Might our biology lead us to tribal or ethnic genocides?

Right.

Um, so I, I think I remember what we talked about last time, but I wanted to continue it. Do you remember what we talked about last time?

Um, I do. It was whether people— I don't know if it— if I'm wording this correctly, but, um, I remember that we were talking about, I mean, specifically in adults, if all adults want to do the right thing and seek the truth, or do they want to seek the truth but also seek their own or seek it for their own intentions.

Got it. Um, that's highly relevant. Um, the particular angle I wanted to— let me frame it as I remember we were talking about, um, you know, adults. Why do adults disagree? And that gets into seeking the truth and their bias, just as you said. Um, but I remember I was asking about an example of, uh, you know, in your classes where you disagreed and you got closer to the truth. And if I recall correctly, you said that you had had a class where initially, in terms of what the purpose of life was, there was a disagreement about is it for reproduction or to have fun? And towards the end of class, you were more aligned. Am I summarizing that correctly?

Yes. And I was reflecting on that after the, um, after our meeting. And I think what I meant by more aligned was, um, I mean, we might have— we might not have had this, like, the same view of views. Um, I think we still sort of believed in what we had spoken for, you know, during the class. But we've— I think, um, the two sides has gotten used to other people's perspective, and we're starting to not criticize it more. And so that was a part of it. And also, I think my classmates and I began to realize that there maybe didn't need to be just one thing, it could be the both of them. Also, part of it might have been they were tired of arguing, like they just wanted to settle on a truth, right? Which, when I thought of that, I thought it was interesting because I don't really see like politicians do that or anything.

So, so, um, it's interesting you have several levels of analysis for— I mean, it sounds like they just got tired and don't— didn't really agree, and also maybe they thought both sides had some truth. Is that a good summary?

Yes.

Got it. Well, um, and then I was then pushing you a little bit Well, I'll start off with your opinion. What was your final take on that? Is it one or both or something else?

I, I mean, in the end of the class, I thought that it was a mix of both. I kind of stuck with my initial perspective, but it did change a little in the end where I think like the base of the purpose of life is to stick your genes far into the future and reproduce. But since we're humans and we've evolved into maybe more than just animals, and we've, you know, created societies and things like that, maybe there's another edge of the purpose of life where, um, or that aligns to the other side of the class's ideals, where you should go and experience things and, um, have fun. Maybe just because we're humans.

Got it. And then I was at that point, I think we've gotten to a good point vis-à-vis last time. I introduced the concept of the Golden Rule. Do you remember what the Golden Rule is?

Treat others as you would have, as you would like them to have done upon you or something like that.

Yeah, no, that's a decent summary. And so then my question is, How do we— and, and it sounds like you mostly agree with that principle, or not? Or what's your relationship to that principle?

I, I for sure agree. Um, if you want someone to be nice to you, be nice to them, because if you're not nice, then they won't be nice. Um, if you want someone to tell the truth to you, then don't lie to them, right?

Okay. And so if one of the— if the primary purposes of life is maybe to reproduce, and a secondary big purpose is to have fun or interesting experiences. Is the Golden Rule in any sense related to the purpose of life, or is it a different kind of thing altogether?

I think that it could be and maybe should be integrated in there. I don't really off the top of my head see how it could relate to, um, I mean, like, reproduction and growing the species. But maybe in the part where you're supposed to have fun and experience things and meet new people, then that rule might be applied. But, um, yeah, I think so.

So, um, what if it happens to be the case— would you agree that different people have fun in different ways, that different people value different kinds of experiences?

I mean, I think that people do value different kinds of experiences. I think— I don't really understand what your question was.

So I was going to go to a case. Suppose there's somebody who enjoys being cruel to other people, and so for them, um, having fun means a lifetime of cruelty to others. Um, is there— is the purpose in life— is there a purpose in life then to be cruel?

Well, according to the rule that my classmates proposed, then if you're having fun and experiencing things in life, then yes, it is purpose. Um, and I don't think we thought of that. I don't think we thought of that. I think we didn't touch that subject, but now that I think of it, that is a point and a problem in that argument. Because I mean, from our standpoint, cruelty is bad, right? You want everything to be good. But if that's someone's idea of fun, then according to our rule, they should be able to do it because it's the, um, you know, it's what you have to do.

So, you know, going back to your biological basis on the reproduction side, the animal world is fairly cruel, um, If— what if biologically we are biologically programmed to be cruel? Is then our purpose of life to reproduce and be cruel, or kill or be killed?

Um, I think if you— I think if someone stated that the purpose of life is to reproduce— I mean, I'm not sure, is it reproduce and be cruel while doing so, or reproduce just and be cruel?

These are good questions. I guess what I'm getting at is taking your class's simple conclusion, reproduction based on biology, and having experiences. I was on the experiences side, I was looking at the cruelty, but I'm just going back to even the biology side. You know, predators kill, that's what predators do. You know, wolves and jaguars and eagles and all sorts of predators. And so it's different from the reproduction. But if we look at nature as a guide to our purpose, presumably the— I mean, could you say that the purpose of a wolf is to kill and then reproduce? That is, killing is part of the purpose of a wolf?

Well, it— that's what it must do, right? I mean, I think the first thing I thought of when you said that was what counts as cruelty. Because I mean, humans too, but like you have to kill and then eat, right? So, but I mean, there might be cruelty in killing another organism and then eating it, right? But I don't know, usually I don't count it as cruelty. Like I'm not a vegan or anything, I love to eat meat. Like I know that, you know, cattle and stuff are being killed so I can eat meat, but Um, like you, like you said, wolves kill their prey and lions kill their prey just to eat, right? And they have to, or else they'll starve. So, and if they starve, is that cruelty? So I think there may be things you have to count out of the diagram of cruelty. So I think it depends.

You think it's natural for human beings to kill other human beings?

For human beings to kill other human beings? Um, I mean, that's cannibalism. I don't know if it's natural. I mean, the whole point, according to my classmate's perspective, is that the whole point of life is to reproduce, right? So if you're killing other humans, what's the point of reproducing?

So I misled you by following that, uh, following up on the wolf thing, but simply war, going to And, you know, most war— some war includes cannibalism, but most war does not. So, you know, but certainly war has been part of the human condition for a very long time. And in wars, people kill other people. Do you think that the violence of war is part of human nature?

Well, if you're talking about human nature, then maybe, because human nature is what started those wars. It might have been over power, land, or food or something, but something led to the fighting. And I think the fighting is very, very cruel. You see other animals doing it too, though. So I think that might be a trait that we share with a lot of other species that is cruel and maybe not completely necessary, but we still do it and say it's cruel.

So the interesting part is not completely necessary. So I guess when you think of reproduction as part of the purpose of life, it makes sense that, you know, reproduction, you know, maybe not of any individual, but reproduction of the species is essential because we don't reproduce, we're not— that's the end of humanity. If all human beings quit reproducing, that's the end. But, um, with respect to violence of war, it sounds like you're saying it's part of human nature but not, not completely necessary.

Well, well, if— I mean, so most wars, and I don't know the history of all wars, I feel like whenever I try to learn history about a war, it's kind of complicated. But I'm, I'm assuming that I mean, to each— to the beginning of the history of most wars, there might have been something that someone could do to stop it and resolve the problem. I mean, I'm not speaking for all wars because I don't know the history of all wars. But— and maybe I'm wrong to point it towards wars because I don't know a lot about the history. Maybe Um, something like this. My, um, some of my old friends would get into arguments with my other friends when I was back in school, um, and sometimes I would resolve it just because I don't want to fight between my friends, uh, because that could lead to something bigger because most of the kids in my class were very dramatic. Um, maybe that could kind of be in comparison to wars and warring sides and things like that. Not to say that there is a— not to say that there's a solution for everything, but I guess when I said completely necessary, it's like, is there another way instead of warring, doing wars?

So I want to flip it around. Instead of thinking of Is war part of the purpose of human beings? Would you think peace, since you are by nature a peacemaker, do you think that peace is part of our purpose or not necessarily?

Um, I mean, you could include it in our purpose, but peace, I mean, everybody wants to have peace, right? I mean, at least most people.

Um, that's the thing. I actually, you know, not Maybe most Americans now may want peace, but there have certainly been cultures and tribes and certainly individuals that loved war. There have been people who celebrated war. And in particular, most war, most violence is committed by young males, maybe between 15 and 25. But there have been, you know, tribes and nations where I mean, to some extent, the Nazis celebrated war. You know, there, there was, and there have been lots, so it's not just to pick on the Nazis. There have been lots of cultures where at least, um, some leaders, typically male, and some young men celebrated war. So would we say that war is their purpose and peace is our purpose, or how do we even sort out, or maybe just some people Some human beings have war as part of their purpose and others have peace as part of their purpose.

I mean, if there's wars, I don't really know, because if it's their purpose to create chaos and lead wars, then I mean, if it's their purpose, then they must think they need to, but I don't know. Is it the purpose of life or is it just their purpose?

These are good questions and I'm going to introduce a new term. So, you know, the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, I would say is a form of morality. I think, you know, wanting peace rather than war is, I would say, usually a form of morality. I would think insofar as some people want war or want violence or want to kill other people, That's certainly not respecting the Golden Rule, um, because we don't want to be killed, so, and we certainly don't want our families to be killed. And so I guess the bigger question is, if we go with your class and say, um, the purpose of life is to reproduce and the purpose of life is to have experiences, fun and experiences, um, maybe some of the experiences are not entirely fun, but still maybe fun and cool experiences, what do we do with Does— is there any relationship with respect to the purpose of human life to any kind of moral issue at all? Is there any way we can say that our purpose includes doing good or preventing war or treating people decently, or are those completely unrelated to human purpose?

I think that maybe if we stuck with the notion that, like, the base of human of the human life's purpose is to reproduce and stick your genes into the future, then I think that there's a basis where you could say that stopping wars and making peace and having people not kill each other is the purpose. Because if people don't kill each other, then those people can reproduce and grow the species, right? But if you stick to the, the, um, the base purpose of life being having fun and cool experiences and focusing on yourself, then, um, if the people who lead the wars, if their idea of fun and cool experiences and thinking of themselves is leading wars and campaigns and things like that, well then they must follow that rule, right? And I think that's not the only side to those two, but that's just what I thought of.

So just in terms of reproducing, you know, there's one version I think you're sort of indicating that you could say we want, because we want our children and grandchildren and so forth to survive, therefore we want peace. There's a different version of, and this is, I think the Nazis were pretty explicit about this, because we want our children and our grandchildren and so forth to survive, we want to conquer as much land and kill as many people as from other cultures as possible, other races as possible, um, so that we have more for our descendants. Does it seem like human nature is consistent both with the 'we want peace for the sake of our descendants' and 'we want to kill and destroy others for the sake of our descendants'?

Well, in that case, I mean, your log— your logic would match, I think. But I mean, yeah, I think it would match. I'm just trying to like I mean, from my standpoint, and I'm not like a world leader and I'm not like in charge of anything very big right now, but from my view, maybe just no war would be better. But from their standpoint, they want more land and things like that. So, and if it's gonna help their population survive, then they must do it, right? Um, I think, but if you're thinking of the human species as a whole, then it's different. But if you're thinking about your country or your land or your territory, then it is much different.

So, um, we've kind of gone along today, but you can see, uh, how complicated and challenging these issues are. Fair enough?

Yeah, for sure.

Okay, in which case we will explore them in the future. It's been a pleasure thinking with you, so have a great week and until next time.