Cathy wrote:

<Isn't itconsidered true
that an organism's only true purpose is to pass on its genes?  In
thatcase,
our desiring a longer life for either ourselves or our animals isn't in
nature's master plan.>

I have heard it said that a chicken is merely an egg's way of making
another egg.

  I've also heard that we , as humans, have 5 limbic  (brainstem,
primitive level) drives that we share with other "higher"  (I speak
ironically) mammals: power, safety , socializing, sexuality, and
nutrition. The 6th one, unique to humans (supposedly), is the drive to
find meaning. I tend to think (unless somebody suggests a better
explanation) the purpose of something  is to express its nature; even
if I do not pass on my genes, I can still follow my nature to explore
meaning. At what age is that impossible?

This reminds me of the thread about H-G's  going off to die when no
longer able to contribute. Scott Nearing, probably one of the main
inspirations for the back to the land movement in the US, simply
decided to stop eating sometime after his 100th birthday. Had enough,
I suppose. Of what? His behavior really puzzled me.

Reminds me of the thread about longer lifespans being difficult
because we humans can't cope developmentally with the psychological
issues of living with awareness past a certain age. Not to be too
judgmental, I think most people shut down by around 6 years anyway.
That's what Janov, the Primal Therapist thinks.

Arthur McCaskey


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com