Is there an upside to having no social life?

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by sgs1370 on Friday October 13, 2017 @08:53PM (#15470099)

Huh? I am all in favor of people having kids and know it is necessary for society... But are you saying you can't pass on other stuff to the next generation? An example of this is teachers, i.e. a teacher who had no kids but who did nothing but did a great job of teaching kids, teaching and inspriring, but didn't socialize with anyone (except with parents during conferences or to the extent necessary with other teachers & administrators)... would you say they "failed at life"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by goialoq on Friday October 13, 2017 @08:58PM (#15470113)

Yes, that's failing at life, which is generally defined as biological propagation. It's success in memetics, but not genetics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by wruza on Saturday October 14, 2017 @01:12AM (#15470888)

Life is the characteristic that distinguishes organisms from inorganic substances and dead objects. (WP)

Anyone who made it through the childhood and has no plan to die soon succeeded at life. You probably mistaking it with reproduction, which is often required as ability, not as demand.

It is also pretty rough to label fertile ones as losers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by abiox on Friday October 13, 2017 @09:57PM (#15470267)

i tend to read "life" as the experiential aspect of existing, and pursuing my desires.

"failure" and "success" are notions relative to goal achievement, and biology doesn't have goals - it's a mechanistic process.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by enraged_camel on Saturday October 14, 2017 @01:42AM (#15470958)

>>"failure" and "success" are notions relative to goal achievement, and biology doesn't have goals - it's a mechanistic process.

Of course biology has goals. Every living organism's goal is to propagate its genes to the next generation. For details on this, read The Selfish Gene.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by majewsky on Saturday October 14, 2017 @04:28AM (#15471311)

I haven't read The Selfish Gene, but from what I've heard it tells the exact opposite: That every gene's goal is to propagate, for which task it merely employs the living organism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is there an upside to having no social life? by PhasmaFelis on Saturday October 14, 2017 @06:25AM (#15471580)

Talking about "goals" and "desires" can sometimes be a usefully simplified way to think about biology, but it's not really accurate. A bacterium doesn't "want" to reproduce anymore than a rock "wants" to roll downhill. Only quite complex animals can be truly said to have goals.

[ Parent | on HN ]