The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.
Debate Rounds (3)
And as far as your stipulation that only living things that support life should live, we have only to use the example of the largest supporters of life on the planet, and that is water and sun. These are not living things and yet without them there would be no life on this planet. Conversely, how would you even justify the concept of death, an end to which all living things move, in a system where the purpose and meaning or end of life is to support life? There must be destructive as well as constructive forces in life.
The motivation for change, or adaptations/mutation/evolution again has survival as its prime motivation, not altruism or the want to be remembered. This is an exaggerated imposition of human traits onto nature. But even as far as humans are concerned, change is inevitable, the individual will change as he evolves/moves toward the end of life. There is no objective measurement for what changes result in one being remembered, or indeed how or when remembrance came to be the primary motivation behind life, or the changes one makes in his life.
And lastly, the number of breaths or changes that people make during their lives have nothing to do with life, which is quantitatively and qualitatively the same. You are either alive, or you are not. There are children who die within a few hours of childbirth, and though they never had the opportunity to support another life or affect change, (beyond their brief time on this earth), it is possible that they will be remembered until the end of some interested party's days...
This was painful...lol.
Thank you very much for your time and attention
So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures.
Step back for a moment and think of the population of earth. So, how many people were born on the 12th of January in 2001? How many people love the color red? How many people are married? How many are under the age of 18? Does any of this information matter enough to be considered life's meaning? Now, step back again and think of how many more people are born every day, how quickly the population is expanding, how many new technological advances are happening as you read this; these are reasons we all live, making us more invested in this information than others.
Now, we think of people who are unkind and unrespecting of life and we think of these people lowly, as if they are terrible and sickly. These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species.
You: but my point is not about animal or human instinct but more or less why there is life and why life has any point; not whether death supports life.
Me: This is understandable, but not your assertion which, was that the Meaning of life is to support life. you go on to say, that there wouldn't be life without this support. I countered by with examples, like the ocean, the water (non-living things that support life. I also asked you where death (a very natural part of life) fits in if the whole point of life is to support other life. I think I have stayed very close to the terms of this argument..(without self-inflicting wounds) And yet you continue to impose your value on the meaning of all life (it'd be okay, if it were just your own) by saying things like:
You: Therefore, wouldn't the only reason life continues be because in the past living things died (not necessarily giving themselves up) to support future life; as well as different species evolving to support life whether they evolved to adapt to climate or to hunt prey or grow food etc.,
Me: Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory, but it doesn't hold up for things like death, or the extinction of species. Life is equally destructive (unsupportive) as it is creative (supporting). That is why the survival of the fittest theory is so prominent.
You: So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures.
Me: So what about how fossil turns into petroleum, or diamonds..these things though valuable, do not necessarily nurture life. Your points are compelling, but to go as far as to say that it is the definitive meaning of life, I believe is a step too far.
You: These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species.
Me: Oh my gosh.. cruelty marks our memories and our souls, just as much, if not more than kindness...
Yes Ghandi, but also Pol Pot.. Yes Isaac Newton... but also Hitler... and so on
memories, both good and bad stick with us...and this too, I think is a survival mechanism!!!
Thanks for listening
RavenArkBlue forfeited this round.
Thanks to all for reviewing!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.