Is reproductive success the only objective measure of success?

[Mark1031]

How do you measure success in life? From a purely biological POV reproductive success is the only relevant metric. Now I assume that most people do not have maximizing their offspring as a primary goal in life. Why? How else can one objectively define success for a biological entity?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Success is inherently subjective, since goals are inherently subjective.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Who sais you need an objective measure of success? As long as there is no objectively definable meaning or purpose of life...

 

[Mark1031]

Who sais you need an objective measure of success? As long as there is no objectively definable meaning or purpose of life...

Ah but there is certainly an objectively definable purpose of life and that is to produce more life of the same genetic variety. To become extinct is a clear failure for a species and to fail to reproduce is a clear failure for any individual biological entity.

 

[Akka]

Success is feeling you've had a good life.

 

[Jawz II]

once i saw a documentary about this mormon guy around 50 years old and his family of like 8 wives, mostly young girls in their late teens and their 30 or so kids!

they lived in homemade trailers in the desert and sold magazine subscriptions by going door to door

it was pure misery, they had just lost a bunch of the kids in a fire and the cops where after him (for having had sex with girls under 18 and polygamy i think)

i sure hope thats not succes cause thats not what i want

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ah but there is certainly an objectively definable purpose of life and that is to produce more life of the same genetic variety. To become extinct is a clear failure for a species and to fail to reproduce is a clear failure for any individual biological entity.

I can say that the sky's made of chocalte icecream, but that doesn't make it so. Similarly, you saying that reproduction is the purpose of life doesn't make it so.

Present arguments for your position, so we can shoot them down.

 

[storealex]

There's enough humans as it is.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I deem success as the acheivement of one's goals. Mine is to gain freedom through the acquisition of wealth.

 

[Mark1031]

Present arguments for your position, so we can shoot them down.

The basic definition a life is a self replicating entity. The rules are set up by nature. Do you argue that extinction of a species is indicative of success? Those life forms that cannot reproduce successfully go extinct. The particular alleles in an individual tend toward extinction if that individual fails to reproduce and they tend toward dominance wit more offspring. It's just basic genetics and evolutionary theory. I'm not sure what there is to argue about other than I suppose the definition of the word success.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The basic definition a life is a self replicating entity.

Actually, there is no clear definition for life either.

The rules are set up by nature.

Because you said so?

Do you argue that extinction of a species is indicative of success?

No, not for an individual at least. "Species" is an abstract term denoting a group of creatures that are very symilar (though not identical) to each other.

Those life forms that cannot reproduce successfully go extinct.[snip]

Just because life abides by certain rules, does not compell us as rational creatures to necessarily obey them.

I'm not sure what there is to argue about other than I suppose the definition of the word success.

If you define success as "having a lot of children", then you can't use this definition to draw the conclusion that "having a lot of children" is good. What you need to do is to start from a broader set of axiomes (on which you and I agree for instance), then draw conclutions from those (hence a relatively objective way of defining success).

 

[Milan's Warrior]

I agree with the many how have said that success is achieving ones' own goals.

Moreover, even from a biological point of view, one can argue that fewer humans is a bigger success, because at this rythm we risk to exploit the Earth too much and die out as a species because of pollution. So the specie might last longer if there are fewer offsprings

 

[The Last Conformist]

The basic definition a life is a self replicating entity.

That could use some refinement, unless you want to include crystals as life while excluding mules.

Do you argue that extinction of a species is indicative of success?

I'm saying there is no such thing as objective success, only success wrt to some subjective goal.

Those life forms that cannot reproduce successfully go extinct. The particular alleles in an individual tend toward extinction if that individual fails to reproduce and they tend toward dominance wit more offspring. It's just basic genetics and evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary biology deals with how organisms will act, not how they should. The notion of success implies teleology - darwinism is unrepentantly non-teleological.

I'm not sure what there is to argue about other than I suppose the definition of the word success.

I define 'success' as achievement of one's goals. You?

 

[amadeus]

To me, success in life is being able to get to the reproduction stage without actually reproducing.

 

[Mark1031]

Just because life abides by certain rules, does not compell us as rational creatures to necessarily obey them.


If you define success as "having a lot of children", then you can't use this definition to draw the conclusion that "having a lot of children" is good. What you need to do is to start from a broader set of axiomes (on which you and I agree for instance), then draw conclutions from those (hence a relatively objective way of defining success).

Perhaps it would be easiest for you to define what you view as the relevant rules of nature. However, if you not accept genetics and evolution as scientific facts then there's no point in further discussion.

I did not define having lots of children as "good". I simply argued that it is the only objective measure of success for a biological entity. Objective because it is success from the point of view of evolution and genetics which are rules of nature and not man-made criteria.

 

[Gothmog]

Another possible objective measure of success along the lines that Mark1031 is thinking of is enhancing the reproductive success of other life forms that share some amount of genetic information.

Thus someone like Jonas Salk has had success of this kind way beyond his own reproductive output.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Perhaps it would be easiest for you to define what you view as the relevant rules of nature. However, if you not accept genetics and evolution as scientific facts then there's no point in further discussion.

I did not define having lots of children as "good". I simply argued that it is the only objective measure of success for a biological entity. Objective because it is success from the point of view of evolution and genetics which are rules of nature and not man-made criteria.

I have no queries about the the scientific nature of evolution or genetics. Just because there is a certain order in nature does not compell us to follow that order. "Survival of the fittest" may improve the genetic makeup of the species, but I might have some objections if I'm the one deemed "less fit to survive".

The "laws of nature" are rules that show us how nature works, but theese are never explicit moral guidelines.Humans eventually set up the morality and in the end it remains subjective.

 

[Mark1031]

That could use some refinement, unless you want to include crystals as life while excluding mules.
I'm saying there is no such thing as objective success, only success wrt to some subjective goal.Evolutionary biology deals with how organisms will act, not how they should. The notion of success implies teleology - darwinism is unrepentantly non-teleological.

I define 'success' as achievement of one's goals. You?

Yes, yes I'm well aware of these and other exceptions and difficulties in defining life. However the basic notion of self replication holds for the vast majority of life forms.

As I suspected it comes down to a definition of success. You define success as requiring a purposeful goal set forth by a rational being (had up to look up to definition of teleology) thus precluding the notion of objective success. According to my reading of Webster you are correct however the term reproductive success is used frequently in biology and I think Webster needs to be updated.

 

[JohnRM]

One name.

Wyatt Earp

 

[Mapache]

So the people of Niger are the most successful?