads are still going on as they always have.
> 
> My advice, find a relatively cheap 24 hour one which caters for fitness and not just muscle, has a lot of cardio machines and a lot of weight machines. You can use the machines safely and very effectively until you are ready to progress to free weights (I can't do much free weights atm cos of my neck). My gym has free inductions. Honestly, just go to a chain gym they will be best suited to cater to you.
> 
> This is the one I go to: https://www.thegymgroup.com/ it's cheap, local, 24 hour, has good machines, nice free weights section and you can even look on google and go when its quiet.
> 
> Yes, it was a major ****ing task to go there (7-8/10 anxiety), yes it was a major task to just start using the equipment, but it was worth it, not only cos my physique is getting pretty good, but cos it gets me out.
> 
> I can't even fathom people doing that in a gym, the gym I go to nobody has ever commented to my knowledge on anything anyone else has done in that way (been going 4 months now). I have been spoken to maybe 3 times, excluding those who I spoke to (well one person, cos  ).
> 
> Yeh, when you join just say "are there inductions for the equipment", and they will show yo how to use them. No problem. Just don't go to a bro gym to begin with.
> 
> I mean you are totally wrong about muscular physiques and males, but tbh it won't harm you to start lifting weights, if just to help your confidence. Don't expect magic though, and my advice:
> 
> 1. Read up on what you are doing re gaining muscle, and losing bodyfat
> 2. Do one of the two at any one time, if gaining muscle make sure the weight goes up over time and you eat a surplus
> 3. It takes consistency for results
> 4. Women aren't going to be falling all over you in a year or two when you get the physique you want.


Okay, I will look up some gyms and go to one that sounds good tonight.

Also, when women say they like skinny guys, they mean a fit skinny guy, not a bean pole who "looks like they don't eat."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Also, when women say they like skinny guys, they mean a fit skinny guy, not a bean pole who "looks like they don't eat."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Go and look at surveys / polls / studies. Firstly you will see a great variety in preference, secondly, yes, very skinny guys are liked by a lot of women esp in your age group, there are like 3 I can think of on this ****ing board.

I mean look at the polls and surveys, *just do it* instead of speculating, they are all over the damn internet. Muscular _just isn't up there_. The safe bet for someone in the 18-30 bracket is some muscle with low body fat, that's probably the preference overall, but its like say 40% of women, with the rest of them liking various body types in men. Including very skinny. Only a small percent like very muscular physiques, from what I can remember.

But this is your problem, you think in absolutes because it gives you a nice clean reason why women don't like you. You have a skinny physique, they don't like you, therefore women don't like skinny physiques. You don't like your nose, women don't like you, therefore women don't like noses like yours.

The reality = women aren't going around irl summarily dismissing men based on a body type, usually. They might be especially drawn to something, so its good if you specialise, perhaps, have _a_ look going on, but you can't really ever know which women will find that attractive until you read their body language. Most guys are averageish looking guys and have no problems getting partners (because they socialise).

Your best bet for skinny, is long hair, pale, slightly sickly looking dude. I don't know why some women prefer this










over this










it's incorrect, objectively, but them's the peculiar and varied preferences of feeeeeeeeeeeeemals.


----------



## Ai

splendidbob said:


> @HiddenFathoms was insanely patient and helpful to you, I have tried, @LonelyLurker has tried, @TheWelshOne has tried amongst others repeatedly, but if it isn't what you want to hear you just dismiss it.


Yep, I tried to genuinely help and advise him a long time ago. He threw it in my face. Repeatedly. The fact that he can't conceive how additionally _insulting_ it is to those who've lent them their time to announce _no one has ever given him advice_ is evidence enough of the pointlessness of it all. He doesn't care or appreciate it. He doesn't want help. He wants validation that he's right, and _only_ validation that he's right.

But what do I know, anyway? I'm just a (not real--completely digital and hypothetical) woman who is attracted to men. Neither I nor my non-fit, "beanpole" of a nerdy/geeky boyfriend have anything of value to add. lol


----------



## tehuti88

Ai said:


> Yep, I tried to genuinely help and advise him a long time ago. He threw it in my face. Repeatedly. The fact that he can't conceive how additionally _insulting_ it is to those who've lent them their time to announce _no one has ever given him advice_ is evidence enough of the pointlessness of it all. He doesn't care or appreciate it. He doesn't want help. He wants validation that he's right, and _only_ validation that he's right.
> 
> But what do I know, anyway? I'm just a (not real--completely digital and hypothetical) woman who is attracted to men. Neither I nor my non-fit, "beanpole" of a nerdy/geeky boyfriend have anything of value to add. lol


I even tried joking around with him in a nerdy way once...completely went over his head and/or he completely forgot about it. Because I guess a shallow Michigan woman can't be a nerd? Who knows anymore. :stu


----------



## Ai

tehuti88 said:


> I even tried joking around with him in a nerdy way once...completely went over his head and/or he completely forgot about it. Because I guess a shallow Michigan woman can't be a nerd? Who knows anymore. :stu


Don't be silly. You know women, full stop, can't be nerds. We just _pretend_ to like nerdy stuff... for some confusing reason... since we don't actually like nerds and I'm not sure how that benefits us...? But at some point, it leads to money and muscles... I think.

Step 1.) fake gamergirl/geek/nerd
Step 2.) ???
Step 3.) profit!


----------



## wmu'14

tehuti88 said:


> I even tried joking around with him in a nerdy way once...completely went over his head and/or he completely forgot about it. Because I guess a shallow Michigan woman can't be a nerd? Who knows anymore. :stu


Are you talking about this:


tehuti88 said:


> You have a LOT of geeking up to do if you want to be considered a real nerd, then. Fhtagn!





wmu'14 said:


> Should probably start playing D&D and buy a gaming console that's not of the Xbox 360/Wii/PS3 generation too then LOL.


Looks like I joked back!


Ai said:


> He threw it in my face. Repeatedly. The fact that he can't conceive how additionally _insulting_ it is to those who've lent them their time to announce _no one has ever given him advice_ is evidence enough of the pointlessness of it all.


People on here only tell me that I'm wrong, the women say they're dating bean-pole guys or aren't dating either, and that's it. That's not advice. How do I get a girlfriend despite being a beanpole? How do I make a girl like me then? That's what I mean when no one's given me advice. People can tell me on here all they want that they'd date me etc. but that doesn't answer my real question.



Ai said:


> Neither I nor my non-fit, "beanpole" of a nerdy/geeky boyfriend value to add. lol


Yay. I guess there is hope for me after all.



Ai said:


> Don't be silly. You know women, full stop, can't be nerds. We just _pretend_ to like nerdy stuff... for some confusing reason... since we don't actually like nerds and I'm not sure how that benefits us...? But at some point, it leads to money and muscles... I think.
> 
> Step 1.) fake gamergirl/geek/nerd
> Step 2.) ???
> Step 3.) profit!


FWIW I've maintained that women/girls can be/are nerds; it's that they don't want a nerdy boyfriend. (And a nerd isn't a buff dude who ocassionaly wears glasses and occasionally plays Xbox.


splendidbob said:


> Go and look at surveys / polls / studies. Firstly you will see a great variety in preference, secondly, yes, very skinny guys are liked by a lot of women esp in your age group, there are like 3 I can think of on this ****ing board.
> 
> I mean look at the polls and surveys, *just do it* instead of speculating, they are all over the damn internet. Muscular _just isn't up there_. The safe bet for someone in the 18-30 bracket is some muscle with low body fat, that's probably the preference overall, but its like say 40% of women, with the rest of them liking various body types in men. Including very skinny. Only a small percent like very muscular physiques, from what I can remember.


Yes I have seen those polls/surveys/studies. And yes the results are varied. But when I go out I see women/girls with guys who aren't my type. They don't go for girls like me. Not saying they're lying, just saying when push comes to shove, they go for someone not my look. 
And yes, they don't go for super-buff guys. But the guy generally is pretty strong with low body-fat. 


splendidbob said:


> But this is your problem, you think in absolutes because it gives you a nice clean reason why women don't like you. You have a skinny physique, they don't like you, therefore women don't like skinny physiques. You don't like your nose, women don't like you, therefore women don't like noses like yours.
> 
> The reality = women aren't going around irl summarily dismissing men based on a body type, usually. They might be especially drawn to something, so its good if you specialise, perhaps, have _a_ look going on, but you can't really ever know which women will find that attractive until you read their body language. Most guys are averageish looking guys and have no problems getting partners (because they socialise).


Whenever I socialize I don't get a partner. I go out and the women/girls go for the stronger guys. Doesn't matter what the girl's level is. Happens again and again. Looks are what draws the girl in. Not saying it's the end-all be-all but without looks you can't even get in the door.



splendidbob said:


> It's because they aren't. You are simply wrong about women, they don't even like muscular guys particularly, on average. @HiddenFathoms was insanely patient and helpful to you, I have tried, @LonelyLurker has tried, @TheWelshOne has tried amongst others repeatedly, but if it isn't what you want to hear you just dismiss it.


They've all continued to be patient with me.


----------



## LonelyLurker

wmu'14 said:


> 2.) Will there be a staff member to teach me to use the equipment or do I just start trying to use it on my own and prepare myself for someone to say I'm doing it wrong? (The few times I've been to one they always say that as if I'm a loser who doesn't belong there)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your best option would be to start helping yourself (not a passive aggressive attack), you'll probably get an induction but my experience of gyms is that most of the people that work there have no idea what they're talking about (but you could get lucky).

It would be better to ask people who seem to know what they're doing and do personal research for yourself, find out what the machine is called and look online. In this day and age laziness is the only reason not to know how to use a gym machine TBH.

I've offered advice to people over the years in the gym (a risky proposition) and it has never been because I thought they were losers who didn't belong there, I just think people should try to help each other.

Not everyone is an a**e hole.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> Yes I have seen those polls/surveys/studies. And yes the results are varied. But when I go out I see women/girls with guys who aren't my type. They don't go for girls like me. Not saying they're lying, just saying when push comes to shove, they go for someone not my look.


Well three things here:
1. You are seeing what you want to see, confirmation bias. The majority of guys look like they don't train, physique wise, because they don't train, yet the majority of guys have partners. You can't explain this away without abandoning th emuscular bs.
2. You can't even ****ing tell skinny muscular guys in their clothes. It's literally impossible unless they wear super revealing stuff.
3. Many women go for skinny guys, its a fact, you need to go out with a notebook and ****ing honestly start noting down couples:

Skinny man
Average man
Buff skinny man
Buff larger man
Overweight man

and see how many match up. Better still do this with someone else who won't just pretend to themselves everyone is muscular. Pretty sure your mind is to distorted you will see whatever you want. ****, your church must be filled with couples, go there and do the above and report back.

4. What is your look? How would you define it? If you cant really describe it easily you don't have a look.



wmu'14 said:


> And yes, they don't go for super-buff guys. But the guy generally is pretty strong with low body-fat.


You can't see this unless they are topless. Hogwash again.



wmu'14 said:


> Whenever I socialize I don't get a partner. I go out and the women/girls go for the stronger guys. Doesn't matter what the girl's level is. Happens again and again. Looks are what draws the girl in. Not saying it's the end-all be-all but without looks you can't even get in the door.


"level". Well socialising isn't magically going to do it, i mean socialising normally in a non socially anxious way, being likeable, to a reasonable degree, being competent.

I will tell you what I see your problem to be:

1. Social anxiety
2. Difficulty communicating with women
3. You don't come across as very likeable. Lost of self pity, blaming others, I can't imagine it works wonders with women (esp with your attitudes towards them) - see "girls level".
4. When you interact how do you make them feel good? / happy?

There is my no bull**** advice. Improve those things. Now ignore it and start talking about muscularity again.


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> Well three things here:
> 1. You are seeing what you want to see, confirmation bias. The majority of guys look like they don't train, physique wise, because they don't train, yet the majority of guys have partners. You can't explain this away without abandoning th emuscular bs.


Literally just attempted to go to the gym and it's perfect-body guy after perfect-body guy going in an out.



splendidbob said:


> 2. You can't even ****ing tell skinny muscular guys in their clothes. It's literally impossible unless they wear super revealing stuff.


It's called shorts and a t-shirt bro.



splendidbob said:


> 3. Many women go for skinny guys, its a fact, you need to go out with a notebook and ****ing honestly start noting down couples:
> 
> Skinny man
> Average man
> Buff skinny man
> Buff larger man
> Overweight man
> 
> and see how many match up. Better still do this with someone else who won't just pretend to themselves everyone is muscular. Pretty sure your mind is to distorted you will see whatever you want. ****, your church must be filled with couples, go there and do the above and report back.


Okay, sounds like a good exercise. One rule: only couples in my age range.



splendidbob said:


> 4. What is your look? How would you define it? If you cant really describe it easily you don't have a look.


Skinny and nerdy.



splendidbob said:


> You can't see this unless they are topless. Hogwash again.


Shorts and a t-shirt again.



splendidbob said:


> 1. Social anxiety


Not really. Gym Anxiety -> hell yes to the 5000th power. 
I agree my Social Anxiety Disorder history/past still 'hinders' me.



splendidbob said:


> 2. Difficulty communicating with women


I don't think so. I mean, I communicate with everyone else just fine and everyone else seems to like me. It's just women in my dating age range never seem to want me.


splendidbob said:


> 3. You don't come across as very likeable. Lost of self pity, blaming others, I can't imagine it works wonders with women (esp with your attitudes towards them) - see "girls level".


I think it's because I'm not physically attractive enough. If I was more physically attractive then a girl would like me.



splendidbob said:


> 4. When you interact how do you make them feel good? / happy?


Well I've never made a girl happy before. That's the whole issue.



splendidbob said:


> There is my no bull**** advice. Improve those things. Now ignore it and start talking about muscularity again.


 That's not advice though. That's just criticizing. How do I improve? This is advice: "This is how you improve. Do this, this, and this."

(Literally just talked to my counsellor last session difference between criticizing and critiquing is.)


----------



## Wren611

wmu'14 said:


> So biology says that only the best find a mate and pass on their genes. Does this mean that those of us who are unable to do so are genetic failures? Does it mean that we are inferior? Given a billion years does it mean that we'd die out? Lot of animals, all they do is make babies. If humans are only animals, how are we any different in that regard?


We're not that important. Don't worry about it.


----------



## wmu'14

If I don't have a woman/girl after a year of going to the gym, I'm a gonna be pissed
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AussiePea

Well you should change your dress style as well, in the pic you posted you dress like a 50 year old accountant. With some minimal effort on style you'll see a big difference. I hired a stylist for a day who took me shopping etc and what I learned from her and how she shifted my dress style made a noticeable difference not only to how others perceived me but also the confidence I felt.


----------



## wmu'14

AussiePea said:


> Well you should change your dress style as well, in the pic you posted you dress like a 50 year old accountant. With some minimal effort on style you'll see a big difference. I hired a stylist for a day who took me shopping etc and what I learned from her and how she shifted my dress style made a noticeable difference not only to how others perceived me but also the confidence I felt.


You're right. I picked that style back when I had SAD because I thought it matched my personality. I want a new style because I don't have SAD anymore but don't know what to buy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmu'14

Danielle87 said:


> This **** is like Groundhog Day


People criticize me but don't offer how to improve.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmu'14

Danielle87 said:


> I don't think that's true.. seems like lots of people try to give you advice. This thread is like 12 pages haha.


What I need is a step-by-step guide how to get one
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TheWelshOne

wmu'14 said:


> What I need is a step-by-step guide how to get one
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How to get a woman? Or how to get a woman that you want?

How to get laid? Or how to get a long-term relationship?

How to talk to women? Or how to hit on them?

These are all different things, and frankly there is no step-by-step guide. We're all ****ed, man, just do your best and try not to be an a*****e.


----------



## LonelyLurker

wmu'14 said:


> What I need is a step-by-step guide how to get one
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I know this likely won't sink in but this is your main problem in my opinion.

You're asking for a fish, we're trying to teach you how to fish. If someone gave you a step by step guide that actually worked, what next? A step by step guide of how to keep a woman? When will it end? When would you feel like it was time to figure things out for yourself with the assistance of others (as long as they are willing)? When would you take ownership?

When would you be willing to give as much as you wish to take?


----------



## harrison

wmu'14 said:


> If I don't have a woman/girl after a year of going to the gym, I'm a gonna be pissed
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's a really weird attitude - and it even annoys me, can't think how much it would annoy a woman on here. You're so entitled it's just stupid.

How can this nonsense still be going on? And how can you think no-one is trying to help you?

Are you actually like this in real life or just online? I would have probably strangled you by now. You're astonishly annoying. How could anyone resist?

You're problem is you - it's not being skinny, it's not the girls, it's not your clothes. You want someone to walk you through this - no-one can do that. But you probably need to learn to talk to people, be less awkward if you are, be more open to everyone (not just the girl you want). Basically just try as hard as you can to be normal.


----------



## harrison

^^ Sorry about saying you're annoying btw - think I did that once before too. (and I probably wouldn't necessarily strangle you.)


----------



## wmu'14

harrison said:


> That's a really weird attitude - and it even annoys me, can't think how much it would annoy a woman on here. You're so entitled it's just stupid.


I am doing everything right. I mean, I still have areas to work on, but I am trying very hard. I've come a long ways in just a couple of years. Not entitled. Just wondering why a girl/woman doesn't want me.



harrison said:


> How can this nonsense still be going on? And how can you think no-one is trying to help you?


I mean, they're trying. But they're just saying 'you don't have to be muscular and can be a nerd and don't need a ton of money to get a woman/girl.' That's not really advice.



harrison said:


> Are you actually like this in real life or just online? I would have probably strangled you by now. You're astonishly annoying. How could anyone resist?


LOL I can be like this with one of my friends and my counselor, but other then that, no.



harrison said:


> You're problem is you - it's not being skinny, it's not the girls, it's not your clothes. You want someone to walk you through this - no-one can do that. But you probably need to learn to talk to people, be less awkward if you are, be more open to everyone (not just the girl you want). Basically just try as hard as you can to be normal.


Areas I've improved on in case people have forgotten:
1.) Got meds that cured social anxiety
2.) Gained a sense of humor
3.) More willing to talk to random people / open up to people
4.) Developed hobbies/interests that aren't so nerdy and appeal to more then just a small portion of people
5.) Financially secure
6.) Joined gym
7.) Got my own condo
8.) Got my own car
9.) Gained weight (up from 125 to 150, hopefully that goes up even more now that I'm exercising at a gym)
10.) Am seeing a counselor

Most of these I've done in the past couple of years.
Not sure where I'm going wrong????????

But anyways, to get this thread back on track, if having sex wasn't so important there wouldn't be so many species that have sex and there wouldn't be billions and billions of people today and in history. So many people wouldn't want to have it. Hell, look at all the socially anxious people that want to have it!


----------



## iAmCodeMonkey

opcorn


----------



## sad1231234

Bro forget appearance, just live your life and if girls dont want you just due to your appearance then forget them. And you can always try working out at a gymn later on if you want to impress any girlfriend you have. But i wouldn't recommend looking for a lifelong partner who is only with you for your appearance. Working out at a gymn works, if you did an hour every 2 days, which is the average and safe recommendation i think, and ate a high protein diet, then you would probably gain like 50 pounds in only a year or two. I mean it depends on your metabolism and all those different factors. But my point is, dont use appearance as something to get girls. Yes you could get girls if you worked out. If you worked out at a gymn for a few hours each week for a couple years, you would probably have a lot of interaction with females. But who wants fake people in their life, ughhh.


----------



## twitchy666

*Human Outlook*

binary

everything so, so, so, so, so easy √ for every person

happiness. smiling. everything perfect. nothing ever, ever goes wrong.

one day something goes wrong: Everything gets acceleratingly worse, rapidly
reverse gear, although not backwards in history when life was better. proceedings downhill

breeding has some popularity.

automation.
1. prosper, reproduce. x
2. Live to pinnacle achievement, eventually die √ me! not achieved

what I've seen of all people my age have done 1. happy. early on, I thought we'd be 2.

my entire life so far, pending... trend of my failure. 
many girlfriends end with their rejection & employment the same.
people blind of my attributes. early life: all built up well, normally. age 25 everything lost


----------



## twitchy666

*I made 3 baby cars in youth*

metal, plastic & rubber

built raw. to compete; race with people. sophisticated design improvements.

4x4, all-wheel drive, steer, rear drive only... belt drive, chain, battery, motor, gearbox.

Lots more preference for making things without sex! hardware & Software. Design!

Humans hated. Boring! Stupid! Happy! every human is retarded. screw & smile?

my career in financial databases lost. Human-dependent! No life without humans. Every job, anything needed... salary, contract, must have human control.

never need to cuddle, kiss database servers or speak to it by telly fone. machines. humans a knightmare :frown2:
why humans hate me?


----------



## wmu'14

In biology they call organisms with the ability to mate having high fitness. The ones that don't mate they call low fitness. I am low fitness. I am no fitness.


----------



## harrison

wmu'14 said:


> In biology they call organisms *with the ability *to mate having high fitness. The ones that don't mate they call low fitness. I am low fitness. I am no fitness.


I would say your "ability" is probably not in question here mate. 

So by that logic you're still pretty fit. You just haven't had a chance to show it yet.


----------



## wmu'14

harrison said:


> I would say your "ability" is probably not in question here mate.
> 
> So by that logic you're still pretty fit. You just haven't had a chance to show it yet.


Fit means if you mate or not. I'm a 0 at that.


----------



## Xemnas

komorikun said:


> Eventually the sun is going to eat Earth when it becomes a Red Giant. Before that happens though, Earth will become uninhabitable because the oceans will disappear. The sun doesn't give a flying **** about your genes.


then the sun will start contracting cooling and slowly becoming a white dwarf, then a red dwarf and finally a little cold thing in space.... then the rest of the universe will continue expanding; stars will stop being created, and the ones that exist will slowly die , one by one, some becoming cold chunks in space others will explode and others will become black holes... in the end everything will be swallowed by black holes... and then even those will vanish as they the evaporate slowly due to hawking radiation... 
the universe itself doesn't give a flying **** about anyone's genes, human nor animal nor plants


----------



## harrison

wmu'14 said:


> Fit means if you mate or not. I'm a 0 at that.


So far.


----------



## wmu'14

harrison said:


> So far.


Scientists can predict with reasonable accuracy which organisms will have fitness. They could probably predict me being a Zero forever in fitness.


----------



## wmu'14

Xemnas said:


> then the sun will start contracting cooling and slowly becoming a white dwarf, then a red dwarf and finally a little cold thing in space.... then the rest of the universe will continue expanding; stars will stop being created, and the ones that exist will slowly die , one by one, some becoming cold chunks in space others will explode and others will become black holes... in the end everything will be swallowed by black holes... and then even those will vanish as they the evaporate slowly due to hawking radiation...
> the universe itself doesn't give a flying **** about anyone's genes, human nor animal nor plants


So what's keeping you alive? Why keep on living?


----------



## harrison

wmu'14 said:


> Scientists can predict with reasonable accuracy which organisms will have fitness. They could probably predict me being a Zero forever in fitness.


Well if you truly believe that you may as well just give up now.

But it's nonsense.


----------



## wmu'14

harrison said:


> Well if you truly believe that you may as well just give up now.
> 
> But it's nonsense.


How can I give up if I haven't even started (if they won't let me start)?

Biology says there's losers and winners in this and I'm a Loser.


----------



## wmu'14

Believe me. I used to love watching animal documentaries and stuff on Animal Planet and Nat Geo and Discovery Channel and what have you. And then I realized that almost EVERY documentary, every episode, every special, was about the animal trying to mate (usually the male). The documentaries would say this is why the male lives. 

If human beings are animals in themselves, then I see a HUGE connection between what biology has to say about animals and their species' individuals point of life is, and what biology has to say about human being and their species' individuals point of life is.


----------



## Xemnas

wmu'14 said:


> So what's keeping you alive? Why keep on living?


i dunno, prove the universe that at least for the tiny spec i am i have value?
the universe is vast and has a lot of wonders i at least want to see....if i never have a partner well so be it, i will still want to explore it as much as i can in my tiny fraction of life i have


----------



## Milco

Biology says nothing of the sort.
It's grossly oversimplifying and frankly misunderstanding biology.


----------



## wmu'14

Milco said:


> Biology says nothing of the sort.
> It's grossly oversimplifying and frankly misunderstanding biology.


Not really.


----------



## Milco

wmu'14 said:


> Not really.


If you want to claim that biology proves that you are a loser, it'll be virtually impossible for anybody to reason with you, because that kind of conclusion isn't based on facts or understanding the science of biology.

Firstly, biology doesn't say the point of life is reproduction. Life continues through reproduction, but that's not at all the same.
Second, even if the point of life was reproduction, it biology doesn't make value judgements about who can and who cannot reproduce now or at some later point.


----------



## wmu'14

Milco said:


> If you want to claim that biology proves that you are a loser, it'll be virtually impossible for anybody to reason with you, because that kind of conclusion isn't based on facts or understanding the science of biology.
> 
> Firstly, biology doesn't say the point of life is reproduction. Life continues through reproduction, but that's not at all the same.
> Second, even if the point of life was reproduction, it biology doesn't make value judgements about who can and who cannot reproduce now or at some later point.


Scientists study biology and see the incredible need to reproduce in animals. Since we are animals ourselves, the logic transfers over. It's whole 'every one of your ancestors did something right too.' So if 'every one of my ancestors did something right', then I did everything wrong.

Scientists quantify this with fitness. If you don't or can't reproduce, you get a Zero. I understand biology itself doesn't state this, but this is what we can conclude. Also, biology certainly does say who can and cannot reproduce now or at some later point because if you have ****ty genes, then they're not going to get passed on. Simple.


----------



## Milco

wmu'14 said:


> Scientists study biology and see the incredible need to reproduce in animals. Since we are animals ourselves, the logic transfers over. It's whole 'every one of your ancestors did something right too.' So if 'every one of my ancestors did something right', then I did everything wrong.
> 
> Scientists quantify this with fitness. If you don't or can't reproduce, you get a Zero. I understand biology itself doesn't state this, but this is what we can conclude. Also, biology certainly does say who can and cannot reproduce now or at some later point because if you have ****ty genes, then they're not going to get passed on. Simple.


No, you're conjecturing.
Your not the only strongly religious person to misunderstand science and imbue it with more fatalistic and judging qualities, but it isn't true.
I don't know why you made this post in the agnostic/atheist section, but if you want other people's opinions then you ought to listen when so many tell you you're wrong.
But as I said, if you want to insist that everything is hopeless, the very little others on here can do. You'd be doing yourself a great disservice though.

Human beings are 'just' animals, but that really doesn't imply anything.
Besides, there are plenty of great and successful people who don't have children. Are you going to call all of them losers?


----------



## wmu'14

Milco said:


> No, you're conjecturing.
> Your not the only strongly religious person to misunderstand science and imbue it with more fatalistic and judging qualities, but it isn't true.
> I don't know why you made this post in the agnostic/atheist section, but if you want other people's opinions then you ought to listen when so many tell you you're wrong.
> But as I said, if you want to insist that everything is hopeless, the very little others on here can do. You'd be doing yourself a great disservice though.
> 
> Human beings are 'just' animals, but that really doesn't imply anything.
> Besides, there are plenty of great and successful people who don't have children. Are you going to call all of them losers?


I created this thread in this Forum because obviously in the Spiritual Support section, I'm going to get very different answers from what I get creating it in this section.

My point in creating this thread isn't to change people's opinion. It's because that's how I honestly see the world sometimes. It's all just 'have lots and lots of sex and make babies.' I remember learning in Biology class and reading articles in my free time and watching documentaries how REPRODUCE REPRODUCE REPRODUCE is just a large focus in life. Maybe not the point, true, but to deny its role is silly and ignorant. Why are you here? Because of sex. Why is your neighbor here? Because of sex. Why is the world billions of people? Because of sex. All the animals? Same.

I don't say that people who don't reproduce are losers. From a billion-year Earth history perspective, they are though. They'd get a Fitness rating of Zero. Zero = Loser. Human beings cheat the system. We think and say Reproduction really isn't the point. I've seen this discussed on documentaries and stuff too: Humans cheat the system. Any other animal and they'd be a Zero. The drive to reproduce is still there in a lot of people. They just throw on a condom or take a pill in the morning.

People tell me I'm wrong. But they don't know. They don't know the point. If they think they can say what the point is 100%, I want to see them write a paper on it, peer-reviewed. I thought we had to see the point was for ourselves individually? When I look, I just see sex and reproduction being the point. Everything else is just a by-product. It's all biology. It's all chemicals.

Scientists take at the world around them and form hypothesis. This is my hypothesis on what biology says. Obviously it doesn't literally say it, but I can take a guess. That's what it would say.

We're just animals in the sense that what we learn from animals can be transferred over to human beings. It's not just a 'so what' or 'that doesn't really imply anything.'


----------



## Milco

wmu'14 said:


> I created this thread in this Forum because obviously in the Spiritual Support section, I'm going to get very different answers from what I get creating it in this section.
> 
> My point in creating this thread isn't to change people's opinion. It's because that's how I honestly see the world sometimes. It's all just 'have lots and lots of sex and make babies.' I remember learning in Biology class and reading articles in my free time and watching documentaries how REPRODUCE REPRODUCE REPRODUCE is just a large focus in life. Maybe not the point, true, but to deny its role is silly and ignorant. Why are you here? Because of sex. Why is your neighbor here? Because of sex. Why is the world billions of people? Because of sex. All the animals? Same.
> 
> I don't say that people who don't reproduce are losers. From a billion-year Earth history perspective, they are though. They'd get a Fitness rating of Zero. Zero = Loser. Human beings cheat the system. We think and say Reproduction really isn't the point. I've seen this discussed on documentaries and stuff too: Humans cheat the system. Any other animal and they'd be a Zero. The drive to reproduce is still there in a lot of people. They just throw on a condom or take a pill in the morning.
> 
> People tell me I'm wrong. But they don't know. They don't know the point. If they think they can say what the point is 100%, I want to see them write a paper on it, peer-reviewed. I thought we had to see the point was for ourselves individually? When I look, I just see sex and reproduction being the point. Everything else is just a by-product. It's all biology. It's all chemicals.
> 
> Scientists take at the world around them and form hypothesis. This is my hypothesis on what biology says. Obviously it doesn't literally say it, but I can take a guess. That's what it would say.
> 
> We're just animals in the sense that what we learn from animals can be transferred over to human beings. It's not just a 'so what' or 'that doesn't really imply anything.'


You're changing definition and demanding a lot more of others than you're providing yourself here.
So, biology doesn't say that reproduction is _the_ point to life, it's just your opinion.. I guess all I can say to that is "ok".
But it might be worth examining why that is.
Generally speaking, when we (me, you or anybody else) theorise about how we objectively are failures, it's not because it's objectively true but only because we are unhappy and looking for some kind of confirmation of how bad we're feeling.

Obviously, people have a drive for sex and have a drive to have kids. We also have drives to eat, sleep, to be safe, to have fun, to form bonds with others, to compete and to do loads more things.
Evolution happens through reproduction, sure, but as splendidbob said in one of the first replies, you really can't extrapolate any value judgement or a meaning to life from that.


----------



## MCHB

*gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasp*


----------



## blue2

Well I kinda hoped I'd die sooner, but I guess I'm built somewhat tough, stupid biology :sigh


----------



## 917554

Reproduction is the meaning of life definitely for simpler organisms. This is for the survival of the entire species. If one was immortal the need to multiply would be significantly less. We as humans are different from other animals in science and in religion. Many religions view sex as to multiply but many have it for pleasure. So they do the act without the results. Sex sells and it is always shoved down our throats. Sex has taken a different meaning. It doesn't mean having kids. It's pleasure for the senses. It is still driven by the fact that good genes are desirable from both partners but that isn't necessary anymore because the main goal is not reproducing another human being. 

If you believe in evolution, maybe our cavemen ancestors did care more for reproduction. The human race is complex and does not seem to be going extinct anytime soon that's why we can deviate from the mindset of only wanting to reproduce.


----------



## notBlair

Eh. Some people try to use biology in order to speak about the "why" in human life and with regards to our _purpose_. And use it to justify or reason why certain things happen or don't, and I've found their reasoning to usually be fallible, reductionist and overall not a very good attempt to understand how things work. I don't think the point of our life is to make babies. There might be an instinct to have children, but it's not our purpose. On a social and biological level, we all may want companionship, feelings of worth/validation, family, etc., and to a certain degree it may be beneficial for us to have these things, but I don't think passing down genes and having babies is the standard by which we should judge whether we've lived a good life.


----------



## Bevrab

Yes people who don't have babies will die out, biologically speaking. And in that regard we're different than animals because we're aware it's happening. You will however leave behind a lasting positive and/or negative impact on the Earth, the survivability of the human species, on the happiness of the people you encountered.


----------



## Bevrab

notBlair said:


> biology in order to speak about the "why"


Yes! biology helps explain HOW not WHY


----------



## Bevrab

917554 said:


> The human race is complex and does not seem to be going extinct anytime soon that's why we can deviate from the mindset of only wanting to reproduce.


I have had this thought too! In my case, I was coming out to my parents as being in a same sex relationship, and my father's major argument was that you need a man and a woman to make a baby therefore biology tells us that we must be heterosexual. Thank goodness reproduction isn't the sole goal of our relationships, because then I'd never have found my true love.


----------



## Mlt18

JH1983 said:


> Babies are gross.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This x1000000.


----------



## wmu'14

The naturalist part of me can't get over this. Since I will never reproduce I'm a failure. I can't reconcile this. I can't buy the 'humans are more complex then bunnies'. Bottom line: my parents failed when they made me. My genes will die out. My genes aren't/weren't good enough. Biology says you grow, eat, and make babies, and that's it. I watch lots of nature documentaries and that's what they're all about. Humans aren't any different from that. We may think we are but we're not. What if you can't make babies though? The nature documentaries say you weren't good enough. I guess there's some species like ants where their system/species is set up so not all members reproduce, but the human species is not set up like that.


----------



## MadnessVertigo

wmu'14 said:


> The naturalist part of me can't get over this. Since I will never reproduce I'm a failure. I can't reconcile this. I can't buy the 'humans are more complex then bunnies'. Bottom line: my parents failed when they made me. My genes will die out. My genes aren't/weren't good enough. Biology says you grow, eat, and make babies, and that's it. I watch lots of nature documentaries and that's what they're all about. Humans aren't any different from that. We may think we are but we're not. What if you can't make babies though? The nature documentaries say you weren't good enough. I guess there's some species like ants where their system/species is set up so not all members reproduce, but the human species is not set up like that.


But the concepts of "failure" and "good" are derived from human values, as is your resulting psychic pain. No other animal would reflect on itself in such a way. I mean I can understand your pain and I feel the same way, but the very existence of that pain seems to go against the idea that we are no more than our genes.


----------



## wmu'14

CNikki said:


> We're only different because we have the capacity to become aware of our thought process and how we act out on our sexuality. We plan ahead (despite how often it seems otherwise) whereas other lifeforms aren't as equipped. Passing on genetics, all in the same, isn't about how qualitative or quantitative you make your life. In fact, many well accomplished and higher IQ people tend to produce less children if having any at all because they are producing resources and inventions that benefit the greater quantitative (people who do have kids) of society. This could explain why we tend to have an epidemic of geniuses that are needed in fields such as medicine and sciences. It also points the contradiction that intelligence can only be beneficiary for when it comes to evolution, as we have also known how humans lived in the recent past of having to have multiple children since many of them die before becoming adults if not shortly after birth. Many forms of medicine and science are still in its youth and there's a time where we will be overpopulated enough where these advances will be used against us. Failure comes from either direction and about 50% of it is through chance.


It doesn't matter if higher IQd people produce less children but still 'add' to society. Humanity has existed long before them. Other people are driven to sex; they will just reproduce and reproduce to make up for the ones who weren't 'saved' by the higher IQ'd people. The higher IQd people who reproduce less are not needed. As you said, odds are they are proving to be a burden due to overpopulation.


----------



## wmu'14

MadnessVertigo said:


> But the concepts of "failure" and "good" are derived from human values, as is your resulting psychic pain. No other animal would reflect on itself in such a way. I mean I can understand your pain and I feel the same way, but the very existence of that pain seems to go against the idea that we are no more than our genes.


Failure and good are not only human values when it comes to reproduction. Animals fight and die and go all out to reproduce. Some don't succeed. Evidence they feel 'pain' when they don't succeed.

We can transfer those values over to humans.


----------



## MadnessVertigo

wmu'14 said:


> MadnessVertigo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the concepts of "failure" and "good" are derived from human values, as is your resulting psychic pain. No other animal would reflect on itself in such a way. I mean I can understand your pain and I feel the same way, but the very existence of that pain seems to go against the idea that we are no more than our genes.
> 
> 
> 
> Failure and good are not only human values when it comes to reproduction. Animals fight and die and go all out to reproduce. Some don't succeed. Evidence they feel 'pain' when they don't succeed.
> 
> We can transfer those values over to humans.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can reconcile such a reductionist view with your religion? Weren't we made by god in his image? If you adopt the view that we are no more than animals, then do you countenance murder and rape and all the other things animals do in order to compete?


----------



## wmu'14

MadnessVertigo said:


> I don't understand how you can reconcile such a reductionist view with your religion? Weren't we made by god in his image?


I still see the dilemma (I think that's the word) of animals being 100% geared towards reproduction.



MadnessVertigo said:


> If you adopt the view that we are no more than animals, then do you countenance murder and rape and all the other things animals do in order to compete?


Well not all species murder and/or rape. Their goal is all reproduction though.


----------



## llodell88

Who cares, within a few generations your genes are doing die out whether you mate or not , also we're all like 99.99% the same anyway, you're not that special, "genetic failure", omg, why sit around and mope about stuff like that, there's plenty of people happy and grateful they don't have kids. You dont HAVE to think like that, just live your life, dude, just the fact you think of yourself as a "genetic failure" is putting your value down a lot, do you really think women are going to like hearing that stuff coming out a guy's mouth?


----------



## wmu'14

llodell88 said:


> Who cares, within a few generations your genes are doing die out whether you mate or not , also we're all like 99.99% the same anyway, you're not that special, "genetic failure", omg,


 Because over a long time humans will change.



llodell88 said:


> why sit around and mope about stuff like that, You dont HAVE to think like that, just live your life, dude,


I think it's true



llodell88 said:


> just the fact you think of yourself as a "genetic failure" is putting your value down a lot, do you really think women are going to like hearing that stuff coming out a guy's mouth?


I don't think I have to worry about that.



llodell88 said:


> there's plenty of people happy and grateful they don't have kids.


 Why do they think that?


----------



## tehuti88

wmu'14 said:


> Why do they think that?


Because some of us believe that kids are annoying, kids are stressful, kids require near-constant care that we don't have the psychological or financial or physical resources to give, kids would be debilitating to our already precarious mental (and/or physical) health, kids would take away all of our "me time" (and if I had a significant other, they'd take away all that time, too), kids are being had by enough other people in the world that we don't need to contribute even more (and we really SHOULDN'T unless we're _ready and willing_ to care for them), kids have too much potential for us to mess them up with all our own unresolved problems.

I have the sneaking suspicion that at least a few of my reasons would apply in your case, too. Was _going_ to ask you that if you had the chance RIGHT THIS MOMENT to be a father, would you snatch that chance without a second thought (nope, I'm not here positing the theory that you'd have a relationship, but the theory that you'd BE A FATHER, since that's what you're going on about in this particular thread, and take a look at those animals you're using as your examples, many of them don't have "relationships" or love), would you be psychologically and financially prepared for it, would you be willing to make all the drastic life changes required to raise kids (because in my theory here, you're the one caring for them since being a father is so imperative to your success, we're talking about _having kids_, not mindlessly spreading seed, even though in your theory both seem about the same), would you even _want_ kids?...because out of all your complaint threads, aside from your "Muh biological imperative!" woes, you really don't seem all that invested in being a father...

...but I get the feeling you haven't *completely* thought all of this through. So why even ask such questions that require you to really, really think over your potential future as a father to kids who are dependent on you. That's right. Creating tiny, helpless humans. *Who are dependent on you.*

Tl;dr, I could be wrong but based on your posting history, I get the feeling you care more that you're a "genetic failure" than about never being a father. Meaning, your priorities are out of order, and it's probably better that you don't have kids. They're _kids_, not your _biological imperative_. They're there for you to love and care for. Not to _make you biologically successful_. You don't just deposit some eggs in a sand hill and then go on your merry, successful way.

*And even if that kid was your biological imperative, the "success" doesn't end with the mere physical act of fathering them...almost anybody can fertilize an egg or provide an egg to be fertilized...that kid has to be raised and taught and loved and become a success, too. What if you fathered a "genetic failure"...?*

:blah But whatever, miss the point yet again with "Muh biological imperative!" All this makes me wonder, if you did father a kid, if you'd use this as a pickup line to attract potential future partners, since obviously, we women and our eggs are mindlessly attracted to such things: "Hey babe, I'm not a genetic failure! Wanna help me out even further with my _biological imperative_...?  "

(If you masturbate, BTW, maybe you should quit. None of that wasted seed is meeting its potential! :afr I'm just trying to use your reasoning.)


----------



## LightUpTheAzureSky

The concepts of success and failure vary wildly from person to person so asking if '____' makes us successful/failures is opening a can of worms, to say the vary least.
But personally, i have always been pretty 'aloof' about companionship and reproduction, i feel as if that is law and order for animals with less cognitive abilities, like dogs or cats, But doesn't always apply to us humans, at least in humanity's current situation on earth. 
So i would say 'no' to us being failures if i was asked.


----------



## wmu'14

tehuti88 said:


> Because some of us believe that kids are annoying, kids are stressful, kids require near-constant care that we don't have the psychological or financial or physical resources to give, kids would be debilitating to our already precarious mental (and/or physical) health, kids would take away all of our "me time" (and if I had a significant other, they'd take away all that time, too), kids are being had by enough other people in the world that we don't need to contribute even more (and we really SHOULDN'T unless we're _ready and willing_ to care for them), kids have too much potential for us to mess them up with all our own unresolved problems.
> 
> I have the sneaking suspicion that at least a few of my reasons would apply in your case, too. Was _going_ to ask you that if you had the chance RIGHT THIS MOMENT to be a father, would you snatch that chance without a second thought (nope, I'm not here positing the theory that you'd have a relationship, but the theory that you'd BE A FATHER, since that's what you're going on about in this particular thread, and take a look at those animals you're using as your examples, many of them don't have "relationships" or love), would you be psychologically and financially prepared for it, would you be willing to make all the drastic life changes required to raise kids (because in my theory here, you're the one caring for them since being a father is so imperative to your success, we're talking about _having kids_, not mindlessly spreading seed, even though in your theory both seem about the same), would you even _want_ kids?...because out of all your complaint threads, aside from your "Muh biological imperative!" woes, you really don't seem all that invested in being a father...
> 
> ...but I get the feeling you haven't *completely* thought all of this through. So why even ask such questions that require you to really, really think over your potential future as a father to kids who are dependent on you. That's right. Creating tiny, helpless humans. *Who are dependent on you.*
> 
> Tl;dr, I could be wrong but based on your posting history, I get the feeling you care more that you're a "genetic failure" than about never being a father. Meaning, your priorities are out of order, and it's probably better that you don't have kids. They're _kids_, not your _biological imperative_. They're there for you to love and care for. Not to _make you biologically successful_. You don't just deposit some eggs in a sand hill and then go on your merry, successful way.
> 
> *And even if that kid was your biological imperative, the "success" doesn't end with the mere physical act of fathering them...almost anybody can fertilize an egg or provide an egg to be fertilized...that kid has to be raised and taught and loved and become a success, too. What if you fathered a "genetic failure"...?*
> 
> :blah But whatever, miss the point yet again with "Muh biological imperative!" All this makes me wonder, if you did father a kid, if you'd use this as a pickup line to attract potential future partners, since obviously, we women and our eggs are mindlessly attracted to such things: "Hey babe, I'm not a genetic failure! Wanna help me out even further with my _biological imperative_...?  "
> 
> (If you masturbate, BTW, maybe you should quit. None of that wasted seed is meeting its potential! :afr I'm just trying to use your reasoning.)


Yes I would be happy to be a father and would 110% put in responsibility to raising. I don't get why people on here don't understand the concept of love. (father here meaning actually raising the kid/s) I also can't stand men who are turtles and disappear after making the baby, leaving the mom and child alone. So I am with you on this point 

In regards to something like adoption, it is something I consider. I do think about it. It seems more likely for me. So am I 100% failure in passing genes and The Game of Biology According to Naturalism Documentaries? Absolutely. Am I failure as a father? Not necessarily. Still time for me to adopt (and work on becoming someone who can be a good father when/if the time comes for that)

(Also if you want to use my reasoning, some kinds of animals do masturbate and I have a limitless supply)

(Also also, I like the :blah emoji LOL Makes me smile  )

(Also also also, tehuti, I am not calling you a failure if you don't want to reproduce.)


----------



## Blue Dino

Yes that would be true.


----------



## Milco

wmu'14 said:


> I guess there's some species like ants where their system/species is set up so not all members reproduce, but the human species is not set up like that.


All species are 'set up' like that. That's how evolution works.


wmu'14 said:


> Failure and good are not only human values when it comes to reproduction. Animals fight and die and go all out to reproduce. Some don't succeed. Evidence they feel 'pain' when they don't succeed.
> 
> We can transfer those values over to humans.


No, that's only your interpretation of it.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity

Biology doesn't say that, science does. And if biology did that say, it would also say that our brains are developed enough to make a decision to the contrary for ourselves.

The point of life is to make up your own damn point.


----------



## rmb1990

The real problem is that us humans have put too much meaning into life. Life just is, but that’s not good enough for us, we want a higher meaning, but there most likely is none. Some people don’t have kids through choice, some don’t coz they were born that way, and others can’t because they are unable to find a partner.. but to say all of those people are failures would be wrong. It just is.. just like life just is.


----------



## Omni-slash

If you ascribe moral value to the process of natural selection. It is a mechanism, like a computer. It isn't meant to do anything isolated from consciousness, it only functions. You can only be a failure by your own metric. And I don't believe evolution is a good metric.


----------



## Solomoon

Biology can say whatever it wants but to me the point of life, like dreams, is experience and expression.


----------



## wmu'14

Milco said:


> All species are 'set up' like that. That's how evolution works.


Yep, exactly!


----------



## wmu'14

Siegfried said:


> If you ascribe moral value to the process of natural selection.


I do. Animals do.


----------



## wmu'14

Post_Punk_Proclivity said:


> Biology doesn't say that, science does. And if biology did that say, it would also say that our brains are developed enough to make a decision to the contrary for ourselves.
> 
> The point of life is to make up your own damn point.


What about the primal part of our brain?


----------



## tehuti88

TIL animals have moral values.

Huh, who knew. :con


----------



## Omni-slash

wmu'14 said:


> I do. Animals do.


Animals function and act on instincts, not on morals. And your line of reasoning doesn't quite follow. Animals do lots of things, it doesn't make them moral or right. You are appealing to nature.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> I do. Animals do.


You get your morality from the behaviour of animals? **** sake Wmu, you are a god botherer, what's the point in being religious if you get your morality from animals lol?

Wmu: "Hi, my nose is too big, women only like men with muscles, I am Wmu, pleased to meet you"
Woman: "Hi Wmu, how are you today?"
Wmu: "Oh, not too bad. I have been trying to lay my man eggs inside women's brains like parasitoid wasps"
Woman: "Why?"
Wmu: "It's evolution, so its moral. Evolution is my moral guide and metric, even though I am deeply religious. It's why I am such a failure, because I haven't managed to have kids. Sometimes rapists get women pregnant, they are successful"
Woman: "..."
Wmu: "Want to go for a coffee?"
Woman: "No"
Wmu: "Its because of my nose isn't it?"
Wmu: "Its because I am not a Chad isn't it?"
Wmu: "Not muscular enough I guess"

Also, please don't adopt any children until you have vomited up whatever colour pills you swallowed (mauve?, I don't know. Its like red pill, but wmuified to make even less sense).


----------



## tehuti88

splendidbob said:


> You get your morality from the behaviour of animals? **** sake Wmu, you are a god botherer, what's the point in being religious if you get your morality from animals lol?


I was thinking the same thing but didn't know how to phrase it. Weird to argue at some points about the superiority of God, then at other points to talk about the base instincts of animals/nature, and then at other points to claim those instinctual animals...have morals? I could swear earlier he mentioned how animals "rape" (not really, but that's what he claimed*) and all that...don't get me started on eating their own young... :| (*Edit, someone else mentioned rape, but OP went along with it.)

Are they Christian morals? I have no clue. I figured if animals were going to have morals they'd be animistic or pantheistic or some such. They sure don't seem Christian, well, except for those animals that mate for life. _Maybe_ those are Christian.

Seahorses...? Maybe they worship some Mother God or Father Goddess what with the guy raising the eggs while the female goes off and does her thing...*ponders*


----------



## SplendidBob

tehuti88 said:


> I was thinking the same thing but didn't know how to phrase it. Weird to argue at some points about the superiority of God, then at other points to talk about the base instincts of animals/nature, and then at other points to claim those instinctual animals...have morals? I could swear earlier he mentioned how animals "rape" (not really, but that's what he claimed*) and all that...don't get me started on eating their own young... :| (*Edit, someone else mentioned rape, but OP went along with it.)
> 
> Are they Christian morals? I have no clue. I figured if animals were going to have morals they'd be animistic or pantheistic or some such. They sure don't seem Christian, well, except for those animals that mate for life. _Maybe_ those are Christian.
> 
> Seahorses...? Maybe they worship some Mother God or Father Goddess what with the guy raising the eggs while the female goes off and does her thing...*ponders*


He basically is doing that bizarre thing some mauve pillers do where they argue how pathetic / weak / unsuccessful they are, in the hopes that other people join in and push their self esteem even lower (I have no clue what this is psychologically). So he is drawing on whatever nonsense he can find to prop it up.

There is a species of ant (which is described in Wmu's new bible that he hasn't bothered to read), "The Selfish Gene" (where Dawkins repeatedly points out that people who ascribe moral value to evolution are tits) that literally invade other ants nests, steal the eggs, hatch the babies and raise them as slaves.

It's a bit old testament, tbh


----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> He basically is doing that bizarre thing some mauve pillers do where they argue how pathetic / weak / unsuccessful they are, in the hopes that other people join in and push their self esteem even lower (I have no clue what this is psychologically). So he is drawing on whatever nonsense he can find to prop it up.


I am posting my thoughts on how I've seen nature work and think that can be translated to humans too.



splendidbob said:


> Also, please don't adopt any children until you have vomited up whatever colour pills you swallowed (mauve?, I don't know. Its like red pill, but wmuified to make even less sense).


That's why I said I need to work on myself.



splendidbob said:


> You get your morality from the behaviour of animals? **** sake Wmu, you are a god botherer, what's the point in being religious if you get your morality from animals lol?
> 
> Wmu: "Hi, my nose is too big, women only like men with muscles, I am Wmu, pleased to meet you"
> Woman: "Hi Wmu, how are you today?"
> Wmu: "Oh, not too bad. I have been trying to lay my man eggs inside women's brains like parasitoid wasps"
> Woman: "Why?"
> Wmu: "It's evolution, so its moral. Evolution is my moral guide and metric, even though I am deeply religious. It's why I am such a failure, because I haven't managed to have kids. Sometimes rapists get women pregnant, they are successful"
> Woman: "..."
> Wmu: "Want to go for a coffee?"
> Woman: "No"
> Wmu: "Its because of my nose isn't it?"
> Wmu: "Its because I am not a Chad isn't it?"
> Wmu: "Not muscular enough I guess"
> 
> There is a species of ant that literally invade other ants nests, steal the eggs, hatch the babies and raise them as slaves.


I am not specifically looking at how ants reproduce.
I am not specifically looking at how eagles reproduce.
I am not looking at how turtles reproduce.

I am not saying I get my morality from animals, nor should their individuals species methods of reproduction be copied.

I am saying I have seen the underlying theme of reproduction in nature from species to species, and I am saying I can translate that to the human species as well.


----------



## wmu'14

rmb1990 said:


> The real problem is that us humans have put too much meaning into life. Life just is, but that's not good enough for us, we want a higher meaning, but there most likely is none. Some people don't have kids through choice, some don't coz they were born that way, and others can't because they are unable to find a partner.. but to say all of those people are failures would be wrong. It just is.. just like life just is.


I had a little question typed up but would rather not ask it as I'd like the topic to stick to the thread topic.


----------



## DukeDuck

No humans are more than just that. That's why we make art, unravel the secrets of the universe, explore, go to space, etc.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

tehuti88 said:


> I was thinking the same thing but didn't know how to phrase it. Weird to argue at some points about the superiority of God, then at other points to talk about the base instincts of animals/nature, and then at other points to claim those instinctual animals...have morals? I could swear earlier he mentioned how animals "rape" (not really, but that's what he claimed*) and all that...don't get me started on eating their own young... :| (*Edit, someone else mentioned rape, but OP went along with it.)
> 
> Are they Christian morals? I have no clue. I figured if animals were going to have morals they'd be animistic or pantheistic or some such. They sure don't seem Christian, well, except for those animals that mate for life. _Maybe_ those are Christian.
> 
> Seahorses...? Maybe they worship some Mother God or Father Goddess what with the guy raising the eggs while the female goes off and does her thing...*ponders*


They are very interesting, like underwater marsupials. Also prehensile tails. Convergent evolution is fun.


----------



## wmu'14

Persephone The Dread said:


> They are very interesting, like underwater marsupials.


Extremely interesting.


----------



## SplendidBob

wmu'14 said:


> I am posting my thoughts on how I've seen nature work and think that can be translated to humans too.


 Nope, you are mauve pilling again.



wmu'14 said:


> That's why I said I need to work on myself.


The problem is, since you have zero self awareness, you won't have any way to measure when you have worked on yourself enough to be a capable parent. I think you should kneel before your new deity once more and let "biology" provide the _absolute minimum bar_ for the point where you are able to become a parent, when you can convince a woman to let you impregnate her.



wmu'14 said:


> I am not specifically looking at how ants reproduce.
> I am not specifically looking at how eagles reproduce.
> I am not looking at how turtles reproduce.
> 
> I am not saying I get my morality from animals, nor should their individuals species methods of reproduction be copied.
> 
> I am saying I have seen the underlying theme of reproduction in nature from species to species, and I am saying I can translate that to the human species as well.


What "underlying theme?" That reproduction is the sign of a successful individual? It's the sign of successful *genes*. Brains evolved as a way to make decisions "on the fly" rather than waiting for adjustments via natural selection. That means the brain gets to decide the metric of success, or whether it even wants to measure success. People can just shoot their jizz into fleshlights for their entire lives and it makes _no difference_ because people aren't the unit of evolution, the gene is. Even by your own new god, the number of offspring isn't a measure of success.

Success has **** all to do with the number of children you reproduce, unless that is *your* chosen metric of success. If you want that to be your metric of success, then by all means, go for it.

Congrats, you win, we all now accept you are a failure because you haven't lived up to your chosen metric of success. Is that the outcome you wanted?


----------



## Milco




----------



## wmu'14

splendidbob said:


> The problem is, since you have zero self awareness, you won't have any way to measure when you have worked on yourself enough to be a capable parent.


Presumably that'll happen someday when I grow out of thinking single women have a problem with me.



splendidbob said:


> Success has **** all to do with the number of children you reproduce, unless that is *your* chosen metric of success. If you want that to be your metric of success, then by all means, go for it.
> 
> Congrats, you win, we all now accept you are a failure because you haven't lived up to your chosen metric of success. Is that the outcome you wanted?


I was just looking for one lousy person to see where I'm coming from.

No one can connect animals obsession with reproduction and humans?


----------



## harrison

wmu'14 said:


> I was just looking for one lousy person to see where I'm coming from.
> 
> No one can connect animals obsession with reproduction and humans?


I'm not really interested in all this at all - but I did see all the photos you have on your profile.

You don't think you have a few too many on there now mate? Some things are best left to the imagination, if you get my meaning.

And you're definitely not skinny. (might be the Paxil)


----------



## wmu'14

harrison said:


> I'm not really interested in all this at all - but I did see all the photos you have on your profile.
> 
> You don't think you have a few too many on there now mate? Some things are best left to the imagination, if you get my meaning.
> 
> And you're definitely not skinny. (might be the Paxil)


Oh sorry I feel like I had to post a few shirtless pics so people can see my body. (I found I can look skinnier or heavier depending on the kind of shirt I'm wearing!)

Yes, I'm definitely not as skinny as I used to be happy to say. (I was 120ish a few years ago, in college, before Paxil!) I still feel like I'd be considered on the small end for a guy, though.


----------



## Lonely Hobbit

wmu'14 said:


> So biology says that only the best find a mate and pass on their genes. Does this mean that those of us who are unable to do so are genetic failures? Does it mean that we are inferior?


Not every man is going to reproduce. That alone doesn't make them failures or inferior. Sir Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, and Frederick The Great are all men who didn't have children but made great contributions to humanity. Do you consider them failures?


----------



## harrison

wmu'14 said:


> Oh sorry I feel like I had to post a few shirtless pics so people can see my body. (I found I can look skinnier or heavier depending on the kind of shirt I'm wearing!)
> 
> Yes, I'm definitely not as skinny as I used to be happy to say. (I was 120ish a few years ago, in college, before Paxil!) I still feel like I'd be considered on the small end for a guy, though.


No need to apologise mate. Hope you're doing okay anyway.


----------



## Squirrelevant

Biology doesn't dictate the meaning of our lives. We do. There, solved it.

Now I'd like everyone to seriously contemplate why this thread is now 10 pages long. Just draw up a list of possible reasons why that might be...


----------



## BeautyandRage

Nope. We were born to die.


----------

