A Hypothetical World...

[Elioenai26]

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?

 

[juvenissun]

Watch the world of ants, bees, etc.

 

[Elioenai26]

Watch the world of ants, bees, etc.

Sort of a "Wild Kingdom" thing huh?

 

[Davian]

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'.

Orchid lures bees with promise of sex with strangers - YouTube

From the comments: "remember bees, when you have sex with an orchid, you're having sex with every other bee that orchid had been with..."

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[Davian]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

What's good of doing that?

 

[Davian]

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.

Well, if you don't use definitions that are demonstrable, falsifiable, and/or agreed upon by both parties, your responses become nonsensical.

What's good of doing that?

Indeed. Did you have a point to make?

 

[quatona]

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?

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?

 

[juvenissun]

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?

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.

 

[Davian]

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.

Case in point.

 

[Jade Margery]

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.

a) Love is not required for babies. The OP is not talking about a world where lust doesn't exist.

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.


To the OP: It would be pretty much the same I think but minus some drama and with more casualties.

 

[Davian]

a) Love is not required for babies. The OP is not talking about a world where lust doesn't exist.

I would update my definition then: a mechanism that draws and keeps critters (including humans) together long enough to successfully procreate.

Take two hypothetical groups of hominids, in competition with each other for local resources. One might hypothesize that the group that 'loves' more than the other group could have a societal advantage over the other (taking care of other members, infants, elders, etc), perhaps driving the other 'lust only' group away or to extinction.

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.

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.

So, a world without love would be boring indeed. We might still be in the mud, as single-celled organisms.

 

[dlamberth]

Watch the world of ants, bees, etc.

I see much love in the worlds of ants, bees, ect.

Love is not necessarly an emotion.

.

 

[Davian]

"...birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it..." - Cole Porter

 

[Paradoxum]

A less happy world.