Is reproductive success the only objective measure of success?

[Perfection]

Well, I can think of other uses of sucess with an objective role role.

For example sucessful completion of the course means you passed the course.

 

[betazed]

It’s really just a thought experiment that derives from the fact that I know a number of people that put so much energy into achieving subjective successes like $$, promotions, tenure etc. that they hit their 40s and forgot to have kids.

Some would ask, so what? At least I know a few who would. Kids although great in some ways are also a major bother. And surely so what if ones genes die with oneself?

IMHO, we are all a little bit like Ozymandias of Egypt trying to reach immortality. In our cases we try to do it thru kids. It is still a mirage. So why should it be a success?

 

[Mark1031]

Well, I can think of other uses of sucess with an objective role role.

For example sucessful completion of the course means you passed the course.

True. If I answer 5x5=25 on an exam I have achieved an objective success. I have followed a set of rules to come to the one objectively correct answer. Problem is that I am not a calculator but a biological creature so that objectively the rules that should govern my actions are not math rules but biological rules.

 

[Perfection]

There's social psychology objective sucesses that can apply to all humans.

 

[Mark1031]

Some would ask, so what? At least I know a few who would. Kids although great in some ways are also a major bother. And surely so what if ones genes die with oneself?

IMHO, we are all a little bit like Ozymandias of Egypt trying to reach immortality. In our cases we try to do it thru kids. It is still a mirage. So why should it be a success?

Well the people I'm referring to reach mid-40s and want desperately to have kids. I personally was ambivalent at first but have enjoyed it immensely. It just strikes me that ignoring biology for more subjective goals is potentially perilous.

 

[Perfection]

Well the people I'm referring to reach mid-40s and want desperately to have kids. I personally was ambivalent at first but have enjoyed it immensely. It just strikes me that ignoring biology for more subjective goals is potentially perilous.

That's incorrect, persuing biological sucesses is just as subjective as anyother form of action, because your switching from positive to normative statements.

And not all folks in the mid-40s want kids

 

[Mark1031]

switching from positive to normative statements.

Sorry, I don't understand what that means.

And not all folks in the mid-40s want kids

True, but I never said that.

There's social psychology objective sucesses that can apply to all humans.

examples?

 

[WillJ]

@WJ
What do I mean by the statement "from a biological point of view"? Do you accept the fact that the basis for our understanding of modern biology is a combination of genetics, and evolution through natural selection? If the answer is yes then success from a biological point of view = more successful at reproducing. Having longer fingernails is not success. Even if having longer fingernails on average helps your species reproduce at a greater rate you are not a biological success until you actually do the reproducing even if you have the long fingernails. I really don't see the necessity of introducing a value judgment into the word success. But if we must I would say that it is objectively "good" to not go extinct, again from a biological point of view.

Yep, I believe in the Theory of Evolution. Don't let my location throw you off.

When I say "from a biological point of view," I mean looking at something with knowledge obtained from the science of biology in mind. (Before I continue: Do you mean the same?)

I think I worded my previous posts slightly off. Let me start again from the beginning---from semantics, to make sure we're on the same page.

Success pretty much means achieving one or more goals. Consider the sentence Bob is successful at getting money. This, although not exactly a fact, is still objective in the sense that it can be backed with facts. In that sentence, the goal that "success" implies is getting money; that's right there in the sentence. Now consider the sentence Bob is successful. Notice that no specific goal is mentioned. Certain goals might be sorta implied---I imagine most people associate successful people with achieving wealth and/or fame, getting chicks (or a nice husband in the case of a woman), and/or raising good kids. But who's to say what the goals are that Bob should have in mind? No one really, and thus the sentence is subjective in nature---it's purely a matter of opinion whether or not its true. Even though facts could be brought up (perhaps Bob makes $500,000 a year), it could be questioned whether or not they're relevant.

It's the same with the sentence, Ants, as a species, are more successful than giraffes. [Actually, I think there is more than one species of ant, but let's not worry about that.] You might say, "Well, it's objectively true from a biological point of view." To which I would ask, "Why?" And perhaps you would pull out a book on ants and giraffes and point out that there are an estimated 535 billion (or whatever) ants in the world, whereas there are only 2.5 million (or whatever) giraffes. And even if you go by the total mass of the animals, there is more ant mass than giraffe mass.

But the relevance of all that could be called into question, just like Bob getting a six-figure check annually. Who's to say that all that makes a species successful? Who's to say that numbers are what bring success? You might say, "Darwin did," but here's the essence of what I'm trying to say: No he didn't. When he said that nature selects for the ability to pass on genes, he didn't literally mean that Mother Nature sits there and chooses only the fittest to live, and all living organisms compete for her approval. He just meant that when there's something whose genes allow it to pass its genes on moreso than something else, the first something's genes will most likely eventually become more common than the second something's. Notice that I said WILL, not SHOULD (by "should" I'm referring to the meaning dealing with obligation and not probability). There is no value judgement inherent to the ToE.

No part of biology actually places any value in life---that's in the realm of philosophy. Sure, most biologists probably personally value life, otherwise they wouldn't dedicate their lives to studying it, but the science itself doesn't speak out, "Life... good!" Thus, I don't see how biologically speaking, it's "good" to not go extinct, or that furthering your species makes you "successful."

Edit: Now that I think about it, just posting the last paragraph would probably have done just as well, but oh well.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Sucess comes in all different forms,there is no one way.

 

[Japher]

Success comes in all different forms,there is no one way.

That's what losers who can't get laid say...

Success is getting up one more time than you have fallen.

Acheiving a goal is success.

 

[Fifty]

Humans are unique in their capacity to design goals that are far different from simple acts of reproduction. I realize the idea behind the topic, but in a creature with the level of self-determination that humans have, their goals can be whatever they want.

Pretty much what everyone else said.

 

[toh6wy]

Everyone who answered yes is wrong, because even if you look at it purely biologically, there are actually two objectives: to reproduce *and* to survive for as long as possible!

 

[Mark1031]

@WJ
O. K. I see what you are saying which is that Darwin outlined a set of rules that have no values inherent in them. This I agree with. However, he did outline a set of rules that govern a competition. In a competition there are winners and losers. It is not at all a great leap to say that winners are successful and losers are unsuccessful. Now, there are many games with rules that in the end lead to winners and losers. I can be objectively successful at civ if I take over the world but why should I value that as I am a human being rather than a computer. My argument is that as biological creatures the only game that we should objectively value is the game of life which follows the rules set out by Darwin and in that game reproduction is winning i.e. success.

 

[WillJ]

@WJ
O. K. I see what you are saying which is that Darwin outlined a set of rules that have no values inherent in them. This I agree with. However, he did outline a set of rules that govern a competition. In a competition there are winners and losers. It is not at all a great leap to say that winners are successful and losers are unsuccessful. Now, there are many games with rules that in the end lead to winners and losers. I can be objectively successful at civ if I take over the world but why should I value that as I am a human being rather than a computer. My argument is that as biological creatures the only game that we should objectively value is the game of life which follows the rules set out by Darwin and in that game reproduction is winning i.e. success.

Hmm, I still think you're being wrongly... "illustrative," I guess.

A couple months ago in health class we watched an animated video on the immune system, and in it all the little different white blood cells---B cells, helper T cells, etc.---were represented with cute little caricatures. The cells designed to attack pathogens were really buff, the cells designed to communicate to the others had walkie-talkies, etc.

Now do white blood cells really look like that? No, but it helps our minds sort out their functions and understand them. Similarly, the process of evolution isn't really a "competition" with "winners" and "losers," but thinking of it as such can help us understand it, and that's why it's often described in the way you just did. But it's still not literally the case.

A "competition" implies (at least by my definition) conscious individuals trying to attain something that can't be obtained by everyone (a higher score, a pretty girl, whatever). This is not the case with 99% of the organisms that undergo evolution, and even with the other 1% not much of their conscious thought is deliberately put into evolution. And just as "success" implies goals (and at least I think of goals as inherently subjective, although you may disagree), so do "competition," "winner," and "loser." If I get up from this computer and eat a doughnut, and my brother says, "Yay, you won!" I'll look at him funny, because although I did indeed intend to eat it, I never established it as formal goal that might be thwarted by someone else. And if you see a couple deer mating with each other, and similiarly congratulate them, they'd also probably look at you funny if they could understand English.

Would you say that atomic behavior is all a competition between atoms, each trying to get a full set of valence electrons (with exceptions)? If so, I think that's a little silly, but if you want there's another objective type of success right there---when sodium and chlorine atoms bond, they succeed/win and the lonely hydrogen atoms that wanted to bond with the chlorine fail/lose.

 

[Perfection]

Sorry, I don't understand what that means.

Positive statements are statement about factuality. Normative statements are statements that place intrinsic value on something. Once you switch from positive to normative objectivity goes out the window. You are taking sucess as a positive statement and making it normative and that loses all objectivity.

examples?

Sucessful mastry of language skills may be objectively gauged by proficiency tests.

Everyone who answered yes is wrong, because even if you look at it purely biologically, there are actually two objectives: to reproduce *and* to survive for as long as possible!

No, survival as long as possible is not a biological objective. There are many examples of timed deaths for organisms, there is no evolutionary benefit in longivity.

However there is more to the reproductive objective then simple reproduction, that is the reproduction of decendants.

 

[yoshi74]

Nothing is for eternity, not humanity or anything they create.

So i think success is living a life quite happily.

Achieving something to achive something to stay is ultimatly in vain.

 

[Gothmog]

I didn't actually vote because I saw the semantic problems with Mark1031's question right away; IMO objectivity is a fantasy anyway. We are subjective beings and the existence, or lack thereof, of an objective reality is purely philosophical and of very little consequence. Personally I do believe in one though.

Still, I did want to add something from my personal experiences to this thread.

Basically, I agree with yoshi that living happily is success. That is subjectivity in a nutshell.

However, most people don't really know what will make them happy. My experience has been that nothing makes a person happier than love. Cheesy as that may sound love makes life worth living.

I've been quite successful in my career, having achieved basically all the objectives I set out to accomplish. It's all gravy from here. This has made me happy but cannot compare with the joy of having children. It cannot compare with the improvement in quality of day-to-day life that having children whom I can love unconditionally and without reservation, who look to me as their father, has made.

So I think biology wins again here, love makes life worth living and love is intimately tied to reproduction. IMO this is at the heart of the conflict Mark1031 describes in some of his friends.

As always YMMV.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Well the people I'm referring to reach mid-40s and want desperately to have kids. I personally was ambivalent at first but have enjoyed it immensely. It just strikes me that ignoring biology for more subjective goals is potentially perilous.

Time inconsistency of the preference order is an etremely well-known and widespread phenomenon. It affects humans in so many aspects of their life: saving behavior, eating behavior, exercising behavior, smoking behavior...
Economics (which, probably most of any other science, has studied rational choice) sees time inconsistency of preference as an aberration, but an extremely frequent one. At Harvard "hyperbolic discounting" is now a fashionable topic.
In reality, rational choice has hardly anything to say about the deviations from the benchmark; it gets in the realm of psychology (a discipline of which I know extremely little)

Said all this, I wonder what this statement of yours has to do with "success"