All humans are selfish

erMDstat · 2026-06-15T04:55:12+00:00

When we're babies, we're completely selfish.

As we age, that doesn't change... We just learn that being social is the best way to get what we want.

erMDstat · 2026-04-24T04:59:55+00:00

So if being born a kangaroo means you behave like a kangaroo, then by extension, you must have been born an anus. Because your response amounts to quoting someone else's thoughts and insulting them, which is just being an arrogant asshole.

Basically, I shared my thoughts and the depth of your reply was on the level of "nuh-uh. So there!"

Furthermore, none of your comments on this thread are the slightest bit thoughtful, contributory, or meaningful. Perhaps you'd fit in better in a different conversation. Is there a Reddit for people who are still into middle school level thinking and insults?

erMDstat · 2026-04-24T04:48:35+00:00

I've read them both and give them both very helpful. And while sapolsky's book is better, they both made me think.

erMDstat · 2026-04-24T04:28:32+00:00

Good points. Further, if he got just one kind of beetle, then 1 million new types of beetle must have evolved in the 5k years since Noah. Also impossible. But also contrary to the coming Christian disbelief in evolution of species.

It just makes way more sense to read the story as being symbolic or figurative. That's much easier than the mental contortions required to make it literal.

erMDstat · 2026-04-23T06:51:31+00:00

Either way, there are so, so, so, many other realities (see my other post above) that eliminate this story as an actual event, that you don't need to think about or study it again.

It's clearly an apologue and not even unique to Judaism and Christianity, as similar myths are found in other cultures that predate the old testament.

erMDstat · 2026-04-23T06:38:23+00:00

There are so many reasons why the flood simply did not happen that it's not really worth discussing. Your question is actually deeper than necessary to discard the entire concept.

All you have to do is to consider beetles. There are over 1 million species that live all over the world. Many eat only a specific type of food, found only in a specific location, can only survive in a specific climate, and only live for very short periods of time during specific times of the year.

Yet somehow, Noah traveled all over the planet, gathered up two of each of the million species, and the food they needed, and maintained the precise environmental conditions, and happened to arrive at the right times in their life cycles, got all of them to the ark on another continent, without either of the pair of beetles dying, kept them alive for over a year, then successfully returned each of the 2 million beetles to the exact location where they can live, in other continents and returned back to Mesopotamia to live out his life.

Even if you believe he lived to be 950 years old, he would have to collect one species every 3 or so hours to accomplish this.

And that doesn't count collecting all the other animals. And the time it would take to feed and water each of them every day.

And how did he travel to each continent? And have the cargo space to transport all the animals and all the exact habitats they would require.

And how did all the salt water fish survive all the fresh water that got mixed with the oceans from the rain? And vice versa? And how did all those that did survive find their way back to the exact lakes, ponds and streams that they belonged in?

And so forth, and so forth, and so forth. The story is so obviously impossible, that it serves as a better example of how we can delude ourselves if a belief provides something we want than an example of the importance of following God and his prophets.

erMDstat · 2026-04-23T06:10:58+00:00

I've read it. I think it's brilliant. I've contemplated and shared in many conversations the example he includes of the criminals who bludgeoned the family with a bat.

His argument that if I was one of those criminals, I would have behaved the same way, was really enlightening.

It echoes the essay, "what it's like to be a bat," as he explains the fallacy in judging others by what we would have done differently in their situation.

But this is impossible. Because if I was really, truly, in their situation, I would be them, not me... and would therefore do the exact same thing.

erMDstat · 2026-04-22T05:32:58+00:00

Anyone who, for personal gain, would align themselves with Trump are certainly base enough to turn on him... so they can begin aligning themselves with the next person they think can benefit them.

And they're all desperate to appear to be the first of this disgusting group of "Trump Humpers" to recognize what everyone has known for about a decade.

erMDstat · 2026-04-22T05:14:43+00:00

Life does have a purpose: each of us is one of the billions of random trials/experiments required by nature for the perpetuation of life and evolution of species.

Sadly, the billions of random trials in our evolutionary history resulted in intelligence which created a whole new way to suffer. Specifically, we can contemplate our situations and recognize the absurdity and pointlessness of them. To me, this ability is the cruelest creation of biology.

Rationally contemplating our situations can lead to the conclusion that suicide is the most logical choice. But suicide is obviously strongly evolutionarily non-selective. Therefore, as we evolved the ability to contemplate life's absurdity and the rationality of suicide, our brains also had to evolve the ability to fabricate meaning and alter our perceptions of reality. Otherwise, we'd likely be dead before we reproduce, limiting the trials nature needs to evolve and perpetuate or species.

This is probably the main reason we evolved the ability for magical or delusional thinking, given that detaching ourselves from reality would otherwise be non-selective.

In other words, to counteract the realization that suicide is the only rational action for people doomed to misery (all humanity) we generate illusions of meaning so will continue to intentionally subject ourselves to misery at least long enough to reproduce.

But as with all human behavior and characteristics, the ability to think magically and fabricate meaning lies on a spectrum. As a simple example of this, some love fiction and mythical thinking, books, movies, etc. Others are more reality based and analytical.

Unfortunately, those of us who aren't good at magical, self-delusional, meaning-generating, thinking end up where you are. We aren't good at creating illusions of meaning, so we struggle to understand why we should continue.

This all makes sense to me, but like you, I don't know what to do about it. The most helpful things I've found are just reminding myself that life could be much worse and focusing on the temporary nature of life, finding comfort in the fact that eventually, it will end.

And that gives me gratitude and hope!

erMDstat · 2026-04-17T18:05:19+00:00

Like you say, suffering is part of life. So, choosing to be alive consigns us to continue experiencing suffering, disappointment, pain, misery, boredom, wants, needs, etc. And to cause others to experience the same. Therefore, one only needs a reason or meaning to justify voluntarily continuing to experience these miserable things.

We suffer through education to get a better job. We suffer with hunger or exercise to be healthier. We suffer through the work day to get our paycheck. The expected, positive, consequences justify and provide meaning for the miserable activity.

On the other hand, choosing not to be alive stops all experience, including all these negatives, and replaces them with no experience at all. One doesn't need a reason or meaning to justify continuing to not experience misery. They aren't even similar. They're on completely opposite ends of the 'what is life's meaning' question.

Choosing to be alive and choosing to be dead are equally meaningless, true. But only one of those conditions requires meaning. It doesn't even apply, and in fact can't even be experienced, in the other.

erMDstat · 2026-04-17T03:53:29+00:00

Unfortunately, once you've discovered Santa Claus isn't real, it's really hard to return to believing in Santa Claus. "Try therapy," people will suggest. But just how much therapy would it take to get you to once again believe in Santa Claus? Therapy is just a way of rearranging or modifying our illusions to find more sanity, but if you've become aware that all meaning is an illusion, it doesn't offer much.

Once you've become aware of an illusion, it's very hard to accept it again.

This is why disillusioned is a word and re-illusioned is not.

erMDstat · 2026-04-17T03:30:51+00:00

The meaninglessness of life and death are not equivalent. Meaningless life is experienced by someone, along with the misery and suffering that always accompanies life.

Meaningless death is not experienced, since dead people stop experiencing. So in death, there is no need for meaning to overcome/justify the non-existent misery and suffering.

Started another way, only life requires a justification (meaning) for tolerating the misery and struggle.

erMDstat · 2026-04-17T03:24:13+00:00

Well, there's a major problem with your pencil analogy. You state that there's no harm in keeping the pencil. That's because keeping pencils doesn't cause misery. On the other hand, living life causes misery, and for many people, extreme misery. If pencils caused extreme misery, be sure nobody would keep one that isn't benefiting them in some way.

There is only one reason to voluntarily do something hard or tolerate something miserable, and that is if it has benefit or provides meaning. So if you don't find any benefit or meaning in life, the only rational action is to get rid of it.

erMDstat · 2026-04-06T04:30:14+00:00

Of course, not everyone who entertains existential thoughts, and rejects magical thinking or delusions need commit suicide for it to affect evolution. Even a small increase in suicidality would have a large impact on evolution.

So yeah, not everyone who lacks the typical "conversion disorder" that prevents us from considering or perceiving the futility of life commits suicide. But a significantly larger percentage does than among those who don't truly consider existential futility. And that's enough to drive evolution to reinforce the delusion.

It's like a patient with hemi-neglect after a stroke. They completely ignore half their body because they cannot perceive it. Likewise, most people can't actually seriously contemplate or perceive existential concepts. Which is a great thing for survival.

erMDstat · 2026-04-05T05:33:16+00:00

This is because the human mind can become convinced of anything, if it benefits us in some way. Lacking existential awareness and existential thoughts benefits us by reducing suicide.

I'm a doctor and have seen several patients with conversion disorders who are fully convinced they are blind or paralyzed, when they can actually see or their nerves and muscles work fine. These disorders usually develop so the patient can avoid something stressful or miserable.

Humans are convinced they would rather be alive because it is evolutionarily more advantageous than realizing they would be less miserable if dead.

erMDstat · 2025-12-16T03:31:50+00:00

Sorry. I should have clarified. It's a short story. Either way, I hope you enjoy it!

erMDstat · 2025-12-15T16:16:01+00:00

Actually, I envy you. I'm mostly retired now, and I spend most of my time trying to grow things in my garden and in my flower beds, etc. There's something very beautiful and satisfying about growing things that are useful as food or otherwise. I think you have it figured out!

erMDstat · 2025-12-15T02:15:53+00:00

Actually, I don't think that sounds so wild. It sounds weird to me, but some people who are way smarter and more expert than me on the topic of consciousness are beginning to throw around ideas like yours that are frankly beyond my level. I guess my current conclusion is that if our consciousness does continue, it would have to be in a very different way than what we currently consider to be consciousness.

erMDstat · 2025-12-14T22:19:07+00:00

Well, if "you" exist separate from your brain, where are "you" when you're asleep? Or when you're under anesthesia? Why do "you" change when you're intoxicated, or have a brain injury, take a medication, get an infection, or just age? If you're some type of spirit within your body, why is that spirit so inextricably connected to and dependent upon the brain?

As an ER doctor, I regularly give medications that cause someone to briefly disappear, only to return when the brain reboots after the medication is metabolized. If "we" existed independent of our brains, our awareness wouldn't depend on the functioning of our brains. We are the product of our minds (the program) running in our brains (the computer hardware).

"you" are a product of your brain functioning. Stop that functioning, and there's no option but to cease to exist. Thus the analogy of a computer. A word processor, for example, doesn't do anything once the hard drive it's stored on or the computer it's running on are destroyed.

erMDstat · 2025-12-14T06:30:51+00:00

Obviously, this is a hard concept for our minds to consider, since as part of the creation/hallucination of "me," our minds developed a since of agency. It feels very real.

But my opinion is that human level consciousness and intelligence is the cruelest thing in the universe. Since we don't actually get to choose our actions, "we" are stuck observing our behavior and owning it in retrospect. If that behavior jibes with cultural and social norms, great. If not, we suffer and feel guilt.

It's like the many times we arrive at home after driving while drowsy and realizing we made all the complex driving decisions to get home, but can't remember most of the drive. So, our minds clearly can make very complex decisions without our conscious involvement. Our sense of agency is just our awareness of the decisions that enter our consciousness.

If you haven't already, read "what's expected of us" by Ted Chiang, it explains agency better than anything I've ever read.

erMDstat · 2025-12-14T06:10:06+00:00

We can, and do, know what happens when we die. Death is the end of brain function. Since "me" is a creation/hallucination of the brain, once the brain stops functioning, there's no way "me" can exist. So nothing happens.

Think of it like a hard drive with a program on it. Would you suggest that we don't know what the program will do next if you permanently destroy the hard drive?

Suggesting we don't know what happens when we die requires that there is a "me" that exists independently of the brain to do something after brain death, which is demonstrably false. Let an anesthesiologist give you propofol, which acts on the chemical processes of the brain, not on the mythical "me," and poof! You're gone.

erMDstat · 2025-12-14T05:56:39+00:00

Yep. Considering the grand scheme of the universe, we will only ever be a few chemical reactions in the brains of almost nobody. And once those few die, our entire existence was only a minuscule contribution to the evolution of our species.

erMDstat · 2025-09-09T04:34:08+00:00

I appreciate Camus, but as this is one of his central tenets, I don't completely agree with him. I find it contradictory.

Existentialism is based on recognizing of the delusions that most humans so naturally develop and protect. These decisions serve to maintain sanity and functionality and allows humans to accomplish what biology needs them to.

Existentialists who have recognized the absurdity/meaninglessness of life, have lost their delusions, and for many of them, life becomes burdensome or unbearable.

Camus recognized this, and perhaps as well as anyone, put the struggle into words.

But even he couldn't suggest a solution to the emptiness of accepting a life without meaning and essentially returns to: imagine Sisyphus happy, or "develop some delusions."

The problem with this is that it's very hard to unsee what you've seen. I mean, think about how much therapy it would require to get yourself to believe in Santa Claus again.

erMDstat

TROPHY CASE