Out of the milions of others, WE made it!

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by wakenbake4200, Sep 12, 2009.

  1. So I've been thinking lately. How many sperm are ejaculated from each orgasm? Like a million or so? so that means out of those millions of other sperm racing to get to the egg first, we were the strongest, we were the fastest, we had what it takes to be that one sperm that made it. All those millions of sperm fighting for a chance at life we got that chance. We wouldn't settle for just being another forgotten sperm in the vag! We were the first at the tip of our fathers dicks, just waiting for the very first second he began to cum! We must have wanted it more than the others!
    I just feel that so many people take life for granted! This brief time we have here is so fucking amazing and lately i have forgotten to appreciate the little things in life. no matter what you believe about what we are you have to agree! We are so lucky to be here and even when were down, we should enjoy every second were here!
    Live everyday to the fullest, and no matter what happens in you life be happy!
     
  2. This is a good post to bring someone up...except for the over detailed, parental intercourse part. I feel sick and happy.

    Thanks?
     
  3. Haha imsuprised im the one who is posting this. ive been depressed as a mutha fucker latley. still am but this helps.
     
  4. you know you bring up a good point. there are literally GAZILLIONS of possible combinations of people that could inhabit this planet at this time. this new revelation just gave lots of credence to the "many worlds theory" IMO. thanks for the mindfuck.:D
     
  5. Fo Sho! crazy shit!
     
  6. All those sperm aren't "little people" all fighting for a chance to survive. They're just mindless cells following instinct.
     
  7. WE ARE CELLS, we just learn from programming from others and we remodify it to our own or we just become clones...
    And "god" is really the master cell of us all
     
  8. Or are they?
     
  9. I think that nurture, not nature, is what truly defines us.

    It's not like there is a different life set aside for each sperm cell that will be radically different from the next. You are born to two parents and your experiences within the world shape who you are- having been born to a different sperm wouldn't neccessarily change any of those experiences; just slight changes in the genetic make-up.
     
  10. I disagree... You have to have something good to start with. If you take the worst examples and breed them together...you get something bad. You take the best examples and breed them together...you get something good. We do it with our plants. Genetics has more to do with the final product than environment. Take humans...two successful smart people will breed smart successful children. Parents who are stupid, no ambition, will have children with those same traits.

    There is a different POTENTIAL life set aside for each sperm. The sperm will provide the base on which a life can be built. If that sperm has a genetic defect, that defect will limit the child's ability to do things.
     
  11. Congragulations, everyone, for making it past the first section of the big relay rat race.
     
  12. I was an ambitious lil sperm.

    If a girl swallows, is she eating bbys? :eek:
     
  13. Ewww.....
     
  14. #14 *ColtClassic*, Sep 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2009
    Ok. Now consider how big an impact environment has to do with your life. Growing up in a poor village in India will leave you with a completely different first-hand account of the world than if you lived in a middle-class suburb in Arizona.

    Out of the two lives in Arizona that you could live, one you have no birth defects, and the other you have an extra toe and have lactose intolerance. There's the difference genetically. Fairly minor, probably wouldn't change a whole bunch about you as a person.

    However the difference between living in India and Arizona is gigantic. You are raised with an entirely different set of cultural beliefs, spritual practices, social norms, etc. If you were raised in one room your whole life with no exposure to the outside world, you wouldn't neccessarily develop an understanding of the world. Genetics can not account for learned behavior and practices.

    You can take a child that was born to two perfect parents. You can raise that kid in a horrible household and it can still become a horrible kid. Some genes may give someone a bigger chance of developing schizophrenia or autism, in which case genetics would be an over-riding factor in that persons life. Your example of breeding plants works well because plants do not have culture, language, or any thing that requires thought - in this case, genetics is what comprises a plant's chances in life, other than weather and predatory species (environment).

    The reason why that kid would be better off is because his parents are such good people in the first place, their parenting would be a large factor in his development. Taking that same kid and placing him in various foster homes would prove a very different result, because at that point genetics have nothing to do with behavorial patterns and learning from those around you.

    I still think environment is more important than genetics. Behavior is learned. Babies don't have a predefined set of morals, or any type of outside reference to relate their perception to. People who are raised in third-world countries don't grow up with western ideals, and vice-versa. Social conduct and the way we percieve input and let it affect our decisions is an entirely learned phenomena.
     
  15. Of course environment MATTERS...but you still need to start with good genetics.

    You can have "perfect" genetics in two seeds. If one grows in the perfect environment, it will be a perfect plant. The other may die because of environment and not amount to anything.

    Now, move along to two seeds that both have bad genetics. The one grown in "perfect" conditions still sucks. The other dies like the previous did. No matter the conditions, bad genes make bad offspring.

    The same happens with people.

    That's why we have the problems in the inner cities. Generation after generation of poor genes interbreeding within themselves. They're doomed.
     
  16. Is the genetic code that decides who we are already in the sperm? Or does it take place once the sperm and egg are united?

    Because we all start out female, the lucky ones end up male. :)
     
  17. #17 *ColtClassic*, Sep 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2009
    I have to disagree. You realize that people do not simply live in an inner city area because of bad genetics. When immigrants populated the ghettos in New York they didn't just round up all of the people with 'poor' genetics and say,"Ok, this is your shit-hole. Now, fuck each other and keep yourselves in perpetual poverty". It just doesn't work that way. Those people had the same exact diversity of genetics (good to bad ratio) as any other class of people.

    Your plant analogy works for plants, not people. Plants do not have thoughts or emotions (as far as we can tell) and therefore their only merit in this world (in our eyes) is their genetic success; how well they survive and adapt as a species. People however, are not completely controlled by genetics and are free-thinking beings who have free will. This is where nurture becomes a bigger factor than nature. Just because someone is 'bad' genetically does not mean that they can not live a 'good' life. You could be born to a long family line of serial killers and rapists and still be raised by an external party and become a perfectly well adjusted individual. Plants to not raise their young or have families. This is different than just biology. There is a social aspect when taking into account people's lives.

    You can't blame people living below the poverty line for their genetics, It's just not a fair argument. You make out rich people to be superior genetically, which isn't true. Some of the most fit people in the world are also the poorest, and some of the most rich are also very sedintary and most likely suffer from cholestoral and heart problems which will carry on for generations to come.

    Think of the hunters in Africa and sherpas in the the Himilayas. Are they poor? Are they genetically inferior? No. A sherpa could out-hike you any day - and I'm sure those hunters have a body fat percentage no where near double-digit figures.

    Common man, have some sympathy for the poor. You make them sound like a whole bunch of dumb, cousin fuckin' hillbillies!
     
Loading...

Share This Page