Purpose of Life

William Buhlman is one of the rare people, who is able to OBE (Out of Body Experience), which he can initiate by himself.
How do you pronounce his name "Bull man"?
He lies ... I have been to the afterlife for months on end, I know everyone there and no one has ever seen him.

And to get there you need to wear my hand woven socks which I will never sell but I like you ...you remind me of someone I have not met...so if you give me a holding deposit I am prepared to rent my socks to you so you can visit the after life and ask for yourself...but a map which you get to keep is extra.

Sadly when you die that is it mate...and believing bullshit only takes away from the way folk will remember you...do you want your grandkids to say of you...yes grand dad was a fruit cake convinced there was an after life.

No one will challenge such a belief to your face so why give them reason to laugh behind your back.

Get real and I bet you will feel proud that you manned up to reality.

Dont waste the little time left fantasizing about bullshit and believing liars.

Alex
 
So what do you say to all those of us who have chosen paths other than procreation?

We are qualitatively different from other animals in that we can look at ourselves, know we are mortal, and decide what we wish to do with the time we have.
I should have qualified that except for humans living things have an imperative (purpose) to procreate.
Humans can choose a different purpose due to our ability for abstract thought.
In many parts of the world, people are putting off procreation completely.
True, but then again, after a war fertility rates always seem to increase.
 
Which does not seem to make sense if catholic priest / nuns not allowed to marry (the sanctioned way to procreate)
Yes, designed to transcend the temptations of the flesh. Of course very few can actually transcend the natural imperative, but then homo-sexuality does not produce off-spring.
 
So what do you say to all those of us who have chosen paths other than procreation?
As I suggested, reproduction is not just an individual biological thing; it's a social thing. Most of society cooperates to raise everybody's offspring, whether they have their own offspring or not. Those who do not participate are called sociopaths.
 
Except that is a red herring. While true, it glaringly does not address the question being asked.
Religion is of the spirit and not of the flesh. It's really another tortured way to try and attain transcendence. With few exceptions, the result shows that the natural imperative of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" transcends all other attemps to attain a false and wishful spiritual purity and "eternal life".

If a God exists, it would exist for all living things and not just for humans. All living things must procreate to escape extinction. Just because some humans are able to occupy themselves with other pursuits, does not negate the cosmic imperative of procreation for survival.

Abstinence is unnatural and does not make you immortal....just physically frustrated....:tongue:
 
Last edited:
You say unnatural as if it's a bad thing, to be avoided.
And yet mosquito netting, penicillin and the internet are also all unnatural.
We are not merely animals. We should not be trying to be 'natural'.
Are you telling me humans are exempt from the effects of polluting the air and water, you know these indispensable commodities for life itself. In spite of these unnatural remedies you mentioned above, disease is on the increase from our unnatural contributions to the ecology.
Ecology has practical applications in conservation biology, wetland management, natural resource management (agroecology, agriculture, forestry, agroforestry, fisheries), city planning (urban ecology), community health, economics, basic and applied science, and human social interaction (human ecology).
For example, the Circles of Sustainability approach treats ecology as more than the environment 'out there'. It is not treated as separate from humans. Organisms (including humans) and resources compose ecosystems which, in turn, mantain biophysical feedback mechanisms that moderate processes acting on living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) components of the planet.
Ecosystems sustain life-supporting functions and produce natural capital like biomass production (food, fuel, fiber, and medicine), the regulation of climate, global biogeochemical cycles, water filtration, soil formation, erosion control, flood protection, and many other natural features of scientific, historical, economic, or intrinsic value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology

Interestingly, cicle cell anemia is a natural defense against malaria (spread by mosquitos) and is a natural advantage in the tropics. Many animals use the natural healing properties of plants and fungi.
p.s. about 70 % of all medicine is or was derived from naturally occurring resources.

Being "natural" is being part of and preserving the natural cycle, the natural balance established over millions of years. IMO, ignorance and destruction of the earth's natural processes is tantamount to sacrilege.

And before we casually dismiss Natural processes, may I remind that insects had conquered flight, long distance communication, agriculture, husbandry, and air conditioning, hundreds of millions of years before man even appeared on the scene.

What exactly have human endeavors contributed to the natural cycle and the health of the Earth and it's inhabitants? Cancer and trillions of tons of previously sequestered CO2?

It seems our purpose is to destroy life, not to promote it. Actually, is that not described by the scriptural metaphor of Man eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge and thereby leaving the natural cycle of life? I always thought that the ability for abstract thought without the wisdom to contain it's potential detrimental effects is one of man's greatest shortcomings.
 
Last edited:
No. Complete straw man there.

You said abstinence was 'unnatural'. So what?
Your words;
You say unnatural as if it's a bad thing, to be avoided.
And yet mosquito netting, penicillin and the internet are also all unnatural.
We are not merely animals. We should not be trying to be 'natural'.
I say that is a disasterous path for humans to take. In the scope of universal creations we are merely intelligent animals and not the only ones . To think we are exempt from naturak law is hubris, IMO.
 
Your words;
I say that is a disasterous path for humans to take. In the scope of universal creations we are merely intelligent animals and not the only ones . To think we are exempt from naturak law is hubris, IMO.
I did not suggest we were exempt. I suggested that things being unnatural doesnot make them - in and of themselves - bad.

You suggested abstinence from procreation is unnatural. I got the impression you think that makes it undesirable. So I'm asking: what about abstinence being unnatural makes it bad?

I listed several things that are unnatural that are good. Do you think penicillin and mosquito netting are disastrous?
 
I did not suggest we were exempt. I suggested that things being unnatural doesnot make them - in and of themselves - bad.

You suggested abstinence from procreation is unnatural. I got the impression you think that makes it undesirable. So I'm asking: what about abstinence being unnatural makes it bad?

I listed several things that are unnatural that are good. Do you think penicillin and mosquito netting are disastrous?
OK, I'll meet you half way; abstinence to avoid overpopulation is not bad per se.
However combined with medicine to extend our lifespan, the result will be disasterous.

As Prof Emeritus Albert Bartlett demonstrates, everything we consider sacred such as motherhood and modern medicine makes over-population a greater threat to human civilization and everything such as war and disease lessens the problem of over-population.

The natural "exponential function" poses the greatest dilemma mankind will ever face, zero population growth will inevitably happen, and we are faced with deciding who or what will enforce this mathematical certainty. Humans, by voluntarily restricting population growth (abstinence), or Nature by less desirable means, including war and disease.

 
Last edited:
OK, I'll meet you half way; abstinence to avoid overpopulation is not bad per se.
However combined with medicine to extend our lifespan, the result will be disasterous.
How does abstinence lead to extended life span? How is abstinence bad for the world?

You sure you don't want to stop digging?
 
How does abstinence lead to extended life span? How is abstinence bad for the world?

You sure you don't want to stop digging?
I already gave you abstinence ....:)
It is extending life by artificial means which will eventually create an unsustainable over-population.

At 1% steady growth, the earth's population will double every 70 years.
(today)-->8 billion --(70yrs)-->16 billion--(70yrs)-->32 billion....etc.
 
Last edited:
Then what are you meeting me halfway with?
If abstinence results in zero population growth, that would be a good thing in principle...:)
However, extending life expectancy by artificial means results in population growth and that would be a bad thing.....:(

I am sure you can see the growing dilemma over time.

The movie "soylent green" comes to mind.
A tale of Earth in despair in 2022. Natural food like fruits, vegetables, and meat among others are now extinct. Earth is overpopulated and New York City has 40 million starving, poverty-stricken people. The only way they survive is with water rations and eating a mysterious food called Soylent. A detective investigates the murder of the president of the Soylent company. The truth he uncovers is more disturbing than the Earth in turmoil when he learns the secret ingredient of Soylent Green. Mystic80
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/plotsummary
 
Last edited:
If abstinence results in zero population growth, that would be a good thing in principle...:)
There are a lot more things to an individual's life than the long-term survival of one's descendants.
Not everything has to be defined in terms of the survival of the species.

However, extending life expectancy by artificial means would result in population growth and that would be a bad thing.....:(
OK, what does this have to do with the thread?
Yes, overpopulation would be bad for the species and the planet.
There are a lot of things that would be.
Nuclear war for example.

I am sure you can see the dilemma.
Dilemma? Are we still talking about the purpose of life?
 
Dilemma? Are we still talking about the purpose of life?
Yes, our main purpose is to stay alive as a species. When we disappear the world will belong to the insect. Their only purpose is to unquestioningly serve the hive.

Their advantage is that they never ask the question.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top