/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13907620]

If humans were born from evolution and natural selection, the process of the weak dying to make room for the strong, how could one argue for protecting the weak? In fact, doesn't it seem inevitable to conclude that protecting the weak is evil since if everyone could reproduce our species would experience genetic degeneration?
Please help me figure out a solution to this.

[Anonymous No.13907633]

>>13907620
>how could one argue for protecting the weak?
Because when a strong man sees a weaker one, he sees his past self and takes pity on himself.

[Anonymous No.13907635]

>>13907620
We are no longer subjects to evolution. It's in our hands now. There's room for homosexuals, handicapped, poor, weak, etc.

[Anonymous No.13907636]

your first mistake was attributing some kind of moral telos to blind evolutionary drives

your second mistake was not realizing that the rejection of the darwinian game is basically the essence of all authentic spirituality

[Anonymous No.13907641]

>>13907633
Dubs of wisdom

[Anonymous No.13907664]

>>13907636
>your second mistake was not realizing that the rejection of the darwinian game is basically the essence of all authentic spirituality
I understand this just fine, but if our reason was created from the culling of our genetically unfit ancestors, aren't we just condemning a process through its own legacy. Doesn't that make us hypocrites?
>In fact, doesn't it seem inevitable to conclude that protecting the weak is evil since if everyone could reproduce our species would experience genetic degeneration?
Can you honestly say this is ok thing to happen? Even if genetics are a very small part of humanity it must surely have at least some effect on us.

>>13907633
That's true but a man can't change his genetics and a man with poor genetics must have an at least somewhat higher chance of not becoming strong.

[Anonymous No.13907673]

>>13907620
Your argument fails because it makes the individual into a means to the greater good of the species. The weak fulfil their role as a means by being sterilised and/or exterminated; the strong fulfil their role as a means by living. But what are they a means to? The continuation of the species into ever-higher forms (that such an evolution even happens is highly questionable)? But what is the end of humanity evolving into ever-higher forms? What's the point? What do we accomplish by developing ourselves in that very specific way if it means losing our humanity in the destruction of individual life "for the greater good"? Just because evolution and natural selection result in a "stronger" species, why does cultivating that become our goal? Humanity has existed for tens of thousands of years. Surely we're strong enough to live on this planet? Why should we evolve anymore--especially when the means is so costly (preventing the weak from procreating, etc.)? It is better to love humanity as it is than murder humanity in trying to make it better.

[Anonymous No.13907680]

>>13907633
oooft

[Anonymous No.13907690]

>>13907673
based. I'm all for evolving towards higher forms, but if the product does not justify the waste it's basically NEETdom on a global scale

>>13907664
>I understand this just fine, but if our reason was created from the culling of our genetically unfit ancestors, aren't we just condemning a process through its own legacy. Doesn't that make us hypocrites?

it makes spirituality a product of a genuine ontological contradiction, yes

it's time, friend

it's time to take the hegelpill

[Anonymous No.13907702]

>>13907635
But "objects" are the new subjects to evolution and how would retards help in that aspect, protecting the weak is still degeneration.
It looks like the only reason to actually protect the weak is to cause an increase on the amount of choices that will reinforce the binary status of our social structure so that retards like us can make choices and feel like they define themselves through them, proving to be superior to others and feel good with themselves even for a little bit. It is a fucking endless trip.
Weak or strong doesn't matter, just delete the human specie as a whole.

[Anonymous No.13907707]

>>13907690
>hegelpill

[Anonymous No.13907711]

I think this video might answer your question OP
https://youtu.be/YwZ0ZUy7P3E

[Anonymous No.13907714]

>>13907636
> the rejection of the darwinian game is basically the essence of all authentic spirituality
Fucking hippie figured out the only way to make his life sufferable in 2019 is by being a complete pseud.

[Anonymous No.13907726]

>>13907711
desu the red neck people are smarter than those snooty milquetoast wankers who are toocowardly to have kids

[Anonymous No.13907745]

>>13907664
>but if our reason was created from the culling of our genetically unfit ancestors
Your genetically unfit ancestors have nothing to do with your reason. Literature and philosophy are fine, but skipping biology classes wasn't the right way to go anon.

[Anonymous No.13907760]

>>13907714
gnosticism, christianity, hermeticism insofar as it is a rejection of the flesh, the latent gnosticism of neoplatonists like Plotinus

I'll grant you Egypt doesn't fall under the category

[Anonymous No.13907768]

>>13907760
>gnosticism, christianity, hermeticism
sorry anon we can't be friends, i don't want any of these diseases.

[Anonymous No.13907769]

>>13907745
What do you mean? Do you wish to say that human reasoning has absolutely no genetic basis? Why aren't all animals as smart as humans? Do you wish to imply that humans can pass down traits through non genetic means?

[Anonymous No.13907824]

>>13907673
Even if you are fine with stagnation, as the current gene pool continues to reproduce we will inevitably have mutations and the vast majority of mutations create negative effects. If there is no counterforce and every organism reproduces eventually we’ll genetically degenerate to such a point that we are fundamentally inferior beings, and as this process continues we’d return to beasts. Can you really allow such a future to occur?

[Anonymous No.13907830]

>>13907636
>2019
>Denying evolution

[Anonymous No.13907834]

>>13907769
>Do you wish to say that human reasoning has absolutely no genetic basis
It has but it is the same for everyone like it goes for the animals, a dog is a dog and depending its race certain traits appear.
If a dog grows amongst humans most likely it will end up being friendly but if you throw the newborn dog into the wild it is most likely going to resemble a wolf traitwise.

>Why aren't all animals as smart as humans?
Because you skipped your biology classes as i said above. But in sort the need to survive was the drive to expand the human brain.

>Do you wish to imply that humans can pass down traits through non genetic means?
Yes, the world around you affects you, your familly, the culture of your country, your friends and anything in general that influences you.

[Anonymous No.13907890]

>>13907620
because until robotics and AI are advanced enough and cheap enough we need low IQ people to be fucking garbage men and plumbers and shit like that. most elites dont want to do that stuff so they keep the idiots around, for now...

[Anonymous No.13907921]

>>13907834
>If a dog grows amongst humans most likely it will end up being friendly but if you throw the newborn dog into the wild it is most likely going to resemble a wolf traitwise.
Yes I understand that just fine, but a dog raised by human will never be able to reason as a human does. A human and a dog are separated by wide margins so it is easy to see how genetics are a factor. The same is true though of Individual humans. Although nurture play a huge role in the intelligence of humans genetics must play at least some role or else any animal would be able to be as smart as a human.

>But in sort the need to survive was the drive to expand the human brain.
Yeah I know this as well. We grew bigger brains because those without intelligence had a higher chance of dying, and these bigger brains were created due to genetics.

[Anonymous No.13908016]

>>13907620
Unironically create a caste for the lesser to aid the greater men and women by working towards the betterment of their respective civilizations. The Indians were right yet again.

[Anonymous No.13908040]

>>13907830
rejection =/= denial

[Anonymous No.13908155]

>>13908040
true, denial would be understandable or at least easier to excuse, rejection tho is a hard proof for a bunch of things.

[Anonymous No.13908337]

>>13907921
>but a dog raised by human will never be able to reason as a human does
Really now? I didnt compare a dog and a human, i just said that man is an animal aswell so certain traits do exist in our genetic code but our reason has nothing to do with it, our reason is a by product of the conditions that you grow into.
>genetics must play at least some role or else any animal would be able to be as smart as a human
That would take thousands of years but most animal species have been evolved or changed in a way during the years.

[Anonymous No.13908349]

>>13908337
>Really now? I didnt compare a dog and a human, i just said that man is an animal aswell so certain traits do exist in our genetic code but our reason has nothing to do with it, our reason is a by product of the conditions that you grow into.
Yeah but isn't the only difference between a human and a dog genetics? Or are you arguing that reason comes from an immaterial soul?

[Anonymous No.13908380]

Because genuine concern for others is an indicator of higher consciousness, and higher consciousness is an indicator of strength

[Anonymous No.13908391]

>13908349
>Yeah but isn't the only difference between a human and a dog genetics?
This fucking bait, damn it.

[Anonymous No.13908488]

>>13908391
You know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.13908541]

>>13907620
Evolution doesn't mean that the strongest survives, it means that there will be a tendency for survival among organisms that better fit into a niche. Remember the canonical example is small and large finches, that will alternatively thrive when food is scarce or abundant (respectively).
If humans could be said to fill an ecological niche, it's one of cooperation among ourselves and dominance of nature, so that in fact prosocial behavior is the most "correct."

[Anonymous No.13908564]

>>13908541
>prosocial behavior is the most "correct."
It could be that then that would imply that in this behavior's ideal form, man would be unable to evolve within their population and then experience degeneration.

[Anonymous No.13909156]

>>13908564
What is degeneration? Doing worse at filling our niche? That's certainly true, since it's led us to "greed is good," which is a great way of losing control of the world. Otherwise, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by degeneration. In particular, I have no idea what the "ideal form" of prosocial behavior is supposed to be, but then I'm not a Platonist.

[Anonymous No.13909320]

>>13907620
That's not how evolution works you retard. The weak don't die off to make room for the strong; the weak and strong paradigm does not exist. The environment exists in a polymorphous form and those creatures that were lucky enough to survive will carry on their genes as a general adaptation. Evolution doesn't happen all at once, it is a constant process of surviving a bottleneck.

[Anonymous No.13909333]

>>13907620
Is≠ought

Come on, son

[Anonymous No.13909340]

>>13907620
>how could one argue for protecting the weak
You don't know which genes will be usefull mutations in the long run, genius.

[Anonymous No.13909726]

>>13908541
>>13909320
>>13909340

These guys get it

1. What is "weak" and "strong" all depends on the situation.

2. When you start talking about whether it's right or wrong to do something, that's a religious question. You have to decide what kind of world you want to live in. Evolution doesn't care.

3. Tech and eugenics aren't "unnatural", they're just additional tools humans have for adapting to their environment.

[Anonymous No.13909731]

>>13907620

Natural selection is such that it has produced a species which protects the weak. It is an entirely natural consequence of an entirely natural process. Why you take issue with one and not the other is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.13910319]

>>13909320
I'm defining strength as the ability to exist. When I mean strong I meant those organisms with genetics that give them an increased chance at survival.

>>13909156
Degeneration would be caused by mutations. Since the vast majority of mutations actually hurt the organism, if humans were able to protect each other perfectly, then we would start to accrue inferior genetics. The only reason we can get away with this prosocial behavior is because we have always failed and allowed the weak to slip through the cracks and die. Essentially, its like our ideals are an incomplete lie.

>>13909333
I know this, but if we are borne from natural selection, we are condemning a process through its own legacy. We would be hypocrites.

>>13909731
If you read earlier in this post, I'm arguing that the consequence of natural selection that created a protecting species only exists because the weak will die anyway. As such, a perfect form of our desire to protect will do more harm than good. Thus, it's like the tendencies we've been given are lies and a matter of despair when we face the truth.

[Anonymous No.13910349]

>>13907620
Yes. Judeo-Christianity is a monkey wrench in the genetic machine.
A lot can be said about this. But let's take a look ahead, where is the species headed, we see new depths of genetic expressions, but heights of technology.
So ultimately, we could ask if what Christianity was and is in its secularized form, is an attempt of jootsing to non-biological life.

[Anonymous No.13910481]

>>13910349
So is your point that Christianity has stopped genetic development of man while furnishing technological development of man’s societies, which will create a transhumanist society free of genetics?

[Anonymous No.13910492]

>>13907620
its bullshit the strong are thous who survive that is the only definition, its a circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.13910501]

>>13907620
Natural selection doesn't weed out the weak. It weeds out those who aren't adapted to survive in their environment. The mighty bear is as fit as the ant in that regard. Anyone who is alive has proven himself fit for life for the moment.

[Anonymous No.13910508]

>>13907636
>>your second mistake was not realizing that the rejection of the darwinian game is basically the essence of all authentic spirituality
The very height of all falseness, authentic living is precisely the embracing of natural law. Your feeble prevarications are laughable.

[Anonymous No.13910528]

>>13907620
>he believes in evolution
Our species automatically experiences genetic degradation. Those chimps you see are not reminiscent of our earlier ancestors; they’re what we are on our way to becoming.

[Anonymous No.13910743]

>>13910319
>Since the vast majority of mutations actually hurt the organism, if humans were able to protect each other perfectly, then we would start to accrue inferior genetics.
If we could protect each other perfectly, then we would achieve total dominance over our own biology, and our genes wouldn't matter. We would be actively recreating ourselves to be able to survive anything; if you think that's "decay," then that sounds more like a religious sentiment than anything.
But I imagine you're thinking about this more as a situation where there are "smart," "strong" people, scientists and engineers, who use their skills to keep "dumb," "weak" people alive, and so on to the premise of Idiocracy. But the problem with Idiocracy (and eugenics) is that genetics gets incredibly complicated once you move beyond "two brown-eyed parents will probably have brown-eyed children," and it's not at all clear that "strength" and "intelligence" (for whatever they mean) are directly heritable in this simplistic way that people imagine. In fact, this probably isn't true, since the world is not made up of "smartness dynasties," where particular families have all the smart people. It seems that strength, as you have it, is a weird convergence of factors, holistically genetic and environmental, that are currently not understood, and probably never will be.
Or to put it another way, the problem with deciding who lives or dies, or who gets to breed, is that it's only coherent if you fully understand both genetics and epigenetics (the variable expression of genes based on environmental factors). If you don't, and you try to play God, you'll definitely fuck it up.

[Anonymous No.13910759]

>>13907620
for if you do this, you'd breed out not weakness, but soul out of men.

[Anonymous No.13910857]

>>13907620
evolution selects for the most fit. being fit could mean ugly, agreeable, weak ect. evolutions pointless in the existential debate anyway

[Anonymous No.13910905]

>>13910743
>it's not at all clear that "strength" and "intelligence" (for whatever they mean) are directly heritable in this simplistic way that people imagine.
I understand that nurture, epigenetics, and all of that plays a huge role in the nature of man, but if genes play at least some role then their effect could be magnified across generations as the increasingly degenerate. It's all probability

[Anonymous No.13910933]

>>13910857
True that "fit" is extremely variable, given environment and relationships, but I wouldn't say evolution is not present in existential discussion, it's just that "existential" is regarding that one Being that one person has in one life, and it's hard to relate the existential to something that involves factors of time and multiple lifes going down a chain.

[Anonymous No.13910949]

>>13907620
It’s evil for humanity to continue population growth regardless of strength or weakness

[Anonymous No.13910958]

>>13910949
why? I'm not just speaking of population growth. I'm also considering a population of a constant size.

[Anonymous No.13910968]

>>13910958
What happens to the unfit when they aren’t preserved, and will this result in a higher or lower population size?

[Anonymous No.13910971]

Here's an article that people are getting dumber in Norway.
You know a country that's entirely white and homogeneous.
I think it could be two things:
1.roasties are having babies with dumb chads
2.they're inbred
Given that option 2 didn't affect them for ages I'd go with option 1.

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/we-are-all-getting-dumber-new-science-proves-no-one-is-sure-why.html

[Anonymous No.13911043]

Humans are social creatures. Animals with higher intelligence often work in groups or packs.
Protecting the weak and having an extra pair of hands to help, no matter how inferior benefits us.

[Anonymous No.13911071]

>>13911043
Perhaps but we could only get away with doing that because, no matter what, some of the weak will inevitably die early. If everyone could reproduce then evolution would cease and eventually reverse because mutations generally are negative.

[Anonymous No.13911083]

Simple. Evolution is false.

[Anonymous No.13911086]

>>13911071
I think as we passed that threshold, our technology has been able to keep up. We can detect defects in fetuses now, and we can cure / treat genetic diseases. Overall, I think there won't be a negative impact on the gene pool following this change.

[Anonymous No.13911093]

>>13907636
thanks for the laugh

[Anonymous No.13911096]

>>13907620
Evolution makes no prescriptive statements, it just describes how things go down. Since the “weak” (whatever that means) are surviving they are evolutionarily fit.

[Anonymous No.13911105]

>>13911086
But then wouldn't that mean all of our ancient civilizations or even our civilizations that existed a few decades that sought to protect everyone were actually living under the delusion that their ideals were a good thing?

[Anonymous No.13911135]

>>13911105
As some of the other anons have stated, evolution doesn't have any moral creeds.
And the ancient civilizations that tried to protect everyone were just following their natural disposition to be socialable with other humans.

If anything, I'd argue that tribalism and the disposition to be territorial like chimpanzees is against both moral and evolutionary ideals.

[Anonymous No.13911165]

>>13907636
>rejecting the design of the universe is the correct way to worship the designer of the universe
Hard disagree. God, is the origin of good, therefore evil can only be that which contrary to His will. The way the universe is, is His will, it IS good.

Authenticity is to be what we were meant to be. It's inhuman to not have compassion. Jesus condemns the Pharisees and Sadducees precisely because they rejected their own humanity to follow autistic interpretations of laws.

Even dogs have compassion and empathy.

[Anonymous No.13911196]

>>13911165
If the universe is His will, why does evil exist?

[Anonymous No.13911202]

>>13911165
To clarify, the error is using a man-made conceptual justification to deny what you know in your heart to be right, knowledge put there by the creator.

The Fall is exactly the same story.

[Anonymous No.13911209]

>>13911196
Because man chooses it freely.

And no, suffering is not the same thing as evil. Suffering can even be good.

[Anonymous No.13911214]

>>13911135
I know evolution doesn't have moral creeds, but it is clear that if everyone can be protected then our genetics, which at least partially affect us, will degenerate as I have established earlier through mutation. This would imply that perfectly protecting everyone would eventually lower ourselves and therefore the notion to protect everyone would be in serious trouble (keep in mind that not all negative mutations would need to be massive genetic failures like down syndrome). Then you countered by explaining how we can supposedly treat genetic diseases.
My problem is that the previous civilizations that tried to protect everyone only avoided degeneration because they actually weren't able to protect them. This would mean that their efforts were actually in opposition to the necessary process of avoiding degeneration. If they were somehow able to achieve their ideals of protecting everyone, they would then experience genetic degeneration.

>>13911202
That is fine but you still haven't adressed my argument. Are we simply called to allow our gene pool to degenerate?

[Anonymous No.13911225]

>>13907620
Cooperating tribe has better chance of survival than the one which doesn´t protect the weak. You never know when the weak will be needed or when the strong will get weak.

[Anonymous No.13911238]

>>13911214
Just because you help someone who needs it doesn't mean they will reproduce or have healthy offspring. On aggregate it's not going to mean much.

On the other hand, if you mean degenerate by miscegenation that's another matter. The races were made intentionally distinct and race mixing is to defile His creation.

[Anonymous No.13911262]

>>13911225
Yeah I get that but my main problem is with
>>13907824
>>13911214
I'm sorry for not including it in the OP.

>>13911238
>Just because you help someone who needs it doesn't mean they will reproduce
I'm fairly certain pretty much everyone who lives and can reproduce will or has found someone to reproduce with.
> or have healthy offspring
Once they are born aren't they also considered someone worthy of protecting?

[Anonymous No.13911267]

>>13911214
Needing help is not a good determination of genetic fitness. There are plenty of people who live just fine but carry very dangerous hereditary diseases.

Individuals with serious deformities comprise are a very, very insignificant portion of the population. And nature determines that they are usually sterile and/or not found attractive.

Before you say, well women can always find someone, the Y-chromosome is by far the driving force in mutation.

[Anonymous No.13911278]

>>13911262
Without modern medicine, there is very little chance they would survive. The kind of medicine we have now is a contradiction of God's will.

[Anonymous No.13911287]

>>13911267
>Needing help is not a good determination of genetic fitness
I get that but there is at least some correlation, and with sufficient time the effect will show itself. That's the nature of probability.

>>13911278
So you do think the weak should die?

[Anonymous No.13911289]

>>13911214
No civilization has ever been able to protect everyone perfectly. We aren't even fully capable of it now. As technology improves we get better and better at doing so, conversely we avoid degeneration as our technology improves too. Negative and positive mutations are completely minor in such a huge gene pool, and most things can get treated by our medicine / technology anyway.

Transhumanism negates the need for eugenics if you think that protecting the weak might lead to a weak race.

[Anonymous No.13911290]

>>13911287
and by time I mean across an arbitrary amount of generations

[Anonymous No.13911305]

>>13911262
To keep someone alive who is just perpetually suffering is not helping them. Not advocating euthanasia even. But it's fine to withdraw the aid (eg. using machines to keep someone alive) which goes against nature anyway.

[Anonymous No.13911334]

>>13911289
Transhumanism is against God. The serpent in Eden is the originator of Transhumanism "Ye shall become like gods". Eternal Life only comes through the Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Anonymous No.13911366]

>>13911289
>No civilization has ever been able to protect everyone perfectly.
I know but that would mean previous civilizations only avoided degeneration because they were unable to achieve their desires of protecting everyone.

Do you believe the solution to this problem could be that previous civilizations were so busy protecting people that they didn't need to worry about avoiding degenerations because the counterforce to degeneration would happen anyway, and eugenics would only become a necessity if they were able to protect everyone. Essentially these civilization would only be obligated to enact eugenics once they first took care of protecting the weak, so they weren't wrong to try protecting everyone? Since they never faced that reality, they never would be obligated to enact eugenics
Essentially I think civilization should be obligated to protect without allowing genetic degeneration.
I'm fine with eugenics as a concept, but my issue is that I don't want to condemn previous civilization who sought to protect everyone.

>>13911334
Transhumanism doesn't imply immortality. They will eventually die through equipment failure or entropy.

[Anonymous No.13911392]

>>13911366
>They will eventually die
The intent to live "forever" through hubris and their own designs is against God. The fact that they will eventually die is just irony. Satan is obviously not going to win.

[Anonymous No.13911409]

>>13911334
>Ye shall become like Gods
Shouldn't we all strive to be more like God? Is that not what holiness is?

[Anonymous No.13911413]

>>13911409
I think the difference is trying to become like God vs trying to become your own God

[Anonymous No.13911424]

>>13911409
Yes by becoming humble and repenting. Not by seizing it because we think we can do better than God. Read literally any story in the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.13911441]

>>13911424
>God tells man to do x
>Man thinks nah, I'll do y
>It turns out really, really bad

Repeat with subtle variations.

That's most of the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.13911534]

>>13907620
The strongest primates aren't strong enough to live on their own. In the case of primates, groups and cooperation proved a better strategy than autonomy.

[Anonymous No.13912893]

>>13907620
You have to define "strong" and "weak" first. Also we don't know what traits will be valuable in the future. Who the fuck knew low testosterone autistic men will be the driving force of humanity in the future? If you told Grug that that one weak retard who can't hunt for shit is secretly genius he'd laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.13913914]

>>13907620
domination by prestige to gain status and help in future endeavors and maintain hierarchy , it's already observed in animals specifically in groups that aren't that large ( a bird specifically was studied, can't remember the name )

[Anonymous No.13914339]

>>13912893
I suppose I value physical power and the ability to reason. I just fear that there must be some power to maintain their presence in our genetics, and I feel like the only way to do that involves killing those without physical power and reason. Even if these are hard to define I still think it's clear that some people are certainly less talented than others in these avenues.

[Anonymous No.13914525]

>>13907673
And your argument fails because it assumes absolute homeostasis is possible or indeed that human nature is monolithic/universal in the first place. We will change as a matter of fact, and
we can either influence that process wisely or ignore/deny its relevance at our own peril.

It's funny that you place 'for the greater good' in scare quotes, then go on to talk about loving humanity (as if it's a monolithic whole) and the 'costly means' of eugenics. Costly to whom? Why is it so costly? Isn't subsidizing the procreation of the weak as we currently do -- rapidly inflating a consuming population -- going to be the most costly policy of all?

As to your "What's the point?", I find this to be the most pertinent question:
Would you rather have existed as some kind of ancestor rodent than a human? Why not?

[Anonymous No.13914574]

>>13911289
I'm sorry but transhumanism isn't even on the horizon yet, and certainly not in a form that would do an end-run around genetics. Our current medicine/technology takes resources and is not a panacea -- it can even cause problems. Furthermore, it seems more than likely that active eugenics would be a necessary element in the lead-up to transhumanism.

[Anonymous No.13914589]

Because humans are arranged within a society where nobody has the 'strength' to face the destructive forces of nature, even relative differences of intelligence/perception/physical strength in individuals are pitiful compared to the struggle against brute nature.

[Anonymous No.13915196]

>>13910933
yep most people dont understand what "fit" means. its simply adapting to the environment the best. the whole point of existentialism is that being precedes essence. How we evolved to get to where we are is irrelevant to the great challenge we face in life. We exist and thats all that matters