For instance, a no ethics policy would say there is no reason to protect children from harm that is less than fatal. True, the genes will go on, but without ethics the state of the infrastructure that supports reproduction, that is society, collapses.
To the extent that the infrastructure or society supports or for facilitates survival and reproduction, it has value - but only to that extent. Comfort is not necessary unless it somehow supports or facilitates survival or reproduction. Again, only to the extent that it does.
You need people to be able to come together to work together for mutual good as no one is completely self sustainable therefore society is necessary.
A person can survive on his own, though being part of a pack or society would likely increase his odds of survival and reproduction. To that extent and to that extent only, it has value.
You need boundaries to allow people to work together and provide common ground. You need to say there is a point beyond which we will not sink because that point only leads down a bad road.
The only thing that is bad, is things that are counter to survival or reproduction - either directly or indirectly.
Education is necessary because no one comes into the world with all the information they need. What counts as education is subjective but there is always a form of it. Also, Education allows for efficiency, if done right, in creating skilled people who support the infrastructure of society.
To the extent that education supports survival or reproduction, it has value. Knowing how to select adequate food or build fire will certainly augment one's ability to survive. Knowing something that has absolutely nothing to do with survival or reproduction is meaningless. There is no value in having knowledge of a fictional story unless that knowledge somehow augments survival or reproduction.
Everyone can't survive on just hunter gathering, not that current ways are perfect, but being able to do things like farm, construct more sturdy structure for storage and living, and so forth are necessary, generally speaking, to start to make a society more resistant to getting wiped out completely.
There was a time when people were hunter/gatherers. There may still be some such tribes in remote parts of the world. Those who are incapable of satisfying their basic needs will not survive. With the aid of a community, such people can survive, but whether that's a good thing or not is the subject of another debate. ( It's certainly a merciful thing, but does being merciful and charitable to those who cannot provide for themselves aid it survival and reproduction, or does it take away? )
** I do realize that this is a sensitive topic. I have some family members who are incapable of providing for their own needs. I would never toss them out into the cold to lighten the load or enhance the gene pool so to speak.
Art is necessary because it can stimulate thoughts and feelings.
Art is not required, however, I think that it is completely unavoidable. To me, art is where near-chaos touches logic. I think this is basically what life is - a fusion of near randomness with predictability.
Humans are very much into what they can sense and art involves appealing to those. But admitedly art is very powerful. It can inspire and it can demoralize, thus it can be used to tear down or build up, but it can move people to take action towards things that help them define their society. For instance, many a photography has a collection of everyday life pictures to bring awareness and appreciation for people who may not get as much appreciation as they deserve but make society as we know it possible.
If it does not stop us from surviving or reproducing, then we do not need it. If it enhances these, then it has value but only to the extent in which it does.
"Please sir, tell me what you mean by the verb "to matter"? "Matter" to whom or what, when, and in what sense please? And what you mean by "survival"- as in individual or cultural or species or? And finally what you mean by "reproduction"? For only then, when we occupy the same battlefield of time and space, and the same "horizon of history" (Gadamer), can the tussle commence...
I should be more careful about using the words "Matter" and "Significance"
Survival and Reproduction are required in order for our kind to continue living.
By reproduction, I mean literally having offspring that will perpetuate our kind.
I would consider something significant, but not required if it aids in reproduction and survival.
Knowing how to build fire is significant but not required for survival.
-- added to further clarify...
I was recently contemplating the meaning of life and thought to myself, perhaps there is no great meaning or purpose. Perhaps our ultimate purpose is simply to reproduce and avoid becoming extinct. ( If we become extinct, then that's ok.. that's just natures way of wiping out the mistakes and continuing with her her work. )
"And what you mean by "survival"- as in individual or cultural or species or?"
- I guess I would say species ( but lets not get into what happens if our species splits into two chains, that's outside of the point )
By reproduction I mean reproducing for the sake of surviving over the long haul. For the human race to survive beyond a single lifetime, a significant portion of it must reproduce and provide an adequate amount of offspring that is capable of reproducing in return. When it fails to reproduce or survive, it ends.
How much reproduction is needed for the race to survive is another story. Too much could be almost as bad as too little.
