Thought provoking

I ran across a strange thought today, i thought i might share it with you guys.
I was watching a video on cockatoos and their courtship rituals. I saw the objective of animals, which is to breed and start a new generation, and thought about my race, the race of mankind. If it is true that animals ( including humans ) are born to breed and start a new generation, does that mean one has to spend his/her time chasing those of the opposite sex? Does that mean those who choose to be single ( like myself ) are wrong?

Good question. Here's how I see it (today):

A biologically successful organism ensures that its genetic material moves into the gene pool of the next generation. There are two strategies to ensure "success." One is to procreate as much as possible in the hopes that one will survive. The other is to procreate relatively few times and invest a large amount of time and energy into making sure that each offspring survives until adulthood. And then there's the third strategy that is often forgotten: A non-breeding individual can assist in the raising of the offspring of closely related individuals in order to ensure that they survive to adulthood with the greatest possible nutritional and educational advantages.

More later...

Humans have gone far past their instincts in creating civilization. Although our society is founded on our basic wants, intellectual contributions are just as necessary for advancement. However, one could argue that for those gifted with intelligence finding one of the opposite gender is even more important, as most significant advances for our society generally require thought rather than athletic ability. Whatever your decision now, you still have time in college and later life to find your life goals.

But Michael, there have been plenty of times when athletic ability was more important than thought. Like the Dark Ages. And the Middle Ages. And look how many significant advances were made then. Oh...wait. *Mushal considers how many important technological advances were lost, and how much life sucked during that time, then revises his position.*

You're absolutely right, Michael.


To continue my thoughts from yesterday, I'll use the example of one of my professors, Dr. Haskell. He and his wife have decided not to have kids, and they live thousands of miles away from any relatives. Therefore, he could be considered biologically unsuccessful. However, he contributes to the development and education of individuals who share many of his traits (intelligence, caring, beards, and appreciation of the natural world). Since these are traits he values, he promotes them, and they have a strong genetic component, he could also be considered biologically successful.

Does that answer your question, An?

I understand.