Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Watch the world of ants, bees, etc.
I guess you would need to define 'love' in a manner that would differentiate the mechanism that draws and keeps critters (including humans) together long enough to procreate, and what Elio means by 'love'.
If you want to define love then discuss, I would suggest you to save the trouble and quit.
I just did: a mechanism that draws and keeps critters (including humans) together long enough to procreate.
In a world where there are living creatures, there would need to be 'love' of some sort, or there would be no more babies. The OP is somewhat contradictory on this point.
Well, if you don't use definitions that are demonstrable, falsifiable, and/or agreed upon by both parties, your responses become nonsensical.If you want to do this, then whatever question you ask, I can always negate the question itself by redefining a key term in the question.
Indeed. Did you have a point to make?What's good of doing that?
From the perspective of a creature within this world, or from the perspective of a person living in our world who superimposes their experiences on your hypothetical world?Imagine, if you can, a world of creatures incapable of expressing love for one another. In this world, the concept of love does not exist.
What would this world be like?
Well, if you don't use definitions that are demonstrable, falsifiable, and/or agreed upon by both parties, your responses become nonsensical.
Indeed. Did you have a point to make?
Well, if you don't use definitions that are demonstrable, falsifiable, and/or agreed upon by both parties, your responses become nonsensical.
...
Don't throw out the food when you find that it has something looks like a fly in it. A food is a food, with or without the thing which looks like a fly.
I just did: a mechanism that draws and keeps critters (including humans) together long enough to procreate.
In a world where there are living creatures, there would need to be 'love' of some sort, or there would be no more babies. The OP is somewhat contradictory on this point.
I would update my definition then: a mechanism that draws and keeps critters (including humans) together long enough to successfully procreate.a) Love is not required for babies. The OP is not talking about a world where lust doesn't exist.
There exists a mechanism that draws bacteria together for the purposes of conjugation (horizontal gene transfer). The transfer may or may not be beneficial, as with mutations in the usual evolutionary sense. One might hypothesize that this often beneficial trait of gene transfer between individuals was be carried forward with the evolution of multi-celled organisms.b) Bacteria (and other asexual lifeforms) don't need any kind of mechanism to draw and keep them together, they make 'babies' just fine on their own.
I see much love in the worlds of ants, bees, ect.Watch the world of ants, bees, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?