No. As a newborn child, a human being is still far away from being rational. But even a kid will fight for its life till it's last breath. That is an instinct we're born with, like breathing or hunger. Nothing rational there.
What's your basis on that?
Hunger is instinct and hardwiring and what you call it, and as an effect of this hunger, the feeling of hungry, one searches for food. One does not search for food to survive. A newborn would certainly not do it, it supposedly doesn't even know death, or life, or itself as a human.
Wanting to preserve oneself from pain and quench hunger is pretty rational I would say.
I don't know if this has so much to do with it, but there was a test conducted on monkeys and their emphasis. One monkey was wired to some electrical source and the other had access to a button that would stun it. The other monkey in order to get food, had to press the button. When it realized that the other monkey got hurt, it refused to press the button and thus would rater have starved (I don't know how far they went with it). Now this monkey was neither selfish or tried to survive.
And we're talking about monkeys.
But surely there is. Try killing an animal and watch what happens. Survival instinct is the origin of life and hardwired into any livivng being, from bacteria to humans.
I would see self-preservation from trying to avoid pain. I don't think I'd witness any survival instinct. unless of course you want to say i's the same thing, but the point is that there is then no direct connection between genes and willingness to survive.
You're missing the point. The sexuality is hardwired, the feeling of love toward kids is hardwired. Having kids is an effect, yes. Genes construct us as sexual beings.
But what does that matter when I don't have to give a fuck about it? Yes I do get horny, I didn't rationalize forth my horniness, but this doesn't mean my actions are based around it. (Some do, but it's not because their genes dictate their behavior, it's because sex is nice
)
No. Say, a little kid who never saw a lion or a snake or ever heard of it will instinctively be scared if it encounters one, although not knowing what it is or why it's scared. Such thing are also a part of our programming, we're born with a certain unconcious genetic knowledge.
Children are only born with two fears: the fear of loud noises and the fear of falling, it is said. Most fears have been learned and people develop phobia from experience. Another thing, look at wild animals, they are totally fearless, can do awesome stunts. Humans are probably the most wuss creature on this planet.
(btw I saw the other day a really small kid getting all excited about a rottweiller, tried to get close to it and thought it was really fun. Some people are scared shitless of dogs, and it ain't because of their genes.)
Women probably didn't exist in his mind. He didn't want to reproduce but he sure as hell wanted to make the best of his life, and in turn make the life of people better.
Hm k I just thought since you talked about reproduction and how ones life force is in a mans balls.
That is right to some extent, but we don't have the total control all the time regardless. It won't remove the will to live and thrive.
In the context of being everything there is no "we". The ego wants to survive and thrive, of course.
Anyhow, can we get to the question on when there is a human being? I'd really like to know that.
edit: actually, when I think about it, since a human being is defined in his organs and the amount of organs, a being that does not have any of the organs cannot be considered an individual of our specie. So this rules out zygots to early fetuses. The second question is then, does it have to be working organs, fully present organs, or does it suffice with there being some form of organs, so that there is enough cells there for it to be seen as an organ? What's your bet on all this? An argument is the argument of "being able to survive on it's own". We could define a human, by defining the organs by their ability to function, thus make the individual survive. This would mean, an individal with not enough working, human organs that make him survive cannot be considered a being of our specie.
But if we think it that way, a person with an artificial heart cannot be considered human, because an essential human organ that makes him survive, is not there. Seeing, it that way, some fetuses would certainly be considered more human, because they have more amount of human organs than him. Should we then also take into account the size of the organs? Surely a bigger human being is more of a human because he has more human matter, which is what this whole reasoning is based upon. This is actually very logical, although I would think it does go against a lot of peoples beliefs.
