Why would Odo fall in love?

[JustKate]

"Sentient goo" -

So all those people who are in love even if there is no procreation or even no possibility of procreation with the object of their affection (because they love someone of the same sex, because they loathe children, because they believe they'd make bad parents, because they cannot have children, whatever)...they don't love?

I know that's not what you mean, GodBen - and I think you're mainly trying further the conversation in this thread anyway - but when you start attributing nothing but biology to something that, no matter its physical beginnings, becomes at the very least a strong emotional attachment that is somewhat separate from biology, you are oversimplifying. Just because emotions may have begun as some sort of physical drive or child-rearing necessity (and I must point out that is merely a theory - there's no proof, but I realize you know that quite well), that doesn't mean that's what they still are. We aren't quite the same people we were 50,000 years or 80,000 years ago, are we? I'm not talking about "spritualism" (at least, I don't think so - I'm not 100 percent sure what you mean by that) - I'm just talking about an emotion known for convenience's sake, as "love." And that emotion, whatever its origin, has become at least partly detatched from its physical beginnings, whatever they may be.

I think some people want to think that there is a completely physical basis for emotions because that fits in with their world view. Of course, you could also retort that I reject that because that's what fits in with my world view, and I can't argue with that. But all I can say is that the emotion that helps someone care for his/her spouse as that spouse battles cancer or depression or infertility or old age or alchoholism...in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer...and to find not merely satisfaction but joy in doing so...I've seen it. You probably have too. I choose to call that love. You can call it whatever you want, but whatever it is, it ain't mere biology.

So if there is a non-biological basis for at least some forms of love, and long-time observation gives me strong basis for believing that there is, the sentient and gooey subject of this thread could very well be just as subject to it as us homo sapiens. It is at least a reasonable possibility.

 

[Praetor]

Nicely said.

 

[neogothboy74]

Agreed.

 

[TheGodBen]

So all those people who are in love even if there is no procreation or even no possibility of procreation with the object of their affection (because they love someone of the same sex, because they loathe children, because they believe they'd make bad parents, because they cannot have children, whatever)...they don't love?

I know that's not what you mean, GodBen

Then why type out a whole paragraph for it? You know that it is not what I am saying at all yet for some reason you still chose to type it out. Why?

Why do lesbians have breasts? Why do women who are infertile have breasts? Why do women who just don't want to have kids have breasts? The evolutionary purpose of breasts was to produce milk for babies, so if you are not going to have children then you have no need for breasts. This is a silly point and we know that it is silly because all women have breasts (excluding those who have had a mastectomy) even if they aren't used for their evolutionary purpose. It is the same with love; all humans are capable of feeling love.

I'm going to make the assumption that you understand the theory of evolution via natural selection and how beneficial variations are more likely to spread throughout a population than a negative variation. Any movement towards love would have been a positive variation because it increased the chances of a child reaching adulthood and mating, so love spread throughout the population.

Just because emotions may have begun as some sort of physical drive or child-rearing necessity (and I must point out that is merely a theory - there's no proof, but I realize you know that quite well), that doesn't mean that's what they still are.

And I'm not making that claim. All I said was that love's basis was in procreation, I never said that the two were still connected.

I think some people want to think that there is a completely physical basis for emotions because that fits in with their world view. Of course, you could also retort that I reject that because that's what fits in with my world view, and I can't argue with that. But all I can say is that the emotion that helps someone care for his/her spouse as that spouse battles cancer or depression or infertility or old age or alchoholism...in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer...and to find not merely satisfaction but joy in doing so...I've seen it. You probably have too. I choose to call that love. You can call it whatever you want, but whatever it is, it ain't mere biology.

And you are entitled to your view just as much as I am entitled to mine. I see no reason to believe in something beyond the physical without any evidence for it, but many people do and I do not judge them for it. In return I expect not to be judged for my lack of belief.

 

[neogothboy74]

It sounds like GodBen & JustKate agree on pretty much everything in this 'argument'. It's appears that it's just in the arena of internet conversations (where things are constantly misinterpreted) that it seemed like anything was amiss.

Or I'm possibly misinterpreting this. lol

If so. My bad.

 

[JoeZhang]

and being a shapeshifter, I bet it was like a baby's arm holding an orange.

 

[TheGodBen]

It sounds like GodBen & JustKate agree on pretty much everything in this 'argument'. It's appears that it's just in the arena of internet conversations (where things are constantly misinterpreted) that it seemed like anything was amiss.

Or I'm possibly misinterpreting this. lol

If so. My bad.

How dare you say that! I will not stand such accusations any longer!

Oh sorry, I thought you were calling me a goose. My bad.

 

[Myasishchev]

and being a shapeshifter, I bet it was like a baby's arm holding an orange.

That's a colorful metaphor.

 

[plague]

I believe that love also has nothing to do with sexual attraction, so I wouldn't try to link it's origin to procreating one's species. Rather, I think that it has more to do with an instinctual need as a pack animal. The idea of forming a close affectionate bond with only one person likely comes from years of brain washing.

I wouldn't question odo's caring for kira any more than data's caring for yar. However if we are trying to be scientific, the members of the great link obviously had a very close relationship with eachother. Odo probably had an even bigger instinctual desire to be close with others than humans do.

 

[JustKate]

So all those people who are in love even if there is no procreation or even no possibility of procreation with the object of their affection (because they love someone of the same sex, because they loathe children, because they believe they'd make bad parents, because they cannot have children, whatever)...they don't love?

I know that's not what you mean, GodBen

Then why type out a whole paragraph for it? You know that it is not what I am saying at all yet for some reason you still chose to type it out. Why?

Because although I was pretty sure that wasn't what you meant, that is nonetheless what it sounded like you meant. To me, anyway. And there are people who do think that. So what's wrong with talking about it and getting clarification? I am a victim of my need to be thorough.

Why do lesbians have breasts? Why do women who are infertile have breasts? Why do women who just don't want to have kids have breasts? The evolutionary purpose of breasts was to produce milk for babies, so if you are not going to have children then you have no need for breasts. This is a silly point and we know that it is silly because all women have breasts (excluding those who have had a mastectomy) even if they aren't used for their evolutionary purpose. It is the same with love; all humans are capable of feeling love.

I'm going to make the assumption that you understand the theory of evolution via natural selection and how beneficial variations are more likely to spread throughout a population than a negative variation. Any movement towards love would have been a positive variation because it increased the chances of a child reaching adulthood and mating, so love spread throughout the population.

Your analogy is apt, but there are some problems with it. The major one is that evidence for the evolutionary need for breasts is quite a bit stronger than that for emotions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the evidence for the evolution of emotions is speculation - reasonable speculation, perhaps, but still speculation, pure and simple. I call it speculation not to denigrate it, but because that's what it really is. There is no actual evidence, and the reason is, how could there be? Emotions don't leave a record. So where there is no evidence, all we can do is speculate, and that's what anthropologists have done.

The other problem is that since emotions don't leave a record, we have no idea how fast or slow or medium-speed they developed. This makes comparing it to the evolution of a physical attribute much more problematic.

And actually, since you were so scrupulous about pointing out exceptions, not every human is equally capable of love, or so I understand. Some forms of mental illness appear to block this capacity.

And I'm not making that claim. All I said was that love's basis was in procreation, I never said that the two were still connected.

"Basis"? Sure - could be. All I am saying is that that doesn't seem to be the case any longer. But generally speaking we seem to be in agreement here - Neogothboy is pretty much right about Internet misinterpretations, I'd say.

And you are entitled to your view just as much as I am entitled to mine. I see no reason to believe in something beyond the physical without any evidence for it, but many people do and I do not judge them for it. In return I expect not to be judged for my lack of belief.

Good thing since as it happens I haven't "judged" you here at all. I'm just talking. It's an interesting thing to speculate about, at least for me. Nuthin' personal at all, I swear.

Like Plague, I have also wondered about the great link and whether that might actually make Odo even more likely to yearn for some sort of connection to the solids around him, particularly that one special solid. He's so very alone, and that doesn't appear to be natural for his species.

 

[Deckerd]

Odo was a principal character. For ST writers, aliens were basically the same as humans except for some superficial differences. What do you expect from space opera?

 

[JustKate]

^ It would be pretty darn boring for him to just stalk through DS9 looking for malefactors, that's for sure.

And aside from the dramatic requirements and near-universal TV show creator's yearning to temporarily pair characters off, using duct tape and binder's twine if necessary, it allows them to examine human emotions as well, but through a fun scifi lens. Works for me.

 

[TheGodBen]

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the evidence for the evolution of emotions is speculation - reasonable speculation, perhaps, but still speculation, pure and simple.

And I would agree, but I also think that it is a more rational form of speculation than believing that emotions are somehow beyond the physical and biological constraints of our reality. There is no evidence for and and by its very nature there cannot be evidence for the supernatural because it is beyond the realm of natural laws. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just try to stay as grounded as I possibly can.

Love is indeed a very powerful force, but so too are chemicals. I have borne witness to a person ingesting certain chemicals which made him think his legs were made of wood and that his carpet was growing. And when I drink too much I believe that I am a great dancer and singer even though I am sure there is video evidence to the contrary.

And actually, since you were so scrupulous about pointing out exceptions, not every human is equally capable of love, or so I understand. Some forms of mental illness appear to block this capacity.

Indeed, I was going to mention this but felt that it was a little too off-topic. I read an article a few years ago which claimed that around 40% of people are incapable of experiencing romantic love, although I find that highly suspect since I don't think you can accurately measure emotions. I can't find it now, so maybe it was discredited.

 

[JustKate]

And I would agree, but I also think that it is a more rational form of speculation than believing that emotions are somehow beyond the physical and biological constraints of our reality. There is no evidence for and and by its very nature there cannot be evidence for the supernatural because it is beyond the realm of natural laws. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just try to stay as grounded as I possibly can.

This, I think, really points out a basic difference between people: Some seem to require rational explanations for everything, and some do not. I don't, so I can speculate with complete freedom and enjoyment about whether love is a gift from God or a result of our complicated brains or a simple byproduct of sex or evolution's response to our species' social needs...or a combination of two or more of these. I do need to remember, though, that some people really want or need concrete answers.

And this is illustrated perfectly by that phrase "believing that emotions are somehow beyond the physical and biological constraints of our reality." I do believe that (though I never thought about it that way before)...but I don't have proof, and I don't need any. I just see how people around me act and basis my conclusions on that. But I can understand why that won't satisfy everybody. So it goes.

Love is indeed a very powerful force, but so too are chemicals. I have borne witness to a person ingesting certain chemicals which made him think his legs were made of wood and that his carpet was growing. And when I drink too much I believe that I am a great dancer and singer even though I am sure there is video evidence to the contrary.

And I've still that dollar I offered right here!

 

[iguana_tonante]

I just want to quote GodBen on everything because he's awesome and I couldn't say it any better.

I know what it feels like to try to explain things logically and scientifically and have people looking at you with suspicion. Sometimes it just seems like being rational is a bad thing.

 

[TheGodBen]

And I've still that dollar I offered right here!

My dancing and singing is a very personal experience which cannot be bought or sold. I only share at family occasions or with the random population of whatever pub or club I find myself in.

It's my people's national day of drinking too much, cut me some slack!

I just want to quote GodBen on everything because he's awesome and I couldn't say it any better.

Aww, shucks.

 

[Myasishchev]

And actually, since you were so scrupulous about pointing out exceptions, not every human is equally capable of love, or so I understand. Some forms of mental illness appear to block this capacity.

Indeed, I was going to mention this but felt that it was a little too off-topic. I read an article a few years ago which claimed that around 40% of people are incapable of experiencing romantic love...

Selective advantage? Time will tell.

 

[plynch]

This is what I interpret the OP was trying to discuss. But we should all remember that we are talking about sentient goo that can change its shape and mass, so we probably shouldn't be taking it all so seriously.

U R right about the OP (me). And your comment about not taking things so seriously applies to most threads in this site!

I assumed that since this is a science fiction show and bbs, we would all be down with what science concludes about evoutionary reasons for emotions and behavior patterns. I was wrong. It's ok.

Peace and well-being to all.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I always have trouble understanding the duality of discussions like these. Why does it so often come down to EITHER. "A" can be true, or "B" can be true. They are mutually exclusive. Is there no "C"?
Speaking for C students everywhere, there is indeed.

I suppose Kirk said it best. "Everyone's human".
But if we can, for a moment, allow that humanity does have some kind of metaphysical element, a connection to a "universal" - then it is not so much that all Trek aliens are humans with bumpy forheads. They're still aliens. But it is indicative of the philosophy behind Trek. Which might no be so much that everyone's human, but that everyone's everyone. Everyone's Klingon.

 

[plague]

Why does it so often come down to EITHER. "A" can be true, or "B" can be true?

I suppose Kirk said it best...But it is indicative of the philosophy behind Trek. Which might no be so much that everyone's human, but that everyone's everyone. Everyone's Klingon.

Well said.