Ivan asked:

I am trying to determine whether the ultimate goal of species is to survive (continue living), that is, to
prevent their extinction. In order to be able to support this, I must answer the question, "Is life good?"
My answer is, Yes. My question to you is, "Why is life good?" (or why isn't it?).

============

This is a very interesting question. I would like to address just one aspect:

A simple thought experiment shows that if evolution is true and given enough time every species that
is not interested in its own survival will be less successful in evolutionary terms (and eventually very
likely become extinct, especially if the conditions in the environment change for the worse or
competition increases). This sits well with the fact that in all species we know so far we observe a
marked instinct to survive/procreate. Therefore it would seem that for conscious life-forms to negate
life would be incompatible with long-term survival. This would suggest that a) to negate life (i.e. to
decide "life is not good") cannot be advantageous in evolutionary terms (considering the whole
species and not individuals), and that b) being ourselves the result of natural selection we may be
naturally disposed in favour of the decision "life is good". In short, evolutionary considerations would
suggest that "life is good" is the right choice both from a rational point of view, and from an
instinctive/emotional point of view. (In other words if one had to construct a successful species one
would have to give it exactly this survival instinct — a fundamental "yes" to life). So under these
considerations the answer would be that — given enough time — one would expect most species to
show this survival instinct to a marked degree. (In other words, there can always pop up a mutation
that does not have such an instinct but it would be 'weeded' out over time).

In summary this shows (if true) that the question "why is life good" in this meaning is somewhat of a
tautology — life must be considered good by definition, otherwise there can be no life.

*This is not meant in any way to belittle individual suffering (that may lead to a "no" to life) or indeed
the individual's rights of choice in any way. (However consider this question regarding individuals: If
there were after some catastrophe only one man and one woman left on Earth — would this situation
not impact on their personal plans for life, marriage, off-spring etc? And if it did not i.e. they preferred
not to survive/procreate, would that not prove the a.m. theory through extinction of a species if the
individuals lack the survival instinct?)

P.S. Background information: I am a pharmacist with a Dr in natural sciences, and currently studying
for the BA in philosophy at Birkbeck, London. — I find the questions very interesting and hope I can
help a little in exchange for the information I find for myself...

Helene Dumitriu