Anyone know much about evolution/human biology etc? :p

[NikonL]

Two questions that i was talking to people on vent last night that we couldnt really find a satisfactory answer for.

1. What possible evolutionary benefit did "grass is greener" syndrome serve?

2. Ditto for feelings like: Heart ache, pining and so on.

I can make a stab at the purpose of "love", i.e. ensuring offspring. But why have the negitive sides to it?

Did these states even exist during the evolutionary stage? or are they simply the product of hightened intellect in humans or "social standards" inevitably causing more complex issues?

 

[old.Tohtori]

1: These days it serves as an insentive to work harder to get more. Like a kick in the arse "He has these, i want too". In the past, like caveman days, i believe this was an insentive to find better shelter, fight for land, survival of the strongest to better the whole race. Just my ideas.

2: Heart ache, pining and love in a way were there to heighten the sense to protect your kin. If you don't hurt when loosing someone, or miss them while they are gone, you can't REALLY try and protect them from harm or try and keep them in the "flock". Also forgot to add that warriors in battle, if they have nothing to miss back home, they have less survival "need". Ofcourse they don't WANT to die, but even less if they have family and kin back home. So basicly the downsides heighten the upsides. As silly as that wording sounds.

Just some ideas, i'm no "expert", just a streetsmarts kinda guy with strange logic.

 

[Calaen]

Heart ache and pining are all apart of being in love with someone.

You truly only understand how much you love someone when you have had it taken away from you. Which leads to Tohtori's it gives people something to fight for, a person in love will fight ten fold to hold onto that something.

The old saying of "you do not know what you had till its gone" is so true.

 

[liloe]

1. What possible evolutionary benefit did "grass is greener" syndrome serve?

Invention of the internet providers, so that Ckiller makes lots of "OMG, Hib has baseline stun" whinethreads, which ups the Internet use cause suddenly 3 million people jump into this "grass is greener" debate :wub:

 

[pez]

It''s all about spreading your seed. The people most motivated to find, hold on to, and procreate with a person of the opposite sex are most likely to pass on their genes.

Heart ache etc is a pretty good motivator to not fuck it up or whatever.

 

[Bugz]

Two questions that i was talking to people on vent last night that we couldnt really find a satisfactory answer for.

1. What possible evolutionary benefit did "grass is greener" syndrome serve?

2. Ditto for feelings like: Heart ache, pining and so on.

I can make a stab at the purpose of "love", i.e. ensuring offspring. But why have the negitive sides to it?

Did these states even exist during the evolutionary stage? or are they simply the product of hightened intellect in humans or "social standards" inevitably causing more complex issues?

Because not all evolution is selective...?

 

[NikonL]

Because not all evolution is selective...?

yes it is? thats the entire point

 

[Bugz]

yes it is? thats the entire point

Mutations in the DNA cause evolution in the sense of change/problems etc. Your looking at half of the spectrum - which is survival of the fittest.

I have no idea if DNA codes for emotion - and getting into such a discussion would probably involve religion too.

 

[Calaen]

no bugz me being in love with someone has fook all to do with religion. And I will slay anyone who thinks otherwise

 

[old.Tohtori]

no bugz me being in love with someone has fook all to do with religion. And I will slay anyone who thinks otherwise

Actually Bugz is semi right, love and religion go in the same "concious mind" area.

Though it's debatable if doggies and wolfies and bunnies fall in love or if it's the pack-bonding...anyhoop.

 

[scarloc]

Mutations in the DNA cause evolution in the sense of change/problems etc. Your looking at half of the spectrum - which is survival of the fittest.

I have no idea if DNA codes for emotion - and getting into such a discussion would probably involve religion too.

Random mutation only occasionally produces favourable results, and happens much much much more rarely than you seem to suggest. I'd say that's less than 1% of the spectrum, although when favourable mutation happens you tend to notice it more.

 

[tris-]

Actually Bugz is semi right, love and religion go in the same "concious mind" area.

im really lost at how human emotion ties in with writings of people who believe in something that may or may not exist.

 

[swords]

I personally don't like surival of the fittest as a term, it should be survival of the greediest shagging machines imo

 

[old.Tohtori]

im really lost at how human emotion ties in with writings of people who believe in something that may or may not exist.

I meant in the sense that love and believing in religion are part of the concious mind and how we know that we exist.

If you know what i mean.

Love and religion have nout to do with eachother as such, but belong in the same part of the brain...well...in a way.

 

[Calaen]

I meant in the sense that love and believing in religion are part of the concious mind and how we know that we exist.

If you know what i mean.

Love and religion have nout to do with eachother as such, but belong in the same part of the brain...well...in a way.

im confused

 

[Davejohnson]

'grass is greener' probably comes as a biproduct from the human hope and dreams, only the person that truly think his life and situation is perfect as it is, wont have any thoughts like it.

 

[Serbitar]

grass is greener is the spark for the urge to better oneself... i.e. always having something to aim for.

as to love, it could be suggested that 'love' is a method of population control, in that our natural urge is to partner with the person we love and only to produce offspring with that person, casual sex is excluded from this as the aim of this is not to produce offspring.

 

[Bahumat]

Actually Bugz is semi right, love and religion go in the same "concious mind" area.

Though it's debatable if doggies and wolfies and bunnies fall in love or if it's the pack-bonding...anyhoop.

There's something about dogs where they dont have foresight, they seem to Act Now and not think of the future, hence why they never leave any food from their bowl, yet a cat does.

Depending on how their minds work, maybe they cant/dont fall in love

 

[tris-]

i still dont see how faith and love are the same at all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

i still dont see how faith and love are the same at all.

You don't even listen 'cause you separete the two beforehand.

IT's like math and literature, both are the same thing as in the way that they are school subjects.

Nothing similar in them, but in one area they are the same category.

Same goes with belief and love. If we consider that animals don't pine/love/heartache that is. (But then we have to consider they don't believe in some DoggieGod either) Then those animals don't have our concious mind that allows us to believe and love.

Feelings and concious thinking(like religion) belong in the same part of the human brain. Much like breathing and sh*tting.

 

[Calaen]

Same goes with belief and love. If we consider that animals don't pine/love/heartache that is. But then we have to consider they don't believe in some DoggieGod either.

Feelings and concious thinking(like religion) belong in the same part of the human brain. Much like breathing and sh*tting.

You will find that dogs often pine for other dogs that they have been around for a long while if they pass.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You will find that dogs often pine for other dogs that they have been around for a long while if they pass.

Or is that what "oh look it's so cute" humans think?

If it was another dog and there were only two, it was more likely the fact that it can't go out and get into a new pack(form it's own), or play with another pakc member and it's lif is now without peers(as it looks to you as the pack leader).

 

[tris-]

comparing it to maths and literature isnt fair imo.

religion was made up by people 1000 of yrs ago. its not provable and relys purely on someone liking it or not.

maths is provable, it works and you have no fucking choice but to believe it, otherwise you wont get far.

love is an emotion. religion is take it or leave it. you cant take or leave love.

so in essence what im saying is, you cant compare a god to anything that we know to be real. and that belief in a god isnt an emotion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well actually math, literature, english, whatnot was made up too...anyhoop...not about that.

You're missing the point completely.

What i'm TRYING to tell you is that belief in something and feelings(i'll count love to this for now) are part of the same CONCIOUS mind.

Without the ability to know that we exist, we couldn't love or believe in gods.

Beliving and loving AS SUCH are completely different things, but not when it concerns the concious thinking mind of a human.

Get it?

It doesn't matter f*ck all WHAT religion or love is in THIS matter.

Just to add...i don't think believing in god/gods is an emotion, even if there's plenty involved, but like said belong in the same part of the brain as the concious thinking comes to play.

And THAT is how they can be compared to literature vs maths.

 

[noblok]

comparing it to maths and literature isnt fair imo.

religion was made up by people 1000 of yrs ago. its not provable and relys purely on someone liking it or not.

maths is provable, it works and you have no fucking choice but to believe it, otherwise you wont get far.

love is an emotion. religion is take it or leave it. you cant take or leave love.

If religion would be something you can "take or leave", it wouldn't really be a belief. You can't just decide to start believing (in a religion or anything else, for that matter), nor can you decide to stop believing. That being said, not everyone believes in a religion, but that doesn't mean that it is something you can take or leave. "Take or leave" implies a rational, self-determining dimension, which is not there with belief (in anything).

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Bahumat]

Im gonna take a dump on my friends desk, is that

1) Love
2) Religion
3) Too much 7up

 

[old.Tohtori]

Im gonna take a dump on my friends desk, is that

1) Love
2) Religion
3) Too much 7up

You'd love to do it, he'd probably go "Oh god no!" or "Holy sh*t"! and you probably DO drink too much 7up, so it's kinda multiversal

 

[NikonL]

religion isnt to do with emotion etc, if by religion you mean... going to church/synagogue etc, doing religious things.

Being god-fearing however may have something to do with it. I'm not in the slightest bit religious but i do try to be nice irl, why? because im worried im being judged by "something". Whatever that thing is. Now i dont know if that was a society enduced change or whether it came about as an evolutionary measure to stop us all killing each other BECAUSE of things like "grass is greener" syndrome. Interesting idea though.

 

[tris-]

If religion would be something you can "take or leave", it wouldn't really be a belief. You can't just decide to start believing (in a religion or anything else, for that matter), nor can you decide to stop believing.

if you cant start or stop, how do you become religious in the first place? equally, how do people stop being religious after a length of belief?

 

[Bahumat]

You'd love to do it, he'd probably go "Oh god no!" or "Holy sh*t"! and you probably DO drink too much 7up, so it's kinda multiversal

OMGAWD youz0r thinkin we'za gonna die?

rep inc oooh mr seel put that flipper away