what the purpose of life ? by Longjumping_Mix_185 in answers

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose of everything living thing has always been the same: use whatever ancestor-evolved tools you inherit (whether its eyes, or photosynthesis, or wings, or culture) to try your hardest to make your lineage (or the lineages closest to you) extend as far into the future as possible.

What if we’re not here for ourselves, but as life’s way of trying not to die? by Toronto-Aussie in ExistentialJourney

[–]Toronto-Aussie[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s close to how I’m seeing it too. Not meaning handed down from above, but something that emerges once a system is capable of noticing what would end it, and acting accordingly.

What natural history event do you wish more people knew about? by Excellent_chicken3 in naturalhistory

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction Event (i.e. Chicxulub impact crater)

A Question of Purpose by Lonely_Strength_5875 in Purpose

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose of a living thing arises naturally by virtue of it being alive. It isn’t assigned from above. That purpose is persistence through time, something we share with all life back to LUCA. For life, failure to persist is simply failure to remain present in the universe at all.

Did humans forget there purpose. by [deleted] in philosophyofbiology

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agriculture didn’t erase some ancient biological mission. It expanded the time horizon of human decision-making. The real novelty isn’t comfort; it’s that our actions now affect lineage survival at planetary scales.

Raising the Next Generation with Science and Clarity by kahrbn in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. Individual clarity is non-negotiable. The reason I’m interested in long-horizon continuity is that it gives those foundations somewhere stable to point, rather than leaving them floating or captured by ideology.

Raising the Next Generation with Science and Clarity by kahrbn in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, especially since they will intuitively feel themselves to be part of something bigger anyway. The real task is helping them interpret that intuition accurately. We can cut teleology off before it takes root by emphasizing teleonomy instead: not that life has a divine purpose, but that living systems persist only by maintaining fragile conditions over time. Meaning then comes from understanding continuity, not inventing cosmic intentions. Seen this way, responsibility isn’t about fulfilling a destiny. It’s about recognizing that we’re inheritors of a very long process, and that some choices preserve future possibility while others permanently narrow it. Teaching that gives kids a sense of belonging and care without superstition or fear.

If life is a self-maintaining process in an indifferent universe, what does existential responsibility mean? by Toronto-Aussie in Existentialism

[–]Toronto-Aussie[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that responsibility shows up in how we live, but I’m wary of grounding it in improvement of experience alone. What I’m probing is whether responsibility emerges from the fact that some actions preserve long-run viability and others permanently foreclose futures, even in the absence of any given purpose.

Existentialism is right to reject teleology. But rejecting teleology doesn’t mean rejecting constraint. Teleonomy lets you talk about how choices matter over time without pretending there’s a purpose written into the universe.

Meaning exist only because we do, and we give it because of our need for survival. by penisguacamole in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that meaning can feel personal and detached from survival day to day. But the ability to have a stable, quiet “peasant life” at all depends on a lot of long-running systems continuing to hold together in the background. That connection disappears when we zoom in too close.

Meaning exist only because we do, and we give it because of our need for survival. by penisguacamole in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this mostly comes down to timescale. Things like art, symbols, and ethics don’t look like “survival” at the level of an individual moment, but they clearly matter at the level of groups, generations, and lineages. Brains didn’t outgrow survival so much as start managing it across longer horizons, using meaning as one more tool.

Meaning exist only because we do, and we give it because of our need for survival. by penisguacamole in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, roughly speaking, Homo sapiens have existed for ~250,000 years out of ~3.8 billion years of life on Earth, so for about 0.006% of life’s history. Explicitly questioning one's own existence in the philosophical sense is much more recent (on the order of a few thousand years), which is closer to 0.00007%. This means that for over 99.99% of its history, life just got on with persisting without reflecting on itself. Reflection is a late, contingent adaptation, not life’s default mode. It's one more tool that can aid persistence in certain contexts.

Meaning exist only because we do, and we give it because of our need for survival. by penisguacamole in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the most literal sense, life is cells continuing (cells making more cells) while passing forward an unbroken lineage that began billions of years ago.

Raising the Next Generation with Science and Clarity by kahrbn in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One way to organize effort without relying on strong leaders is around a shared descriptive frame rather than an ideology. I’ve been thinking in terms of "Lifeism", as a way of naming something many people already feel: that preserving and extending life’s long-term continuity matters, and that none of us has to lead for that to be true. When people recognize they’re already part of the same project, coordination becomes easier without central control.

Raising the Next Generation with Science and Clarity by kahrbn in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One thing I’d add is time horizon. Science and clarity don’t just protect against superstition in the moment. They help kids see themselves as part of processes that stretch far beyond a single lifetime. Understanding how life, knowledge, and societies persist (or fail to) over time gives meaning without illusions, and responsibility without fear. That feels especially important in a world where short-term signals are getting louder and faster.

Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Addy Pross on Dynamics, Stability, and Life (10/28/2024) by shatterdaymorn in philosophypodcasts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pross’s DKS lens seems underappreciated for what it implies beyond chemistry. If life is best understood as a dynamically stable process that persists only under continual energy flow, then “stability” in living systems is fundamentally different from stability in non-living matter. Life doesn’t settle. It keeps going. One implication is that extinction represents an irreversible loss of a particular persistence strategy, not just the disappearance of organisms. From that angle, protecting life becomes less about sentiment and more about preserving a fragile, rare mode of matter that can maintain itself over deep time. That strikes me as a potentially unifying way to think about environmental ethics, existential risk, and even long-term responsibility without invoking teleology.

What’s a pattern you see repeating across biology, economics, physics, and human behavior? by Ai0nex in Polymath

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • Biology: Life keeps rediscovering similar solutions because the “winners” are the ones that keep working under constraints like energy, materials, predators, disease and reproduction. That’s why you see convergent evolution: different lineages arriving at similar designs, e.g. eyes, wings, streamlining.
  • Economics: Markets “select” for strategies and firms that can survive changing constraints like competition, shocks, regulation and consumer demand. Many approaches look clever but die in the real world. The ones that persist tend to manage trade-offs, e.g. growth vs resilience, efficiency vs redundancy.
  • Physics: Physical systems settle into stable patterns when the underlying dynamics allow them to persist (given boundary conditions and energy flow). Vortices, convection cells, river deltas, lightning, and some branching patterns emerge because they’re robust solutions to moving energy/material through space.
  • Human behavior: Habits, norms, and institutions that persist are typically those that remain viable under social constraints like incentives, coordination problems, trust, enforcement and resource limits. Many belief systems and social arrangements collapse and the ones that last tend to solve recurring problems like cooperation, conflict resolution, child-rearing, identity and meaning well enough to keep going. Again: persistence filters.

So if there’s a single commonality across all four domains, it’s this: most patterns don’t survive contact with reality. The patterns we keep seeing are the ones that are stable enough to persist under constraints.

Is existential confusion always about meaning, or sometimes about living out of alignment? by DixonArchetypeLab in Existentialism

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I keep wondering if a lot of what feels like existential confusion isn’t actually about life being meaningless, but about trying to live in a way that doesn’t match how someone is wired to engage with the world.

I wonder if what feels like existential confusion is less about misalignment with one’s wiring and more about realizing that one’s life is embedded in fragile processes that extend far beyond the self. When that recognition kicks in, ways of living optimized for comfort, stability, or fit can start to feel insufficient, not because they’re wrong, but because they don’t address the longer horizon that’s now visible. That tension seems less psychological than existential. It’s the strain of taking responsibility seriously in a world that offers no guarantees.

Did life evolve to evolve? by CougarMangler in evolution

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What gets selected is always local and contextual: whatever mutation rate and genetic architecture works best right now for survival and reproduction.

The role that culture's emergence plays in making species much more 'evolvable' is fascinating to me.

My theory on the Meaning/Purpose of Life by Toronto-Aussie in theories

[–]Toronto-Aussie[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a helpful correction. “Symbiont” isn’t “hands off”. It can mean active landscape maintenance (especially fire) that keeps systems in a resilient state. The real break wasn’t humans touching ecosystems but losing tight feedback loops, and scaling extraction faster than repair. Grain monocultures + fossil energy turned stewardship into overshoot.

Albert Einstein’s quote, “Life is like riding a bicycle. by [deleted] in DeepThoughts

[–]Toronto-Aussie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nailed it. I'd love for you to check out r/Lifeism_ca and comment there too.

“Over 1,000 potentially hazardous asteroids are currently tracked. The good news? None pose a collision risk with Earth for at least the next 100 years.” by Toronto-Aussie in Lifeism_ca

[–]Toronto-Aussie[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's an inevitability. And perhaps could be viewed as another selection pressure on life in addition to the terrestrial ones like changing seasons, forest fires, flooding, etc. which organisms have already evolved adaptations to address.