Which is more important, survival or learning?

[theboombody]

As a society today, we treasure two things. We treasure life (survival) and we treasure learning. We search high and low to extend both. And our current ethics is based on both. We use science and survival as our ethical guide. We evolve through our learning, and as a result we survive longer. This is our very purpose. But if push came to shove and we had to choose one or the other, survival or learning, which would we choose? You can't learn if you don't survive, and survival in ignorance without scientific thought wouldn't mean much, so which is more important? As we explore deep space and smaller elements of matter, we need to invest more and more resources into building exploratory vessels and equipment that can teach us more. Some of those resources could be used to enable the needy to survive longer. If we ever get to the point (although I admit it's highly unlikely) where we have to starve large numbers of dead-weight people who are useless to learning to afford the resources to continue learning anything scientific, should we? Or should we remain intellectually stagnant and enter a new dark age?

 

[Hoplon]

I disagree that they are mutually exclusive, to adapt is to learn how to survive in a new environment.

As long as you don't loose the method of how to think about the world it will let groups survive anything.

 

[Phasmal]

Well survival I suppose cause you can't learn much if you're dead.

But once that's sorted out, learning.

 

[MHR]

This is pretty much a non-scenario

But if strictly speaking we had to pick between one or the other, survival or learning, and assuming learning at the cost of survival didn't mean we all just drop dead as geniuses, probably learning.

Learning to solve our base problems is more important than simply surviving. If we as a species have to go through a rough patch in our survival but after a time we can solve all our problems forever based on the knowledge we know, it's probably best for the long run.

There's always the argument that "we should spend our money on things to help people, not built super-colliders or go screwing around in space" but if we pour 100% of our effort into direct human aid and stimulating the economy, and not having the good sense to preserve critical aspects of the environment or population control, big problems will catch up to us. In just a century or so we could have HUGE problems with getting enough basic resources to keep everyone living happily, and obviously poorer populations with less power would be hit the hardest first. Eventually you hit the point of no return where any effort put towards anything other than survival is virtually impossible and you curse previous generations for not giving a crap, for all the good that'll do you.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

How do you think we got to where we are today?

They're not mutually exclusive aspects of our species. All animals know how to survive on a base level, do you want to know what happens to the ones that didn't? They're extinct (or we made them go extinct, in which case, sorry guys, our bad).

Your scenario is a pretty pointless one, because surviving is different from living comfortably.

Learning is survival. Learning to build a fire, learning to craft tools, learning which plants were safe to eat, like I said, they're not mutually exclusive, and more often than not, they're one in the same.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

That's a non-dicotomy. Isn't survival part of learning?

 

[Flutterguy]

Seems my point has already been said by, well, everybody. These things cannot be separated. Seeing as I have nothing to do I'll go a bit deeper.

"Entering a new dark age" is an impossibility. Progress does not simply disappear like that. The internet could go down tomorrow, it would piss a lot of people off, but they won't magically lose their knowledge.

As for "Starving dead-weight" (you should really look up 'neurosis') money does not effect resources available in the world. People would start growing/finding their own food if cut off from the easy supply. Majority would survive.

If, hypothetically, the pursuit of science went to the extreme of taking away necessities of life that results in suffering/death of a noticeable population it would be considered impractical/immoral and be brought to a stop by outside force. Social creatures protect one another.

 

[theboombody]

How do you think we got to where we are today?

They're not mutually exclusive aspects of our species. All animals know how to survive on a base level, do you want to know what happens to the ones that didn't? They're extinct (or we made them go extinct, in which case, sorry guys, our bad).

Your scenario is a pretty pointless one, because surviving is different from living comfortably.

Learning is survival. Learning to build a fire, learning to craft tools, learning which plants were safe to eat, like I said, they're not mutually exclusive, and more often than not, they're one in the same.

What about learning things like art history and stuff? That's learning but not survival. Is it more or less important than survival?

 

[theboombody]

Seems my point has already been said by, well, everybody. These things cannot be separated. Seeing as I have nothing to do I'll go a bit deeper.

"Entering a new dark age" is an impossibility. Progress does not simply disappear like that. The internet could go down tomorrow, it would piss a lot of people off, but they won't magically lose their knowledge.

As for "Starving dead-weight" (you should really look up 'neurosis') money does not effect resources available in the world. People would start growing/finding their own food if cut off from the easy supply. Majority would survive.

If, hypothetically, the pursuit of science went to the extreme of taking away necessities of life that results in suffering/death of a noticeable population it would be considered impractical/immoral and be brought to a stop by outside force. Social creatures protect one another.

Einstein didn't seem to think it an impossibility. He said something about being unsure what weapons would be used in world war 3, but world war 4 would be fought with sticks and stones.

I'm glad you answered my hypothetical situation instead of dodging it. It looks like you have the opinion that as important as science is, ethics has a little bit more value. Do you consider ethics to be completely driven by biological instincts for survival?

 

[lacktheknack]

What about learning things like art history and stuff? That's learning but not survival. Is it more or less important than survival?

I'm unsure how I'm expected to learn if I haven't survived.

You're making a false dichotomy where there is none. It is impossible to answer your question. You cannot even attempt learning art history without taking care of your survival first.

 

[Story]

Isn't learning part of survival?
Oh someone beat me to it. xD

Still, learning isn't just memorizing the dictionary or periodic table it is also about learning how to prepare food, fight disease, build shelter, and make a fire. If one doesn't learn to adapt then they can't possibly hope to survive.

That aside I suppose, survival for sure all the knowledge in the world won't do me any good if I'm dead.

 

[theNater]

What about learning things like art history and stuff? That's learning but not survival. Is it more or less important than survival?

Art and history are studies of human behavior, which is a significant factor in human survival.

 

[SoranMBane]

How do you think we got to where we are today?

They're not mutually exclusive aspects of our species. All animals know how to survive on a base level, do you want to know what happens to the ones that didn't? They're extinct (or we made them go extinct, in which case, sorry guys, our bad).

Your scenario is a pretty pointless one, because surviving is different from living comfortably.

Learning is survival. Learning to build a fire, learning to craft tools, learning which plants were safe to eat, like I said, they're not mutually exclusive, and more often than not, they're one in the same.

What about learning things like art history and stuff? That's learning but not survival. Is it more or less important than survival?

"He who does not know his own history is doomed to repeat it."

Learning history is an immensely important part of surviving, both as individuals and as a society.

Art is also an important tool, both for preserving a culture and for helping the individual human mind to grow and to cope with the demands of life. These things are not disposable.

 

[FalloutJack]

Surviving IS learning and learning is surviving, otherwise you die. There is no way around this.

 

[Chris Moses]

Oh look a "kill all the stupid people" thread...

What I thought when reading the OT was; yeah, life doesn't mean much, deal with it. Scientific advancement is great, but only a few people ever get to be a part of that, and that's the way it's always been. Otherwise the rest of us are resigned to live out our nearly meaningless lives contributing very little to the species as a whole. Except that our lives are rarely meaningless to the people around us, and it's our kindness and charity that has the most impact rather than intelligence.

I understand, your ego tells you that you have to mean something, and since you probably self-identify as a nerd/geek, only the smartest people qualify as having meaningful lives just like a jock will think people are meaningless wastes of space if they can't bench 150 lbs or move a ball down a field. You are BOTH wrong. Or rather, not everyone needs to mean as much or in the same way as you think.

If you spend your time obsessing over what stupid people do, you are going to miss what advancements the smart people bring us. Your world will seem like shit going to a shittier place. Perhaps your life will seem less meaningful because of your negative attitude and obsession with other people's affairs. It's a downward spiral that I recommend you try to avoid. Look for the positive aspects of your life and the world and tell your ego, "Fuck off, not everyone can be the next Albert Einstein".

 

[Flutterguy]

Einstein didn't seem to think it an impossibility. He said something about being unsure what weapons would be used in world war 3, but world war 4 would be fought with sticks and stones.

I'm glad you answered my hypothetical situation instead of dodging it. It looks like you have the opinion that as important as science is, ethics has a little bit more value. Do you consider ethics to be completely driven by biological instincts for survival?

Einstein also fought tooth and nail against quantum physics due to religious belief.

As far as ethics or morality it is complicated and varies greatly, there are very few situations where you can benefit by simplifying something to a singular answer. If you do want to boil down ethics however.. we want to protect everyone and everything from harm, but will not break our mental or physical comfort to do so unless negligence itself would be risking our comfort.

As for the cause? I am a determinist who believes choice is an illusion. So yes, genetic makeup as well as outside factors like weather, environment, predators have lead us to be what we are. We are no different then moss, mold, bees or any other life. We strive to survive we strive to spread and we build resistance to threats, and if possible attack those threats within reason.

What separates humans, obviously, is our capacity to think. We won the evolutionary race of this planet. Which gives us the great responsibility of keeping this planet livable for ourselves, or moving all we can to another planet if such a need arises.

What does all this mean however, what is the culmination of such philosophy? Don't expand your comfort by taking the comfort of others. or simpler yet "Don't be an asshole"

 

[Sofus]

I would imagine that in order to survive you also need to adapt and learn. While I can't say that there aren't people that would sacrifice their own lives for the sake of gaining humanity some new knowledge or to ensure that part of our race can atleast survive, I do think that there are a heck of alot more humans that would do just about anything to ensure their own survival.

 

[Bocaj2000]

You can't have one without the other. But if you're asking about vital learning to non-vital learning, I would still have to say both. A society needs art and education to display culture and legacy, but a dead culture is one that cannot express either. Since ancient times there has been time and energy directed towards both. Same goes for today. Why was this question even asked?

simplified: they go hand-and-hand. There is no struggle between the two. There is no competition between the two. There never was. There never will be. This question is irrelevant.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Spoiler: My thoughts on the subject in image form

You can't survive without learning, and you can't learn without surviving. You basically divided by zero here. There can be no choice between the two, since without one you couldn't have the other.

Actually I think I might get where you're coming from, in which case I'd recommend rephrasing the question to between knowledge or survival. If push came to shove, would we revert to our most animalistic instincts to survive and abandon reasonable thought... oh wait, we all already know the answer to that question.