Reproductivness as means to one's life?

[B. Royce 0]

I don't see how reproduction can be a value to offspring. That is, the sexual act cannot benefit the offspring which do not yet exist. Milk may be of value to a baby; the sexual act of me and a woman, which may or may not result in a baby, does not benefit anyone but her and me.

Well, there is the fact that without reproduction the offspring wouldn't ever exist. Do you need a benefit besides that?

A cause of a thing's coming into existence is not a benefit to it. Only after it exists may it receive benefits.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Not every feature or faculty of an animal is there to enhance it's life at every particular time. [...] By 'addition', I mean not directly involved in it's immediate survival. This reproduction has no "Intended" purpose, it just is the result of evolution.

I agree.

However, I know of no rule that this goes against, including your quote from Ayn Rand. Are you having difficulty in accepting that a function such as reproduction is not a direct benefit to the specific animal involved (leaving aside the satisfaction received)?

That's quite a "leaving aside." Most animals have inherited physical apparatus that makes reproductive activity extremely pleasurable and pleasure is the main motivation for engaging in life-sustaining activities.

I think that you cannot regard the pleasure that they experience as proving that it serves their life (as a higher goal). To illustrate my point: imagine that animals felt pleasure from, say, jumping up and down every once in a while. Would the mere fact that they enjoy it serve to prove that it is metaphysically a value to their life? See my point?

Animals and plants are built in such a way that everything about them (their fundamental nature) serves their survival and the survival of the next generation. The pleasure that they experience is a mechanism that ensures they act in a way that serves their survival and avoid that which risks their survival.

To us, on a psychological level, happiness (or pleasure) seems like an end in itself. But on a metaphysical (or existential) level - our psychological mechanisms serve our survival.

In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his mind as an issue of "life or death", but as an issue of "happiness or suffering".

After thinking about this some more, I think you have the key to the answer here.

However, the problem is that I cannot prove that reproductiveness serves the survival of every organism and not that the life of an organism serves the goal of reproductiveness (continuation of the specie). To rephrase the two options more simply: Is an animal alive to give birth to the next generation, or is its reproductive aspect serve its life?

It's funny because I realized after reading your post that I was annoyed at your question. I had to ask myself whether I was annoyed because there was something wrong with the question, or because I couldn't think of a good answer to it.

Hehe I remember when I was first presented with this question 2 years ago. It was really annoying to me too because I could not see an answer and yet "felt" that the right answer is that life is till the ultimate end. Let me tell you, having such question in your mind for 2 years sure is annoying (in a half-positive-half-negative way, but still annoying).

There is at least one good reason for an animal to reproduce, and that is to make it safer from predators. Many species travel in packs, which lowers the chance that any one of them will be killed. Also, reproduction gives the parent help in the hunt for food.

As far as the issue of evolution I think Dr. Binswanger had something to say about that, but I'll have to search later to remember what it was. I know it was his argument that the goal of evolution is to benefit the individual organism, not to perpetuate the species. Obviously reproduction does not provide this benefit to the one doing the reproducing, but I don't really see why this is such a problem. It is still an ability that serves the organism, even retroactively.

Yes, I agree with your answer. This is the conclusion I reached myself as well. That reproduction is both what allows the existence of organisms and helps their survival by allowing social life. Since life is enabled by genetics, it is not possible for the parent to be able to reproduce but not the offspring. The fact that you are alive necessitates that you have a reproductive aspect (since it was passed on in genes). So the package deal is "have a reproductive aspect and be alive, or don't have it and not live to begin with".

I need to think of it some more, but I think this is the way to go about analyzing this issue.

[softwareGuru 0]

... reproduction is both what allows the existence of organisms and helps their survival by allowing social life.

I think the former is the primary answer. The act of reproduction does not primarily further the life of the entity that is reproducing. However, the entity owes its life to the fact that it (and the others of its species) are "programmed" to reproduce.

[Arnold 0]

... reproduction is both what allows the existence of organisms and helps their survival by allowing social life.

I think the former is the primary answer. The act of reproduction does not primarily further the life of the entity that is reproducing. However, the entity owes its life to the fact that it (and the others of its species) are "programmed" to reproduce.

This is the point I was trying to make. Not every function is a direct benefit to the animal.

[RayK 0]

Ifat, are not genes a living entity? Did not genes create other specific organisms to be their carriers? Did not genes create/evolve a reproductive system to further enhance their chance of furthering their existence, although not consciously? Does not natural selection reward the evolution of an entity with the furthering of it's existence?

You orginal statement was "reproductivness as a means to one's life?" and later on you chose to discard humans as your subject and use any other organism. Of which I replied that (biologically) the ability to reproduce does not serve you directly, but that it serves the gene which will be passed on to your progeny and their progeny and their's and on and on (although I used different wording).

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Most animals have inherited physical apparatus that makes reproductive activity extremely pleasurable and pleasure is the main motivation for engaging in life-sustaining activities.

I think that you cannot regard the pleasure that they experience as proving that it serves their life (as a higher goal). To illustrate my point: imagine that animals felt pleasure from, say, jumping up and down every once in a while. Would the mere fact that they enjoy it serve to prove that it is metaphysically a value to their life?

It was not my point that if an activity is pleasurable it means that it is life-serving. I was asserting, instead, that pleasure itself is life-serving because it makes the organism want to live and to engage in other life-serving activities.

As evidence, observe that is quite common for a sick pet to stop eating and withdraw from human contact. Sometimes you get get him to perk up by bringing out his favorite food or toy because their associations with pleasure motivate him to make the effort to live and not give up.

[System Builder 0]

As far as the issue of evolution I think Dr. Binswanger had something to say about that, but I'll have to search later to remember what it was. I know it was his argument that the goal of evolution is to benefit the individual organism, not to perpetuate the species. Obviously reproduction does not provide this benefit to the one doing the reproducing, but I don't really see why this is such a problem. It is still an ability that serves the organism, even retroactively.

You may be thinking of The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, Chapter IX. Here are some representative excerpts.

Is the ultmate goal [of automatic living action] survival or reproduction? [p. 153] ...

The equivalence of the two ultimate goals -- survival and reproduction -- is obscured by the fact that "survival" is usually understood to mean the continuation of the life of a presently existing organism. If, however, we included X's being conceived as a contribution to X's surivival (or perhaps the better term wold be X's life), the equivalence becomes apparent. [p. 155] ...

What genetic selection favors is the chain of causation as a whole -- i.e., the perpetuation of organisms of a certain genetic type. The difference concerns only whether this fact is to be summarized under the heading of "life" or "reproduction." But in reality, each goal contains the other: every living organism was produced through a successful act of reproduction, and every successful act of reproduction is performed by an organism that is alive and produces an organism that lives. To promote reproduction is to promote the formation of living descendants. [pp. 155-156] ...

...there is no reason why the survival value causing a given organism's action has to have been provided by its own past performance(s) of that action rather than by the past performances of that action by its ancestors. [p. 157]

Apparently underscoring this (without references or elaboration), Dr. Peikoff writes:

The alternative with which reality confronts a living organism is its own life or death. The goal is self-preservation. Leaving aside reproduction, to which every organism owes its existence, this is the goal of all automatic biological processes and actions.

In other words, within the realm of automatic living action and its goal-directedness, living things possess the capacity to reproduce because that capacity (in their parents) makes their existence possible, and because they are of the same genetic type as their parents.

Note also that in this instance, a teleological understanding of reproductive capacity does, indeed, require a time perspective extending beyond the lifespan of any particular individual.

[jwoodswce 0]

I am not so sure that discussing this question in the context of animals other than humans provides much light to the subject, because volition applies to humans but not to animals driven by an instinct to reproduce.

In general, humans, and in particular woman, make a decision to engage in reproduction.

Long-term monogamy typically associated with human reproduction provides women (in the full historical context) a mate that provides protection and additional resources for survival.

My personal experience is that the decision to reproduce was initiated by my then-wife, and I responded with a desire to do what would make her happy.

Remembering back, there seems to be a strong desire to create someone that was a fusion of the parents and further to create a new individual who is better than their parents by the combination and lessons learned.

Further, I can personally say that procreation caused the bond between parents to strengthen and endure until such time as the continuation of that relationship became a threat to the viability of the children.

But, I begin to digress; hopefully, I have provided some useful additional input to the limited context of the question.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Most animals have inherited physical apparatus that makes reproductive activity extremely pleasurable and pleasure is the main motivation for engaging in life-sustaining activities.

I think that you cannot regard the pleasure that they experience as proving that it serves their life (as a higher goal). To illustrate my point: imagine that animals felt pleasure from, say, jumping up and down every once in a while. Would the mere fact that they enjoy it serve to prove that it is metaphysically a value to their life?

It was not my point that if an activity is pleasurable it means that it is life-serving. I was asserting, instead, that pleasure itself is life-serving because it makes the organism want to live and to engage in other life-serving activities.

Does it not mean though that because pleasure motivates living, that if an activity is pleasurable it means that it is ultimately life-serving? Is this not your point?

I am not so sure that discussing this question in the context of animals other than humans provides much light to the subject, because volition applies to humans but not to animals driven by an instinct to reproduce.

That is precisely why I wanted humans out, because we have volition, which complicates the subject. I think Because we perceive values on a psychological level (as something we want and enjoy), not usually on an existential level ("good for my survival") it may seem confusing to want to examine values outside a man's choice. But for the sake of this discussion (which is the "existential level" or metaphysics), I think it's the best option. I think (that maybe) if you re-read the article "The Objectivist ethics" (in Virtue of Selfishness) you'll understand more where I'm coming from.

Ray: I don't think Genes are alive or that they are the ultimate end of living things (if I understood your claim correctly). While discussing such a topic with you is interesting for me, it is not at the moment because of too much information as it is for me.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

... reproduction is both what allows the existence of organisms and helps their survival by allowing social life.

I think the former is the primary answer. The act of reproduction does not primarily further the life of the entity that is reproducing. However, the entity owes its life to the fact that it (and the others of its species) are "programmed" to reproduce.

I agree with you; reproduction does not primarily further the life of the entity that is reproducing. However, does this not imply 2 ultimate ends for every living organism?

I think that simple observation (of animals and plants) supports such conclusion. I'll explain in more detail in my answer to 'System builder'.

System Builder: Thanks. Your quotes are really helpful and add some "meat" to the discussion.

Is the ultimate goal [of automatic living action] survival or reproduction? [p. 153] ...

The equivalence of the two ultimate goals -- survival and reproduction -- is obscured by the fact that "survival" is usually understood to mean the continuation of the life of a presently existing organism. If, however, we included X's being conceived as a contribution to X's survival (or perhaps the better term would be X's life), the equivalence becomes apparent. [p. 155] ...

OK, after great effort I understand what he is saying. (which was also my own conclusion up until this point of the discussion). But I disagree with his conclusion (and with mine, previously). Those are not equivalent "ultimate ends". Even if you include being conceived as contribution to the organism's survival, it does not change the fact that an organism pursues (or metaphysically designed to pursue) 2 distinct ultimate ends. One is its own survival and the other is reproduction. These two goals even go against one another at times, but they have their own balance in the life of every organism.

The truth is, I'm afraid of my own conclusion, because I am afraid it will destroy the basis of ethics for me. I think the quote from Peikoff you provided contains an interesting point to consider here - point is: the fundamental alternative confronting living things.

The alternative with which reality confronts a living organism is its own life or death. The goal is self-preservation. Leaving aside reproduction, to which every organism owes its existence, this is the goal of all automatic biological processes and actions.

I still think that the fundamental alternative for living things is life or death. (Definitely not "reproduce or don't reproduce"). Not sure how this is relevant, but it seems important (not for this particular discussion, but for establishing ethics as serving life and not "life AND reproduction").

[softwareGuru 0]

However, does this not imply 2 ultimate ends for every living organism?

I don't conceptualize it that way. An amoeba is "designed" to divide because otherwise it would not exist. Though I don't like the word "design", I think it is more accurate to ask: "why is the amoeba designed that way?" than it is to ask "why does the amoeba do that?" People like Dawkins conceptualize the end of the "design" as: genes perpetuating themselves. That way you get a single end. I think that's a more accurate way of considering non-volitional organisms. These are not truly "individual ends" in the human/volitional sense anyway.

Throw a third end into the mix. You might have seen the internet-famous video of a herd of buffalo trying to rescue a calf from a couple of lions. They do so at some risk to their life (at least limb), even though the risk is small. Why? Why are they "designed" to take any risk at all? It seems to me that they are designed to protect the calf because that design ensures their own protection, when they are calves. Instead, if one conceptualizes it as an end pursued by an individual (like a human end), the attempted rescue cannot serve either ultimate end noted above: neither their life, nor their reproduction. I don;t think that is the right way to conceptualize it. Wouldn't a biologist view it just as I do -- not as there being two or three ends to their "design"?

[RayK 0]

SoftwareGuru, If I understand you correctly, I would agree with your first paragraph as an example of what is happening. In your second paragraph, I would still say that your example shows that the gene is operating in a way to perpetuate it's existence (although a non-volitional way). The buffalo acts to save the young of the same species as this enhances the chances of the gene's perpetuation. The difference between man and other living species is that the genes in man have evolved a consciousness that is conceptual which allows man not to act in conert with his own genes. We humans can ethically choose to not have children, not save another human or risk our lifes in a way that does not perpetuate our own genes.

[softwareGuru 0]

The difference between man and other living species is that the genes in man have evolved a consciousness that is conceptual which allows man not to act in conert with his own genes.

Ray, I agree completely. For starters, man can figure out how to have sex without reproducing. And, also, with man, sex includes various social and psychological benefits, as others have posted. However, since Ifat wanted to focus on non-humans, I kept my examples on those.

[Arnold 0]

What it comes down to, is that there is no alternative but to reproduce. All others cease to exist. It is built into the animal, and is a part of the animal that will survive if it survives. However, reproduction itself, is not vital to the survival of that specific animal. Reproduction (in general) is essential to the existence of any specific animal, but IT'S reproductive capacity in not vital to IT'S survival.

The CAPACITY for reproduction is vital for every living thing; the implementation of that capacity is not vital to a specific animal, only the species.

[RayK 0]

The CAPACITY for reproduction is vital for every living thing; the implementation of that capacity is not vital to a specific animal, only the species.

I disagree with this last word and would change it to gene. If you try and attempt to state that evolution happens for the benefit of a species, any species, you run into the contradiction that an evolving speicies evolves itself out of existence. An example from Homo genus is that the evolution of Neaderthal man caused his own extinction by the new member of the Homo genus, Cro-Magnon man. Obviously, evolution (nor reporduction) cannot primarily happen for the benefit of the speicies and it must be an organism more essential, the gene.

[Arnold 0]

The CAPACITY for reproduction is vital for every living thing; the implementation of that capacity is not vital to a specific animal, only the species.

I disagree with this last word and would change it to gene. If you try and attempt to state that evolution happens for the benefit of a species, any species, you run into the contradiction that an evolving speicies evolves itself out of existence. An example from Homo genus is that the evolution of Neaderthal man caused his own extinction by the new member of the Homo genus, Cro-Magnon man. Obviously, evolution (nor reporduction) cannot primarily happen for the benefit of the speicies and it must be an organism more essential, the gene.

I said nothing of a benefit, rather that that it was vital to the existence of a species.

(In any case, I see genes as nothing more than instructions for construction, not some kind of 'creature'. This idea that genes have some sort of 'drive' to reproduce themselves seems a distorted way of looking at evolution. There is no plan in evolution,it is only the result of survival in a given circumstance.)

[RayK 0]

The CAPACITY for reproduction is vital for every living thing; the implementation of that capacity is not vital to a specific animal, only the species.

I disagree with this last word and would change it to gene. If you try and attempt to state that evolution happens for the benefit of a species, any species, you run into the contradiction that an evolving speicies evolves itself out of existence. An example from Homo genus is that the evolution of Neaderthal man caused his own extinction by the new member of the Homo genus, Cro-Magnon man. Obviously, evolution (nor reporduction) cannot primarily happen for the benefit of the speicies and it must be an organism more essential, the gene.

I said nothing of a benefit, rather that that it was vital to the existence of a species.

(In any case, I see genes as nothing more than instructions for construction, not some kind of 'creature'. This idea that genes have some sort of 'drive' to reproduce themselves seems a distorted way of looking at evolution. There is no plan in evolution,it is only the result of survival in a given circumstance.)

I have not said that there is a plan in evolution nor did I state there was a drive to reproduce in genes. What I stated (in different terms) was that the gene is the primary benefactor of natural selection of which reproduction was selected by nature to be a beneficial attribute of a living, evolving entity.

[Arnold 0]

The CAPACITY for reproduction is vital for every living thing; the implementation of that capacity is not vital to a specific animal, only the species.

I disagree with this last word and would change it to gene. If you try and attempt to state that evolution happens for the benefit of a species, any species, you run into the contradiction that an evolving speicies evolves itself out of existence. An example from Homo genus is that the evolution of Neaderthal man caused his own extinction by the new member of the Homo genus, Cro-Magnon man. Obviously, evolution (nor reporduction) cannot primarily happen for the benefit of the speicies and it must be an organism more essential, the gene.

I said nothing of a benefit, rather that that it was vital to the existence of a species.

(In any case, I see genes as nothing more than instructions for construction, not some kind of 'creature'. This idea that genes have some sort of 'drive' to reproduce themselves seems a distorted way of looking at evolution. There is no plan in evolution,it is only the result of survival in a given circumstance.)

I have not said that there is a plan in evolution nor did I state there was a drive to reproduce in genes. What I stated (in different terms) was that the gene is the primary benefactor of natural selection of which reproduction was selected by nature to be a beneficial attribute of a living, evolving entity.

A gene is a set of instructions. The 'code' itself is not an organism. In what way can it be a benefactor? If this instruction code helps an organism to survive, it is the organism that benefits. The organism benefits from good genes, not the other way around.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Most animals have inherited physical apparatus that makes reproductive activity extremely pleasurable and pleasure is the main motivation for engaging in life-sustaining activities.

I think that you cannot regard the pleasure that they experience as proving that it serves their life (as a higher goal). To illustrate my point: imagine that animals felt pleasure from, say, jumping up and down every once in a while. Would the mere fact that they enjoy it serve to prove that it is metaphysically a value to their life?

It was not my point that if an activity is pleasurable it means that it is life-serving. I was asserting, instead, that pleasure itself is life-serving because it makes the organism want to live and to engage in other life-serving activities.

Does it not mean though that because pleasure motivates living, that if an activity is pleasurable it means that it is ultimately life-serving? Is this not your point?

Ultimately, yes, but not necessarily directly. If I enjoy eating food, the act of eating sustains my life. If I get pleasure from the company of a friend, it serves my life too, but not as directly.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I still think that the fundamental alternative for living things is life or death. (Definitely not "reproduce or don't reproduce"). Not sure how this is relevant, but it seems important (not for this particular discussion, but for establishing ethics as serving life and not "life AND reproduction").

I agree 100%. The purpose of ethics is to serve the life of the individual who acts and not his potential offspring.

The fact is, however, that we are the offspring of people who reproduced and really enjoyed the process. As a result, we inherited the physical means to enjoy it too. When an individual can look forward to experiencing that kind of enjoyment, it is a strong motivation for choosing to live and take life-preserving actions.

[RayK 0]

Arnold, as of right now I have not found an agreed upon definition of gene within the field of science. So, I will use one from G. C. Williams, "a gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection." In other less complex wording, Richard Dawkins' definition of a gene is, "a replicator with high copying-fidelity. Copying-fidelity is another way of saying longevity-in-the-form-of copies..." So, with that stated, are you or your close relatives around long enough to see any of the benefits of evolultion? Will any of your progeny be around long enough to reap the benefits of evolution? Will a certain species be around long enough to benefit from evolution? I would offer that the answer to all three questions is no. So, in a biological context, the gene/replicator is the primary entity that benefits from evolution and natural selection.

[jwoodswce 0]

That is precisely why I wanted humans out, because we have volition, which complicates the subject...But for the sake of this discussion (which is the "existential level" or metaphysics), I think it's the best option.

Although there are substantially detailed variants between species, a couple basics seem consistent.

An individual entity of a specific species shares a niche within the ecosystem with other members of its species. Reproduction controls the expansion or contraction of that species within its ecosystem in response to resource changes. The individual entity’s survival is aided by members of its own species dominating its niche, or at least holding their own, in the competition for resources with other species in that same niche and as protection against predators.

Even loner animals like tigers can thrive better as individuals in a territory where that species dominates and can keep out competing species, or predator species, like man.

I think that we can see this in plants as well with individual entities thriving where more of their species dominates their niche to the exclusion of competing species and limitation to predatory species.

I do not know if there have been any studies done, but an interesting line of questioning related to the issue that you raise would be, “Do individual entities who are unable to reproduce, or for some other reason do not reproduce, lack a vitality exhibited by other members of their species?”

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I do not know if there have been any studies done, but an interesting line of questioning related to the issue that you raise would be, “Do individual entities who are unable to reproduce, or for some other reason do not reproduce, lack a vitality exhibited by other members of their species?”

I don't see any evidence of that. Perhaps it depends on WHY they didn't reproduce. Did they survive to puberty? Were they strong enough to beat out the competition for a mate? Did they have a physical impairment preventing them carrying a pregnancy to term?

But the process of reproduction itself can affect vitality. Not so long ago, many, many women died in childbirth and for some male insects, reproduction is fatal.

[~Sophia~ 0]

It has been reported that for women reproduction has (can have) some positive health benefits. One or more full term pregnancies is often reported as one of the factors protecting against ovarian cancer. Also breastfeeding has been found to provide a measure of protection (and the reported numbers are significant - close to 50% chance reduction in some cases) against uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as well as breast cancer.

[~Sophia~ 0]

So, with that stated, are you or your close relatives around long enough to see any of the benefits of evolution?

We are the result of evolution. We are benefiting from it.