Which is more important, survival or learning?

[blackrave]

While those things are not opposing each other, I'll play along
Question for individual is fairly simple
Lets look at 2 situations
1)You learn new thing, but die in process
2)You don't die, but learn nothing
I'm pretty sure for individual 2nd option is more preferable

On the other hand when it comes to society 1st option is more preferable
While individual may die, his/her discovery will improve life of remaining individuals

So it comes to what you value the most- your own existence or improvement of society

 

[Lieju]

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?

Wut?

'Dead-weight people who are useless to learning'?
Like who, for example? You don't need to have a PhD in physics to be an important part of a society and the progress of science. Someone has to clean the labs and prepare the food.

If we just went 'nope, let's not try to learn anything new or try to preserve knowledge' how would we feed those people? You need knowledge to farm or hunt for food.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your threads always sound like you are trying to sound smart and failing.

 

[cerebus23]

Learning and adaptation lead to surviving better and more efficiently.

Therefore clearly learning is better than simply pure survival.

 

[theboombody]

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?

Wut?

'Dead-weight people who are useless to learning'?
Like who, for example? You don't need to have a PhD in physics to be an important part of a society and the progress of science. Someone has to clean the labs and prepare the food.

If we just went 'nope, let's not try to learn anything new or try to preserve knowledge' how would we feed those people? You need knowledge to farm or hunt for food.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your threads always sound like you are trying to sound smart and failing.

You don't need "new" knowledge to hunt for food. That knowledge already exists. I'm asking, are you willing to abandon the progress of scientific knowledge for the sake of survival. Looking at some of the other posts, some people say yes they're willing, others say no, they're not. Some genuinely didn't know what I was asking, and others dodged the question.

Regardless of the response, it seems clear that some people are willing to die for the progress of knowledge, and others are not. I myself am not sure. I want to have something to live for. I'm just not necessarily sure if the thing I want to live for is new knowledge or not. I darn sure would not be willing to give up my life for more technological progress, that's for sure. There's more to life than those dumb smart phones.

 

[theboombody]

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"

Yeah, but if you're a determinist, you have to realize that people are already determined to be that. Including myself.

 

[The Salty Vulcan]

You learn to survive. You survive to learn.