Survival... logical?

[tess_the_tyrant]

I recently saw the new Star Trek movie. In it, the Vulcan, Spock, says at one point that it is only logical to reproduce with as many other Vulcans as he can, since their planet was blown up and most Vulcans in the universe were killed. So, in order to save the Vulcan race, pure-breeding with other Vulcans is absolutely necessary.

For those of you who don’t know anything about the Star Trek universe, the Vulcans are a highly intelligent race who reject emotion completely and are completely rational and logical.

However, I would have to disagree with Spock on this issue. What is so logical about survival?

In order for an act to be logical, it must have a goal. Example: Jack wants to get to the store as fast as possible. He has a car with a full gas tank. Of course he could walk, but given his situation and goal, the most logical conclusion would be to drive to the store.

To say “survival is logical” (especially in this case, the survival of a whole species) would mean that there is a certain goal attached to it.

I mean sure, the Vulcans would like to survive, but that includes emotion. And you know those damn Vulcans and their Stoicism. On a completely rational basis, there is nothing logical about survival. In Spock’s case, pure-breeding is logical, because it most efficiently achieves the goal “save the Vulcan race”. The thing is, this goal is based upon emotion, specifically pride.

Of course, we like to survive because we have emotions and we are programmed by our genes to crave survival. We also enjoy life, and enjoy the pleasures it brings, so we keep on truckin’ to experience as much of these as possible.

The more I write this, the more I’m coming to see that it isn’t so much about philosophy than it is the writers of Star Trek being extremely contradictory. But, let’s talk about it anyways.

All emotion aside, is survival (of a species or personal) logical?

[Three_Times_Great]

it does seem that survival itself entails some sort of passion or emotionalism, because we can imagine an AI machine-robot that is faced with the same dilemma as spock, and which concludes that it is illogical to expend its limited energy and resources in reproductive activity merely to provide for generation of future machine-robots. if such an AI machine-robot existed, it seems hard to imagine it concluding that survival of others (other than itself) is some sort of logical mandate.

however, survival IS hardwired into all life, or so it seems, regardless of emotion (survival instincts exist in all life, otherwise such live would not have survived). so this seems to conflict with the seeming need for sentimental or passional motivation to arrive at the necessity to survive as a group… perhaps the difference just lies in the distinguishing between self and other. it seems logical (even exempting all emotion or passion) to act to sustain ones own life (we can easily imagine the AI machine-robot acting in its own self-preservation and concluding that this is logical), but it seems less logical to act to sustain the lives of others, especially others that are not in existence now or will not come into existence until onesself is long gone (i.e. future generations).

survival seems to motivate individual self-preservation behavior only, and emotions/passions/sentiments seem necessary to carry this motivation out of onesself and therefore place others within ones own sphere of such survival-behavioral causes.

then again, maybe its not even “logical” to act to further ones own existence or survival… is it more logical to survive rather than perish? how would a logical argument for even self-preservation be arrived at, without invoking non-logical elements? im not sure i know.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I credit spock’s failure in logic to the general Western fascination with the new conceptual ideas the nazis brought about and attempt to implement them; they were new and shocking, some may see it as futuristic. Good TV at the time? Sure, for most.