depends

Maybe there is one, or maybe there isn't. My purpose is to have fun, and to relax with my Kissu frens.

to enjoyeee

the intention or purpose of life is to propagate itself
whether that's the same as the meaning of life, not sure

There is none. Just do what you find fulfilling and have a good time while you're here.

>>587
That's not the purpose of life so much as it is a byproduct of natural selection. Organisms with the instinct to propagate themselves are the ones that survive, leading to more organisms with the same instinct.

There is no meaning of anything, because they are all just particles interact with each other according to physical laws.
Everything you do is already predetermined. Your mind thinks you have control over your action but it's just a passive feeling like seeing and hearing.

To contribute to the economy of your nation.

i meaning to life and throw banana @ Anonymous

>>589
self propagation is by no means a by product but is the product of life,
it is a defining characteristic of life
this isn’t to say that an organism that cannot self replicate isn’t alive but rather it’s defective; an exception to the rule

who cares, just do fun things

To observe, probably.

People tend to look at this in micro terms but if we zoom out then the meaning of life becomes completely different. The meaning of life changes from procreation to the sustainment and cultivation of the ecosystem, if a deer dies childless but serves a meal for a tiger has he not served a purpose? If that Tiger dies childless but thins the herd of the sick and elderly then has he not served a purpose? In that sense just procreation alone can be damaging to the meaning of life, as is perfectly evident with the myriad population of humans we see and the impact that is having in the environment.

>>633
>the myriad population of humans we see and the impact that is having in the environment.
This is pointed out a lot, but I really wonder just how the worth would cope if humans were to cease existing. Might it be the case that there's already a critical mass of pollutants, plastics, and greenhouse gases that without humans the course the environment is going won't change much? From that perspective, if things are already rather messed up to where doing nothing will lead to further environmental damage, then it follows that only humans might be capable of dealing with those things as well.

>>634
>worth
*world

>>634
No. Plastics and pollutants are an issue but not an issue that life cannot live through(aside from in some very severe cases), the moment we stop existing they will start decreasing as well.

Green house gases(so Climate change) is also misunderstood as well. It changes the environment, but it does not actually make it uninhabitable and in many ways life would actually prefer the environment we are creating, but it will cause huge changes and those animals that are not in a good position to deal with that will die off.

The biggest impact we actually have on the ecosystem is far blunter, we simply kill these animals and destroy their habitats. Think of all the land in the world that is used up simply to house people or for the services people require like stores and workplaces and then add all the land that is used up for agriculture. This is particularly harsh on big cats, there are actually very few Tigers in the wild. But if we left that land would start being inhabited by wildlife again and tigers would be able to start roaming it again.

>>636
I knew all that, I was just pointing it out in terms of conserving currently existing species. On a long enough timescale, the Earth has shown that life can pretty much survive through just about anything, but what form that life takes is highly variable due to the conditions at the time. From this perspective, conservation is also sort of becomes a moot point since on a long enough time scale (assuming humans continue existing) new species will arise that can deal with all of the harm that previous species were not adapted to deal with.

>>637
Yes, in regards to climate change which is why I am not worried about that(in regards to life) but not in terms of human foot print. A tree can't adapt to grow in the middle of a road and stay there without being removed anymore than a large cat could evolve to live in the city without being shot.

>>633
We’re talking about a different “life”. I assumed we were talking in the context of what is the meaning of “life” an “individual” has not what is the meaning of “life” as a system.
Though taking you’re idea of zooming out to the next level, life is just one of the many processes that decrease the overall entropy of the universe and its purpose is to do just that.

>>640
It's connected which is my point, even within a species. Many animals, most in many species do not reproduce yet they still fill vital roles and contribute to not just the ecosystem but to their species and even family. Partly this is simply because most animals do not live to adulthood but even so many animals operate in groups with an alpha male who is the only one who breeds such as with horses or with a family unit with a breeding mother and father such as with wolves. And of course famously we have the case of the ants.

There's more to life, than life.

>>642
life is made up of the questions that define life