My question is made in the interests of analysis. If someone asks, "What's our purpose for existing?" then they're assuming that a purpose must exist. What I'm requesting is that they provide some logical support for that assumption - unless they want to acknowledge that such support is impossible to produce, but in my experience, few people want to say that.

 

Beyond reproduction of the species, no tangible evidence is available. Any support comes from either a religious, or philosophical argument, which can never be logical. However, no one who believes in a greater purpose could possibly admit that they have no grounds to believe in what they believe, otherwise they have no ground to stand on.

 

Other than the bit about philosophical arguments never being logical (there are philosophical works that are brilliant precisely because of their logical craftsmanship, such as Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or Descartes' Discourse on Method), and the bit about no one admitting a total absence of any logical basis for their belief in a greater purpose (I know a few people that have), I pretty much agree with you.

 

Perhaps "Logical" was the wrong choice, as you are correct there are some very logically crafted philosophical theories out there ( I would add Heideger to your list).

No tangible, or concrete reason exists beyond the obvious. I have never personally met someone willing to admit that their belief system (whether religous or philosophical) is completely devoid of logic, or tangible proof. Then again, they've never successfully argued to prove where this proof lies, which is why I can only concludethat the need for purpose in life is tied completely to the human notion that we are greater than everything else.

 

So I think we are pretty much all in agreement that no matter if you have a set faith in religion, or evolution, or other, as a species we are designed to reproduce.

What I still see as a debate is whether or not it is natural or ethical to disrupt that design. and why it is acceptable in some forms, but not others.

 

What's this crap about philosophical arguments not being logical? Philosophical arguments are supposed to be the epitome of logical thinking.

 

Hehe, this is where I exit the debate, because I have no interest in arguing about ethics. For the record, though, I'm all for disrupting whatever "natural order" is perceived to exist. Eternal experimentation, baby!

 

Which is why I said I used a poor choice of words  

 

Whether or not there's actually a purpose at all, reproduction isn't the purpose of life. It is a process by which it exists. You could pick any other key life process to fixate on and call it the purpose of life. All life must consume some source of energy and nutrition, so you could say that the purpose of life is to consume, and that reproduction is an effective means to make sure that things continue to be consumed at an even higher rate. You could even claim it as justification for our culture of mass consumption, because it is clearly the pinnacle thus far of the entire point to our existence. Likewise, all life eventually dies. In fact, aside from any religious beliefs, it is the ultimate and final event in life. In that way it would make just as much sense to say that the point of life is death. There has to be reproduction of life because without that process there couldn't be any more death. Without belief in a higher purpose to existing, no part of the process of life makes any kind of sense as "the point of living". The fact that consuming energy and dying are inevitable in life, but that reproduction can be opted out of and is often thought desirable to avoid makes reproduction an even less likely candidate for that position of "purpose".

 

For that debate to make sense you have to define what is "natural", agree on rules for what makes something ethical, and explain why doing something that isn't "natural" could or should be considered unethical.

 

In the current forms of disruption, it is a matter of personal choice (ideally) between the participants. You decide to use protection, or you do not. You decide to have an abortion, or put your spawn up for adoption, or you do not. You are proposing some sort of Orwellian horror-show where we are all forced to lose our ability to spawn until such time as the "Ministry" deems us worthy. That's not the sort of control I'm interested in.

 

Yeah, and good luck getting a consensus on all of that - hence my exit.  

 

In an ideal society where the government was something that could be trusted, I'd actually be completely in favor of such a system. Unfortunately I think it's pretty clear that such a society doesn't exist. Moreover, if it did, it would have to consist of people reasonable and honest enough to create and support such a governement, the problems being duscussed here wouldn't exist in the the first place, so there'd be no need for such a policy.

 

Well someone stated that they were against my temporary sterilization idea because it is not natural.

then does that mean that they are also against condoms and birth control?

 

Sounds that way for sure. I think any restriction that isn't already in place in our society could have that spin put on it. But again, with my driving analogy, the rules were put in place for a reason. We could keep doing the run around until I end up declaring martial law because the govrnment has no right telling me what to do.

What if the sterilization system wasn't mandatory, but optional and the incentive was tax breaks during the sterilization, and after you pass the test?

 

Your idea of temp sterilization is a good idea, but it would have to be on voluntary bases, the state should have no say in who can reproduce or not. That being said, the people who should be 'sterilized' never would go and do it, so it would be a worthless endeavor.

My idea of naturalism stems from the idea that modern society is unnatural, therefore buildings, cars, drugs, gas etc, etc can not be considered natural. Steel ore is natural, you can mine it from the ground, but when you take said steel, melt it and form it with other metals with the intent on building something that is unnatural. To reproduce is natural, it is what was intended by nature, when we step in and disrupt that process, through birth control, abortion, whatever, the purpose of life changes and become based on societies purposes, (make money, be successful) vs. natures purpose to reproduce.

My idea of naturalism stems from the idea that modern society is unnatural, therefore buildings, cars, drugs, gas etc, etc can not be considered natural. Steel ore is natural, you can mine it from the ground, but when you take said steel, melt it and form it with other metals with the intent on building something that is unnatural. To reproduce is natural, it is what was intended by nature, when we step in and disrupt that process, through birth control, abortion, whatever, the purpose of life changes and become based on societies purposes, (make money, be successful) vs. natures purpose to reproduce.

 

While I would never be in favour of such an idea, I will agree that, in a society responsible and trustworthy enough for the government to be supported in such an endeavour, most of the "problems" this would fix wouldn't be an issue, as we'd all be enlightened super-geniuses in order to be able to avoid all these pitfalls.

 

The thing is, this isn't a new problem. people have been getting in trouble when it comes to sex since day one. I know we tend to have this notion that things are worse now, but they really aren't. I've listened to stories my parents told, andthey had just as many irresponsible friends in the 50's as I do now. This has always been around, and probably isn't completely fixable. Putting such a measure in place only makes things worse from another standpoint. Sterilize people from pregnancy, and you end up with a bunch of disease ridden freaks running around fucking because the major other consequence is no longer an issue.

Wouldn't this just be making the issue of pregnancy about monetary gain as well?

 

Isn't that what started it all? The guy doesn't want to pay for the child. It's all about the benjamins.

 

Yeah, that was my point. This started with guys not wanting to pay, which lead to a bunch of male posters talking about money grubbing mommy's. Now we're coming up with cash incentives for people NOT to have babies. Which is wierd, considering, in Canada at least, we're in a population decline and are looking to immigration to solve our problems, since people don't want babies so much anymore.