

Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. - tamarindo
http://jorel314.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/quote-we-are-going-to-die-and-that-makes-us-the-lucky-ones/

======
10ren
I don't think Newton would have attributed his success entirely to his DNA:
_If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of
Giants._

~~~
robryan
No, but he is right, they would just have to apply the natural advantages they
have been given.

------
koningrobot
Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species
is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does
it do us?

Jim Crawford says it better than I:
[http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-
bli...](http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-
blindspot.html) and so does David Benatar:
<http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html>

~~~
kirse
At some point Dawkins has to rationalize (or shall I say 'irrationalize', for
a man so concerned with logic) away the consequences of his diehard belief in
an evolutionary process explaining our existence...

So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely
natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten
within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him.

For most people, they choose to ignore the reality that Evolution simply lays
down the fact that one's existence is both purposeless and meaningless. Well,
one does have a purpose - replicating their species.

Of course, the optimistic delusion starts when people start bullshitting about
"doing good for humanity" and "living for the moment" and all sorts of other
drivel that really just serves to help them ignore the bigger uncomfortable
reality of how incredibly useless and meaningless they are on the timeline of
the infinite.

~~~
ErrantX
You seem to be pretty dismissive of our irrelevance on the solar scale.

For me it is always humbling; being an infatessimably small part of the grand
scheme.

Far from feeling meaningless it sets me free :)

------
extension
There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have
exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite.

Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.

~~~
_polos_
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more
profound investigation.

The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as
always) in the _details_. He _sounds_ smart at first (many people could do the
same; only very few are really smart though).

He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply
"eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone
able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really
scientific.

You have to _be_ scientific, not only _sound_ so. And, science is not absolute
-- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which
is simply not scientific, but already _his_ religion...

~~~
gsk
:-) Wow. This is hysterical and wildly inaccurate. Dawkins has numerous
academic papers. 'The Selfish Gene' (which was praised by W D Hamilton--one
the great biologists of our times) is a great introduction to genetics, a
wonderful and proper science.

~~~
_polos_
Science is not absolute!

He is making science (and many times his personal opinion, that is: his
personal theories) an absolute fact.

It doesn't matter how many real science he's providing: if you take 90% of
truth, and mix in 10% of lies, then the result can't be true...

He claims that evolution (a statistically impossible theory) has to be taken
as a fact, "forgetting" that one of his colleagues, and many others, already
have proven it wrong.

It's not important what I think now, or what you think now, future will show!
The current science might be blind -- remember, it's not absolute -- as it
already happened many times in history...

~~~
ErrantX
> a statistically impossible theory

Oh, you're one of _those_ types.

Well, as much as I respect you're right to believe these things (irrationally
or not) it's worth saying you will find little interest in them here.

------
harrybr
Of all the Dawkins quotes, this one strikes me as weak.

~~~
jacquesm
It's not that weak a quote, it's just that the website does not really add any
value by simply repeating it.

------
erikstarck
Out of all the possible combinations of human DNA, I wonder what the "perfect"
human individual would look like.

He or she is hiding there, somewhere, in the probability space of all possible
combinations.

Must be lonely.

~~~
qq66
Nope, he's right here in my room, typing on HN :)

------
barredo
Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were
fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans
that could have ever been. Right?

~~~
jerf
He's more likely referring to every _possible_ human, which for instance would
include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in
addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The
numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would
include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg

The one that fertilised it is the only one that could have fertilised it.
Perhaps if you're into realist versions Copenhagen interpretation then you can
argue that in a largely parallel universe that another sperm may have suited
the conditions ...

