Why do all lifeforms desire to survive?

Groktruth, we're talking philosophy, not new-age spiritualism, not out-dated religious dogma, nor specualtive metaphysics. We're talking about biology, in which case species, organisms or even life-forms are about as pragmatic as you can get.

1. it's altruistic
2. saying "altruistic self-sacrifice" is redundant as the term itself already alludes to self-sacrifice/selflessness.
3. where on earth are you getting this stuff?

Your claims lack substance, foundation, rationality. I'm a Ph.D in philosophy, it's what I have dedicated my life to. If you are going to quote and attempt to refute, argue, criticise or even expand on what I say, reference your sources so I can understand where you're coming from and why your using it or don't do it at all.

Biology being a part of the sciences, let's start with the philosophy of science. I read R.A.R Tricker's little book, "The Assessment of Scientific Speculation" as my introduction to the Bayesian formulation of the Hypothetico-deductive scientific method, later taking up Lakatosian methods.

The idea that human ecology, including human behavioral ecology, is influenced by living beings of a "higher" life form, in the sense that is commonplace usage in biology (more senses, higher intelligence, more complex structures) is a priori plausible by induction, because all the other species we observe have such an ecology. To argue that humans are the "top" of such a hierarchical arrangement is hubristic, and implausible in the face of evidence that we have behaviors that appear adapted to such living beings. And as we expand our senses through scientific innovations, we have discovered extensive parts of the universe that exist, but are outside our natural ken. Places where higher beings might live, and have senses we lack adapted to deal with directly.

Again, by induction, we humans have the science of ethology, and are directly interested in "talking to the animals." Read Konrad Lorenz, "King Solomon's Ring." So, it is plausible to suppose that life forms higher than us would be interested in talking to us. There have been, and are, of course, many reports of such contact. As such beings are "higher," we would have to assume that they were better at this than we are. Their messages to us (The bible?) would be as primitive to them, as , say, our efforts to talk to earthworms, say with cotton balls soaked in relevant chemicals. But, within our limited intellectual capacity, we could learn something. And, in near death studies, it appears that we do.

Meanwhile, returning science to its historical role, wherein "theology is the queen of the sciences," there has been much research in theology which can be reviewed in the context of Bayesian Science, now regarded as state of the art. Epistemologically, it is research that must be classified as "spy-lore," since so many theological hypotheses include disinformation agents which are higher living beings than ourselves. A truth table on this research, for example, proves that anyone "disbelieving" (not taking the hypothesis as true while testing it) theological hypotheses will usually reject them. In this table, we plot belief in testing against the truth of the idea. If the hypothesis is true, demons and gods are present. The unbelieving researcher does not take their influence into account though, and since the disinformation agents are loose to confound the research, and do not want the truth discovered, they will mess up the results and thinking of the investigators, who will then get negative results. "Believing" (for the sake of testing) workers can (so the theological hypothesis argues) restrain the disinformation agents, if they will. They would then get positive results, if the hypothesis is true.

If the hypothesis is not true, of course, both the unbelieving and the believing researchers will get negative results, doing good science. So, "atheists" always get negative results, whether the hypothesis is true or not. Tentative "believers" get positive results if the hypothesis is true, and negative if it is not true.

So, review theomatics, bible codes, prayer studies. And read John McTernan's studies of the time series correlations between "sins" and expressions of "the wrath of God." Plot his data in a two by two contingency table, and see what you get.

The posterior Bayesian calculation of the plausibility of these theological hypotheses is so close to one to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Other relevant philosophical input would be Diogenes, who warns us all that most men, including so-called experts, are not honest. The widespread presumption in biology that man is as "high" as it gets on earth is philosophically suspect. The sensible response to Dioenes discovery is to examine oneself, to see if one can make adjustments that would get one to look honest in the light of Diogenes lantern. The most dangerous liar of all is the one who believes the lies they tell, because they do not examine themselves, and get themselves examined. (a second opinion)

I rejoice to find support for the idea that this forum needs to be diligent in maintaining high philosophical standards.

Desire to survive is necessary feature for the living. For people to outsmart the harsh environment, the make up of Universe where person was not suppose to come to be, "desire to survive" is very beneficial character trait. It dictates desires, choices, actions. As result everything normal humans do is aimed on survival.

Why do lifeforms want to live? Even if they reproduce, they themselves are doomed to die.Why do so many of us seek extend our lives if possible?

We are all afraid of the unknown. The biggest being, what happens after you die?

-- Updated February 21st, 2012, 12:49 am to add the following --

On another note, Whatdoiknow, what do you mean by the word desire? Certainly you agree that most lifeforms do not have desires in the literal, common sense of the word, right? Are you writing in regard to only the fraction of lifeforms capable of desire? Or are you using the term metaphorically?

One could say after expiriencing hunger for the first time, most life forms desire not to feel it again.

The best answer is that the earliest life forms were life forms because they were opportunistic, quite by accident, and thereafter by natural selection . Viruses for instance are on the cusp between life and not-life and although they don't 'desire' anything, they opportunistically attach themselves to living cells

Belinda, I think such accidents in nature, that bring about something live, are caused by laws of physics. Thus they are predetermined by those laws. Perhaps desire to stay alive comes about later in evolution, replacing or adding to the opportunistic or chancy behavior of the viruses.
When danger to body caused pain, fear, hunger - then live creature would act to eliminate those pains and as a result of it stay alive. Also, when people lived in tribes, every person was important as a hunter and food provider, as warrior. Parents would teach children to be survivors ( skills, rules, behavior) for the sake of a family and community.
When people use drugs, they cause harm to the body, but they are fooled by "high" effect, painlessness after taking drugs. They only feel pain when in need of another dose. Such is vicious loop of drug intoxication. The natural guarding chain ( harm to the body- pain- change in behavior- pain dissappears-person survives) is disrupted.

Hello all.

A worthwhile read on this topic is Dawkins "The selfish gene" which quite clearly outlines that the drive to reproduce is the strongest force in all of life.
Just think, if this drive is missing in a life form, it will cease to exist, so only those who had this drive exist, or have existed.

Regards, John.

This will be my last post on this thread. Anyone with questions for me can still contact me personally. I sign out noting that stranger-still, a professional philosopher and therefore my peer in terms of authorization and training, has not responded to my extensive post of last November, Number 31. Does silence give consent? Only asking.

I draw everyone's attention to the recent work by Robert Trivers, an evolutionary biologist who has scientifically studied the Diogenean observation that humans are mostly liars. he reaches three rather plausible hypotheses.

1. Most people lie because they they get a adaptive advantage when those with whom they are competing for resources are misled about their plans and intentions.

2. Most people deceive themselves in this lying, because those to whom they are lying have counter-evolved lie detecting strategies. By watching the face or mannerisms of those intentionally or knowingly lying, they can spot liars, rendering the liar's lies impotent. To get around this, the liars deceive themselves to believe the lie they are telling, which masks their tells, their giveaway mannerisms.

3. But, living according to the truth is what gives all the advantage. Both the liar and the ones they hope to deceive will suffer if they live by the lie. So, liars have further evolved the ability to be hypocritical. They are able to live in direct contradiction to what they "believe," or pretend to believe, which is in fact an intentional self-deception. So, they live well by the truth, while their prey fall for their lies.

Now, a whole host of scientists and philosophers are making a killing lying about their belief in the theory of evolution. Of course, they have deceived themselves to seem like they "really" believe this theory, but their hypocrisy then rises up. They, not wanting to live according to the lie (it is actually a half truth) that is getting them such plush university jobs and positions, turn away in their private lives from the evolutionary goals of having as many grandchildren as they can, what evolutionists call reproductive fitness. Evolutionists hypocritically let non-evolutionists out breed them by a factor of two or more.

How is such an adapted system backfiring so? Well, those of us who, looking at the whole thing, decide to get our adaptive advantage without using such trickery, have instead simply examined philosophically the problem of how we know what is true, in the midst of so many of our fellow humans lying so much. We invent the study of epistemology, and apply it's rules to ideas that come our way. And, low and behold, we learn that not only are our fellow humans lying to deceive and exploit us, but there are angels, or demons, or other higher living beings doing the same! As we are such higher beings to, say, the game animals we hunt or fish for, we put an earthworm on a fish=hook to deceive the fish we want to catch and eat. So, these angels bait traps to fool us, to catch us, to use our lives for their purpose.

But, there are friendly higher beings as well, who hope to see us live our lives as we were meant to live them. They are helpful in getting at the truth. Read my post 31.

Believing on one's own, without applying the rules of epistemology is what is known in human culture as self-destructive behavior. Most posting here are in Trivers style denial, ignoring trustworthy authority, inspiring art, sound science, the report of history, good jokes, widespread intuitive assessment, and peak experiences, all of which confirm that my description above of how things truly are is as close to the truth as any human hypothesis.

But, contrary to the title of this thread, self-destructive behavior is widespread in human affairs. Most people really do not want to survive. They do not even want to escape an eternity in hell, (21 gram soul falling into a black hole?), or find love and joy in life.

Being human, anyone can change their mind about this, and as an act of will acquire a "desire to survive." But, your spiritual enemies, appealing to a false sense of how smart you are, have made it unlikely that you will so choose. Like the drug addicts, your "I'm so smart, not like those fools that believe in "new-age" spiritualism or Jesus!" attitude has got you hooked. You can get off this hook. Some few do. I did by the serious study of applied epistemology.

Hoping for better, and

Cheers,

Groktruth

Returning to the OP's question, I think it worthwhile point out that this "desire to survive" is one aspect of a perennial idea of philosophy -- beginning with the Stoics and continuing to present-day systems theory -- namely that of conatus, an idea of which Belinda has often commented on with respect to Spinoza.

On a Philosophy Forums thread several months ago Belinda mentioned an incredibly insightful book António Damásio's, Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain which argues Spinoza anticipated recent discoveries in biology and neuroscience. In that book the notion of conatus is described in terms of contemporary scientific theory.

Additional related current scientific theories include the ideas of autonomous self-organization and autopoiesis -- an application from systems theory to living systems.

But these answers, from a philosophical point of view, just like many of the other answers in this thread, are really tautologous. It's like saying lifeforms have a desire to survive because inherently they have the power to persist, to strive, of a will to live, and so forth -- just like the statement in Molière's play Le Malade Imaginaire that opium is soporific because of its dormative power. But the "why" of the question can not be answered with any real insight unless this power is explained in different terms.

Dowhatican wrote:

just like the statement in Molière's play Le Malade Imaginaire that opium is soporific because of its dormative power. But the "why" of the question can not be answered with any real insight unless this power is explained in different terms.

This is why I tried to answer as if it is an evolutionary question, I agree with Dowhatican, Gulnara and Wooden shoe.

There are two purposes for a person's life : one is personal, for himself or herself; and another one is to live for the continuation of one's kin, and of our species in general. To fulfill only first purpose means to let your kin down, and to let down of our species. Many even high in rank people do not understand such simple truths and go on choosing career or self-indulgence over having children.

Hi Gulnara.

I would really like to hear your reasoning for letting the family down if you had no offspring, or why it is wrong for people to make sure that they are ready for having children.
Also why it is wrong to use birth control methods in order do family planning?
By your reasoning I would have been a throwaway because I am infertile.
So I would like you to explain your ideas.
Thank you in advance.

Regards, John.

I greatly doubt that all lifeforms desire to survive, some are most likely effective surviving, that they need not have the desire.

Hi Gulnara.

I would really like to hear your reasoning for letting the family down if you had no offspring, or why it is wrong for people to make sure that they are ready for having children.
Also why it is wrong to use birth control methods in order do family planning?
By your reasoning I would have been a throwaway because I am infertile.
So I would like you to explain your ideas.
Thank you in advance.

Regards, John.

First of all, since when infertility was something soothing? It is what it is- a disaster. Such person can be of use to society, of course. I am talking about people who makes conscientious choice not to have children.
About waiting for readiness to have children- ********. People are ready several years into puberty. People were having children in post war countries, having barely anything material or special cozy conditions, or large houses. People get spoiled these days, brainwashed and carry childish traits: I need to make sure my partner is right one; I need to earn more, or without fancy wall papered nursery my baby will suffer immensely; I need to live for myself a while; we need to live for each other a while; I need second degree; I need new car... O-o-o-ops, I am pregnant! Where is that doctor with his sharp tools? I'd like to make an appointment: can we make it later in a day, cause that morning I have spa treatment?
Third: I spoke only of families, young and fertile, and not impoverished, that waste years delaying having children.
When they finally have children, why don't they decorate nursery with pictures of aborted siblings, or place them into a scrapbook : look, this little fetus could be your big brother, and this one could be your sister; but we decided to butcher them, ha-ha-ha. Does that sound like a horror movie? It is not a horror movie. It is reality.

Hello Gulnara, You wrote:
First of all, since when infertility was something soothing? It is what it is- a disaster. Such person can be of use to society, of course. I am talking about people who makes conscientious choice not to have children.
About waiting for readiness to have children- ********. People are ready several years into puberty. People were having children in post war countries, having barely anything material or special cozy conditions, or large houses. People get spoiled these days, brainwashed and carry childish traits: I need to make sure my partner is right one; I need to earn more, or without fancy wall papered nursery my baby will suffer immensely; I need to live for myself a while; we need to live for each other a while; I need second degree; I need new car... O-o-o-ops, I am pregnant! Where is that doctor with his sharp tools? I'd like to make an appointment: can we make it later in a day, cause that morning I have spa treatment?
Third: I spoke only of families, young and fertile, and not impoverished, that waste years delaying having children.
When they finally have children, why don't they decorate nursery with pictures of aborted siblings, or place them into a scrapbook : look, this little fetus could be your big brother, and this one could be your sister; but we decided to butcher them, ha-ha-ha. Does that sound like a horror movie? It is not a horror movie. It is reality.[End quote]

On a personal note, being sterile is neither good or bad, it just is. It happens, so we adopted instead.
So far you have give an emotional account on the horrors of abortion but have not dealt with philosophy and the main questions raised.
I am not in favor of abortions either, i am in favor of responsibility, however I am not willing to take abortion off the table altogether.
You have not given any real reason why it is bad to use contraceptives and limiting family size.
There are ample reasons why population growth should be stopped because we are depleting the earths resources at to great a pace, but you are not willing to face this.
People are sexual beings and it is time to realize that women are much more then just baby factories.

Regards, John.

There is a fundamental flaw with this topic being: not all lifeforms desire to survive.