Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

What made you realise you're not special & the world owes you nothing?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

ZuluK

Original post by toonervoustotalk

JLS really :indiff:

Yep JLS and you got the reference :biggrin:

Reply 81

Moonstruck16

Original post by Laomedeia

Like hell it does. Having to work for your stuff severely limits what you can have, aswell as the time you have to use stuff.
If I had everything for sod all, I would fly everywhere in a helicopter rather than in a stupid car. If everyone could use helicopters or other light aircraft, then congestion on the roads would be much less. On the few occasions I would use a car, it would be a Bugatti Veyron or a Ferrari F40 (love that one). Unfortunately as lovely as I am, I am closer to being an absolute scumbag A.H bastard than I am the perfect person who has it all such as Richard Branson or someone.

As I've said, what I want can't be given to me.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 82

Andy98

Original post by toonervoustotalk

You know me too well
I agree with every last letter in that post :tongue:

Dude, could you stop brown-nosing?

Original post by ZuluK

Yeah you're right, in the best way :h:

Yeah but I'm the one :biggrin:

Nope

Reply 83

Virgili

I never went through this phrase (look how special I am).

Reply 84

champ_mc99

Similarly (but also in contrast :tongue:

), the observation of the cosmos and the vastness of the universe also provides this same sort of perspective. How we're all just tiny specs in a grand universe. The universe doesn't care if you love others, hate others, get a job or commit a crime. After you die, the universe keeps on running, not giving a second thought about anything you've done.

Reply 85

Roxy1331

Original post by Thomb

I haven't what are you trying to say?

I didn't read it but my biology teacher gave me an idea of what it's about. We, as humans, are born and we reproduce, passing on our genes to our children. Then we die. Our children pass on their genes to their children and they too die. So the idea is that our genes seem to live forever and people are just mechanisms used to do that. After we pass on our genes, we are no longer needed.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I did, but I'm too self-centered to share my conclusions.

Cool. Maybe you can explain it better than I did. :tongue:

Reply 86

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Roxy1331

The central concept was that it is genes that are seeking to survive, not organisms as such. Therefore all behaviour, reproductive success, environmental resilience, etc, are simply the result of survival strategies of genes.

I think he's somewhat modified his views since the book though. One controversial element was that he proposed that any apparent cooperation between predator and prey groups could only be a result of genetic survival programming, which is contrary to the view (we are told) of many ecological scientists, who theorise that predator/prey communities operate together in deep ways to create sustainable ecologies. Dawkins apparently now takes the view that it is possible that genes might be programmed that way. An example might be that apparently anti-survival behaviour by some animals has actually evolved to ensure that predators can increase the health and survivability of a prey population by making it easier to pick off weaker members, benefiting both populations.

He also reckons that the wrong lessons were drawn from the book regarding humans, eg, that it logically means that all human behaviour is drawn from selfish motives. Game theory for example has pointed to altruism or cooperation as a more successful strategy than outright selfishness in many situations. Dawkins does not deny this and claims that his book was misunderstood in this kind of area.