[–] Phoenix_MD 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Star Trek concludes good (i.e. Vulcans), whereas Dr. Who concludes evil (i.e. Cybermen or Daleks; assuming purely logical = absence of emotions)
[–] Phoenix_MD ago
Logic is based on evidence, whereas emotions are based on feelings, which very wildly based on hormonal changes. To be purely emotional is to be without logic, and vice versa.
[–] Delonyem 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
There's no logical goal to life. No matter what, it all ends the same way, everyone dies. Beings that like to reproduce for no reason tend to do better than those that don't. Thus a purely logical species can not exist for more than one generation.
[–] Demonic_Mime [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Perhaps they've found a logical goal that you've overlooked.
[–] eightheaded 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
There's no such thing. There'd have to be a minimal emotional component in these beings; without it they'd be too apathetic to care about anything at all.
[–] Demonic_Mime [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think you might be mistaking emotion for drive. Reptiles are emotionless, but they still seek to eat, drink, and reproduce.
[–] Delonyem 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
But is that because they are purely logical? Through pure logic, if you have nothing to strive for, you have no reason to do anything, thus having no drive. Unless, of course, you mean that everyone was trying to reach a goal through purely logical means. For example, reproducing.
[–] zedoriah 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If they were purely logical-minded then everything should end up in a Nash Equilibrium
[–] PeaceOfMind 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Depends on what goals are defined as the most important in said logical society. Propagation of the species? The pursuit of happiness? Minimization of suffering? The behavior of such a race will change based on how such goals are weighted.
[–] alalzia 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Neanderthals were perfectly adapted to their environment, they had larger brains than we do and they created tools much more efficiently . They lived in family size bands only caring for themselves and their close relatives and their trading mostly involved the exchange of females .
Homo Sapient lived in larger tribes who had relations with others in a vast region , they shared their tools and technologies and created bonds through religion & art. Their (our) kids matured slowly in order to adjust into big social groups and those who could contribute more ( elder hunters) were responsible for more and more individuals (wives and kids) .
We are still around while Neanderthals are not .
[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
[–] Demonic_Mime [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
How do you know that?
[–] DrLix ago
Evolution. Most successful species care for their society. Check out bugs they rule the earth and if you don't think they do then look at mammals and how successful they are do to their ability to habitat incredibly variable terrain. Most mammals have some society at some level.