When contemplating the question “what is the meaning of life”, most people are actually concerned with a more precise query: “what is the meaning of my own existence within the greater scheme of things?” The answer to the broader question is not all that difficult to uncover, and as we focus on progressively more specific levels of life, it becomes clear that each complements the whole.
Three words represent the basic concepts which allow us to understand existence: ‘intent’, ‘component’, and ‘enough’. Intent is what defines the difference between living and non-living, everything is ultimately a component of something greater, and ‘enough’ is the measure of things.
Meaning is found in purpose, and the purpose of life-in-general is to perpetuate. Every living thing on this planet, and presumably throughout the universe, functions with this core intent, and all other attributes exist to enable it. This drive to ensure continued existence is inherent to life, which includes the most basic of life-forms comprising each increasingly complex creature or “level”.
Earlier, we drew a parallel between the behaviour of cells in your body, and your place within the human race. Cells are basically self-contained entities functioning within, and usually dependent upon, a greater organism. Single cells also exist in nature as individual life-forms, which illustrates their capacity for autonomy. On a fundamental level, both situations are the same, in that each is a community of cells. All live and die for the good of the greater organism, whether it be the body or species.
Do your cells possess an awareness? They respond to needs, and communicate these needs to one another. They react to circumstances using innate and empirical input, and are therefore “aware”. These simple entities recognize that they are part of a community because they make, and entertain, requests from other cells. When first constructing a viable human being in the womb, they must be conscious of when there are enough cells of any particular type. When in distress, they relay messages to the brain.
Our perception of awareness is subjective, so likening it with that of another form of life is inappropriate; human reality is uniquely “human”. To go a step further, we can ask if basic living things are sentient. Sentience is defined as the ability to feel, and some reserve this attribute for humans alone; yet we can see that animals experience happiness and sadness, suffer pain, and have desires. We cannot confine sentience to a capacity to discern the full range of human emotions and sensations: we do not refer to sociopaths or blind people as non-sentient, simply because they do not experience all that others do.
The capacity to “feel” is relative to the needs of the life-form, and we interpret it from a perspective alien to all other living things. Because emotion and sensation are encoded within the DNA, and since they exist for the purpose of ensuring survival, we must conclude that all life is sentient on some level. Again, we cannot project human values onto non-human forms. Our experiencing of fear, for example, is similar to that of many other animals, yet incomparable to that of creatures where the “fight or flight” response is irrelevant; for what is a basic feeling other than a programmed reaction to stimuli?
When cells in your body are suffering damage, they are experiencing the equivalent of pain. Their response is to send a message to the brain via a chain of nerve cells. The nerve cells are not feeling the pain, since you obviously do not sense a line of discomfort from the point of injury to your head; they are experiencing an awareness of it. The cells in distress are calling out for help, and the others are taking their message to a higher level of sentience.
As we know, your awareness as an individual is the sum of the fragments of information held by your cells. If the source of the aforementioned pain is having your hand too close to a flame, you will draw your hand away. If the problem is the onset of a viral attack, you will not consciously detect the distress signal from your cells, but your brain will release chemicals and dispatch cells to deal with the situation. Here we see that there are three levels of awareness present within a complex life-form: cellular, conscious, and subconscious; each existing as the total of its components.
A cell is self-aware; “eating”, “breathing”, and reproducing, while interacting with its environment and others of its kind. It apparently knows that there is something greater than itself, for it must “believe” in the existence of the mind, to ask assistance from it. We can be somewhat safe in assuming that a cell does not “think” about the entity that responds to its messages, being that the capacity to reason abstractly would serve no purpose for a life-form existing on this level. The knowledge pertaining to these stages of awareness is innate, and because every cell contains the blueprint used to create this system, all know their function within it.
We can make a comparison between the cellular community and government. In theory, government exists as a representation of the will of the people, serving the best interests of the masses. Of course in practice it is usually quite the opposite, with the population subservient to a monolithic system of controls meant to primarily benefit a select few. Nevertheless, ideally a group of people were intended to respond to the needs of the whole, maintaining the best possible conditions for the community, while directing the actions of the various components of it in order to accomplish this. A government exists because the community is relatively healthy; for if there is no society to serve, there is nobody to govern.
Government is perceived as an entity unto itself, yet it is actually the sum of the portions of knowledge held by each of its components. Almost all systems have a specific leader, yet in most cases this is a symbolic position, and in situations where one person appears to wield authoritarian power, there are always thousands of people at lower levels who are making the system function; without their input, a ruler would be unable to hold such a position.
Political institutions reflect innate programming, and are a representation of our primate clan behaviour. We can compare it with cellular activity only in a perfunctory way, since the competitive nature of politics separates it from the purely logical order of the body.
The cellular level of awareness resembles the interaction among people in general. The members of either community commonly cooperate to maintain the vibrancy of the whole, while dysfunctional individuals are removed, whether it be through the destruction of defective cells, or segregation of antisocial humans. Sacrifices are made by some for the betterment of all, and though this psychological altruism is evident in both microbiology and social animals, it is also where man can differ from the cellular model. The human capacity for selfishness allows an individual to prioritize their own desires over the needs of all others. Clearly, if your cells were capable of such actions, the result would be the demise of the entire organism: meaning you and every cell you are comprised of.
The communal nature of living things is innate, and the responses on this level of awareness are by design; that is to say, they are preprogrammed into the components of each species or level of life, in order to ensure perpetuation. Although humans are aberrant due to their aptitude for self-serving behaviour, overall, we have been altruistic enough to permit our continued survival.
Putting aside the competition amid various denominations, the fundamental concept of religion is the belief in a superior force which controls existence. While individual cells “cry out” to a higher level of awareness when in need, many humans likewise beseech their god. The sentience of the body is the sum of its components: similarly, Eastern beliefs consider everything to be a part of God, while Western faiths use omnipresence, considering God as being everywhere. Religion mimics a natural hierarchy, but is this coincidence, an innate comprehension of structure, or something more?
It could be suggested that the concept of God is a reflection of our natural tendency to establish a pecking order; that our herd instinct leads us to create an ultimate Alpha male. But this would be contrary to primate intent, because each individual innately strives to be the Alpha. If you acknowledge a perpetually superior “male”, all others cannot supplant him. Most male animals spend a lifetime attempting to establish that they are the best of their kind, to ensure mating opportunities; and regardless of how we manifest this drive, humans all live by this rule.
All societies, past and present, have created a version of a sentience beyond our own, even in complete isolation. Obviously, the Western proclivity for fashioning gods in man’s image is a cultural phenomenon without empirical substance, and although much the same can be said of Eastern pantheistic-like beliefs, it is also obvious that they contain a logical element.
As discussed earlier, we cannot detect life-force. Bacteria and other simple organisms can appear to be dead, even for centuries, yet reanimate when conditions are favourable. Capable of existing independently of biological functions, once this force returns to an organism, the life-form continues on with its innate agenda, and in the case of frozen human reproductive cells, construct a perfectly normal being of phenomenal complexity. The difference between a cocktail of elements, and a living thing, is this animating catalyst.
Is religion the manifestation of our conscious level of awareness of a life-enabling energy? A force of a generic nature could account for how species direction is determined, and just as your sentience is made up of the information contained in each of your cells, the sum of human knowledge could be considered as another level of sentience.
When the brain reacts to input from other parts of the body, it is still a case of cells responding to cells. Innate programming enables a simple cause and effect reaction on a subconscious level, the brain cells assigned the duty of applying the instinctive information hard-wired into every cell. Conscious response is based on empirical data; no one cell in the body has enough knowledge to respond to such stimuli, and in a complex organism, only the brain cells store that which is learned. For you to react to a situation that requires applying knowledge gained from experience, you must do so as the entity which is the absolute sum of the contributions made by the lesser entities comprising your individuality.
Even if cells were able to contemplate the significance of being components of a greater whole, the fact that each retains only a minuscule piece of the knowledge necessary to understand this reality means that it would be impossible to fully comprehend its intricacies. Projecting this onto human constituents of a “species awareness” yields the same conclusion.
But your cells are part of a community, all living in close proximity to one another, and the synaptic gaps are infinitesimal; how can we compare this contained bio-system to a species distributed across an entire planet? Yet what is ‘close’, when distance is subject to human perception? We can communicate over great expanses via wireless technology, transferring vast amounts of data using a minimal amount of energy. Mere watts of power allow people on Earth to interact with probes in the far reaches of our solar system. Considering the incredible potential energy harnessed within a single atom, distance is not a hindrance to biological communication beyond a microscopic level.
Proximity is relative to the time it takes energy to cross a given space. Thought processes in your mind seem instantaneous, but are actually restricted by the speed of light, which limits known forms of energy to approximately three hundred thousand kilometres per second. Although ensuring the survival of an individual sometimes requires an almost instantaneous reaction, the perpetuation of a species does not. A species reacts via evolution, and this is accomplished generation by generation. Speed is not a factor when response intervals substantially exceed the time it would take to communicate. This is assuming that all energy obeys the velocity-of-light limitation, otherwise the argument is unnecessary.
Is it possible that mankind, and similarly other types of life, function as components of a “species sentience” without our being fully aware of the role each of us fulfills? Being that our participation would be on a subconscious level, and each of us is the repository for mere billionths of the knowledge required to create the sum of such an awareness, comprehending it would be logically impossible.
One thing becomes clear when we consider the process of evolution: a model based on random mutation is unworkable. Complex organs cannot spontaneously, and accidentally, develop. Darwin himself admitted that the evolution of an eye, for example, was inexplicable. The concept of minor alterations making a creature the “fittest”, and subsequently having its offspring inadvertently, yet somehow progressively, mutating through each generation until a usable organ is completed, does not make sense.
A life-form in transition is at some stage inferior to the previously functional design, and is incapable of benefiting from the as yet incomplete attribute. Evolutionary theory holds that air-breathing animals developed from sea creatures. Obviously an animal which fortuitously acquires the physiology to be slightly better suited for breathing air, rather than water, is now at a disadvantage in its natural environment. In this situation, as in all others of a similar nature, we encounter a scenario where evolution becomes “survival of the frailest”.
Earlier we covered genetic prioritizing, where a trait which is initially a handicap will be replicated in subsequent generations because it will ultimately result in an evolutionary advantage; a reflection of the intent evident in life. This is most easily accounted for by applying the concept of a collective sentience, and a related factor supports such a conclusion: some effects appear to be related to “common thought”, rather than shared programming.
One example can be found in a recent (by evolutionary measures) development. Humans have been increasing in height over the past few centuries, which according to the fossil record, also occurred at various times earlier in our evolution. In the Developed World, our increase in stature can be partly attributed to better nutrition and possibly even the use of growth hormones in livestock production, but overall the primary factor is behavioural. All studies indicate that women, both consciously and subconsciously, use height as a determining factor when choosing a sexual partner, so we see a tendency toward offspring which are genetically predisposed to be taller. This does not end here, for research shows that men also make a value-judgment: tall males are more likely to be promoted within business, and subsequently tend to have more material wealth, making them desirable as provider-mates.
This “subconscious prioritizing” applies to men who are above average in height, yet not to those who are exceptionally so. But if tall is good, why isn’t tallest best? Being herd animals, we shy away from that which is too distinctive and does not conform to what we perceive as normal. Living things change to suit their environment, and patterns in breeding result in an appropriate size at the appropriate time. Simply promoting the largest, or smallest, of creatures causes excessive variation within a species, and is contrary to the goal of producing a uniform adaptation, ensuring the vibrancy of the species as a whole. In this situation prejudice is instinctive, and serves the purpose of keeping life-forms within definable limits, while aberrations remain insignificant.
At some point, the subconscious promotion of taller humans will stop, unless we are intended to continuously increase in size; which is highly unlikely considering our already phenomenal drain upon the planet’s resources. The last of the Woolly Mammoths, for example, were dramatically smaller than the earlier creatures. An alteration in the makeup of a species must begin in advance of an environmental change, or be done quickly enough, to avoid the risk of extinction. On the other hand, mating patterns must change early to prevent “overshooting the target”, otherwise a species becomes unfit for a different, albeit corresponding reason. We see a parallel, to what happens when a niche is missed, in certain animals which man has selectively bred to be smaller, as pets; or larger, as livestock. Most cannot survive in nature, and are condemned to forever live as man’s possessions.
The reason we cannot simply attribute this trend, of taller people, to a genetic stimuli-response is due to the variety of conditions experienced by our species. Humans live in climates ranging from arctic to desert, and the artificial environment we create for ourselves is in no way uniform across all cultures. Although we see racial variations related to environment, for example Inuit are generally shorter than the inhabitants of more temperate regions; the overall effect is the same relative to the local gene pool.
Concluding that the sum of a specie’s awareness equals a collective sentience resolves the problems with evolution and genetics. It permits the widespread and simultaneous changes seen in evolution regardless of local conditions. A programmed genetic trigger would require similar empirical stimuli, whereas a common awareness could initiate genetic prioritizing, not only stimulating the brain cells to enable the turning on and off of particular genes in reproductive cells, but also the behavioural changes which perpetuate a new genetic map.
Commonality accounts for species intent, and also allows for the overriding of individual intent. Each cell can be concerned with self-perpetuation, while the brain modifies this purpose by being able to direct the sacrifice of some for the greater good of the entire organism; ultimately guaranteeing the survival of the vast majority of individual cells. A greater sentience would explain why life-forms evolve with what is in the best interests of the species as the motivating factor, rather than that of the individual.
The basic mechanics of such a concept are not that difficult to fathom. Physical substance (genetic material and the organisms containing it) provides the means to perpetuate life under practically any condition. Reproductive chromosome-pairing permits an almost endless number of possibilities; but these would be entirely random without a reason to prioritize certain genes, and a cause for mating preferences.
The mental aspect of reproduction is of utmost importance in relation to evolution because the physical side is so rigid. Gene combinations follow logical patterns, and specific pairings will lead to an increased likelihood of certain results: two tall people are more likely to produce tall children; intelligent individuals will tend to have bright offspring. Due to dominant and recessive traits, some couplings cannot vary from set programming: two blue-eyed people cannot create anything other than a blue-eyed child. To cause trends in evolution, the random factor must be rendered insignificant, and this requires that persons with the “appropriate” genes develop an attraction for each other, and people with unsuitable coding primarily desire those with the favoured characteristics. A species awareness would then be a methodology for the optimization of genetic resources; the perpetuation of life dependent upon the physical, yet governed by the mental (or spiritual) aspect of existence.
But what of our earlier example concerning the evolution of the ability to breathe air; how would creatures choose mates which are more likely to develop lungs, when no such organs exist? We would have to conclude that a species sentience also enables cellular differentiation, and that the capacity for such gene activation requires that the “hard-coding” preexist. This brings an interesting anomaly into the argument: if differentiation can be controlled on this level, there is no need for behavioural direction because reproductive cells would all be capable of developing offspring with the needed attribute, regardless of parentage.
Since mating choices are significant, and some results cannot be achieved by the wrong pairing, the importance of genetic diversity becomes apparent. Only a portion of a species has the potential to produce a given alteration, so this potential must be exploited in order to ensure perpetuation. The random mutations discussed earlier do not just create dissimilarity for the purpose of having sufficient variety to guarantee the survival of enough members of a species, but also provide a genetic resource for the evolution of attributes that do not exist in the population. New combinations can bring about original results. Evolution must also preserve life which is not the “fittest”, in order to secure the future. Life does not have to be wholly cyclical, nor is it necessary for all possibilities to be encoded in the chromosomes, if a species sentience can exploit the potential within the gene pool.
Variety may be the “spice” of life, but on a fundamental level, it is the essence of life. All individuals are valuable because of their genetic potential. Since certain genetic patterns are impossible to achieve for some members of a species, we can make another comparison to microbiology. Cells within a complex organism serve different purposes by design. A heart cell cannot substitute for a brain cell, and although at conception they begin as one and the same cell, once assigned a role through differentiation, they are locked into their destiny. Humans, of course, reproduce sexually rather than by division, yet destiny is likewise determined at conception through unique pairings of chromosomes, and in a similar way we fulfill specific genetic roles.
One can even speculate on parallels in the physical structure of each level of life. Like the body, is there a portion of humanity that functions as the “brain”, while the remainder serves other purposes? Are those people, who never think outside of very narrow parameters and simply exist as blindly obedient herd animals, predestined to be that way? It could be suggested that average overall intelligence is dropping not just because the number of offspring an individual produces is relative to intellect, but also due to proportionality. A person has the same number of brain cells when weighing fifty kilograms, as they do at one hundred, although the total number of cells in their body doubles. If you simply divide their total “mental capacity” by number of cells, the result for their heavier persona will be lower; albeit an irrelevant calculation. Applying this to population, if a set number of people possess a level of abstract reasoning ability which represents the “brain” of humanity, any increase in those representing “mass” dilutes the sum; which is also an insignificant computation.
Of course, such speculation is just that, and if it were true, there would be no appreciable effect on a species sentience regardless of variations in populace, because the “brain” would always remain the same size. From this perspective, a small human population is just as “bright” as a large one.
If we assume the existence of a collective awareness composed of all the members of a particular type of living thing, it follows that the possibility of an even greater level of sentience must be considered. The argument supporting commonality can also be applied to the sum of all life on this planet. Life forms are interdependent, and each species perseveres because of its complementary relationship with other living things. For life to perpetuate and progress, it must be diverse and interconnected in order to adapt to an ever-changing world.
Numerous creatures survive by relying upon other specific life-forms, and the extinction of one will frequently lead to the demise of the other. The introduction of a species into a different ecosystem can have a devastating impact on the native flora and fauna. A balance is maintained in nature, and disturbing it causes living things to either adapt or die out. There does not appear to be any pattern relevant to a life-form’s resiliency: strong and versatile creatures may perish, while fragile ones thrive, yet equilibrium is ultimately restored. It may not always appear to us that order will return to a disrupted ecosystem, but then we perceive time from a human perspective, which is the briefest of moments in the overall scheme of things.
The simplest way to account for the incredible complexities of inter-species interaction is to conclude that a total of the awareness, encompassing all creatures within our biosphere, exists. This permits not only balance, but a method of prioritization, where certain forms of life can be sacrificed in order to ensure the perpetuation of life-in-general: inhibiting the evolution of those living things which no longer fill a role within the system.
Obviously, from this perspective, some life-forms have more value than others. Although we lack the mental capacity to ascertain why particular creatures must adapt to every circumstance, whereas others cannot, we can see that our attempts to eradicate unwanted forms usually fail, while our best efforts at protecting desirable ones are often futile. The essential type of living thing appears to be bacteria, and if we were capable of eliminating its many varieties, all life would quickly vanish from our planet.
Man would also appear to be of value in nature: no creature is more of a threat to the perpetuation of life on this planet, and nothing on Earth causes more damage to the biosphere; yet we persist. This is not to say that man is indispensable. Barring human intervention, our planet has billions of years of relative stability ahead, a period long enough for the entire sequence of evolution to repeat itself several times. In fact, the universal decline in human fertility, and the phenomenal mutation rate of viruses which prey upon us, may be indicative of a change in our status.
If it is the attribute of abstract reasoning which is the commodity valued by nature, permitting mankind to persevere despite our ruinous character, then there are numerous creatures only a short evolutionary step away from us. Would an animal such as the gorilla actually be better suited for dominance? Having moved further up the evolutionary ladder, perhaps this intelligent peaceful herbivore could advance its own science while living in harmony with nature. Humans, after all, are predators, and see other creatures as prey; whereas gorillas are fascinated by other forms of life.
In actuality, life-in-general is far more resilient than many people realize. Mankind can scorch the face of the planet, yet bacteria will survive to begin the process anew. Humans can blast Earth into pieces, and life will still continue elsewhere. Environmentalists may often seem to be more concerned about the well being of other living things, rather than that of humans, but in reality their efforts are meant to ensure that mankind remains a viable part of the ecology of this planet. We can be replaced, and subsequently, with the passage of time, all the harm we have caused can be undone.
The capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to sustain knowledge from generation to generation, increases the likelihood of organisms spreading beyond a finite world. If we accept the idea that progression is part of the perpetuation of life, and intelligence has value because it serves this purpose, we must then consider a level of sentience in addition to that of Earth.
As discussed earlier, the most logical explanation for the existence of life on this planet is that microorganisms arrived from somewhere else and began the evolutionary process. The fact that life progresses, and because this attribute would then be inherent to living things which were once alien to our world, means that common intent is shared with life elsewhere in the universe. This being the case, the drive to continue further than the limitations set by a planet’s life-span, and having the capacity to do so (as demonstrated by the bacteria aboard the Surveyor spacecraft), would require a “sum of all life” to account for the existence of these qualities. The mechanics which enable the levels of awareness discussed thus far, apply to the next logical step: if it is possible for each level to be a component of the following one, then there would be a totality of all life, because the existence of the lesser must lead to the greater. Being that a packet of sand is subject to all the laws of physics, a satchel of those packets must also be governed by the same rules, in the same relative way.
How should we perceive categories of life above that of the two we are intimately familiar with? Cells are self-aware, because they fulfill their individual needs in order to exist and perpetuate their kind, and humans do likewise in a more complex way. Is a species sentience self-aware? One would think that this is a given, since its components contribute to a whole, and the parts perform the equivalent role. The same can be said of planetary and universal forms of sentience.
It would be inappropriate to project the feelings experienced by individual life-forms onto distinct levels of awareness, for each reacts to the conditions present in a vastly different realm. However, there would be common equivalents to what we see as emotional responses. Almost all of what we experience is connected to our own preservation, and that of our genetic legacy; we simply overcomplicate these basic drives. Cells are also primarily responding to the same innate programming, with exceptions due to the brain overriding these drives in order to protect the entire organism. In a comparable way, a species “brain” would be responsible for directing actions which preserve the health of the species/organism.
A species functions with the preeminence of the whole as the driving force; it reproduces even to the point where its own future is threatened, whereupon external forces intervene to restore balance: the “brain” supersedes the tendency to focus only on “self” preservation.
Life on each planet is condemned to extinction, because eventually every world comes to an end. From the grand perspective, perpetuation is pointless without the potential to endure. If progression provides the opportunity for life to continue elsewhere when a biosphere’s time is up, then a universal awareness would govern the equilibrium of life-in-general, controlling the indiscriminate spreading of life; where the arrival of the wrong life-form could doom another world’s creatures.
It is easiest to consider every level of sentience as an organism, each acting in a similar way. Man is the sum of the microorganisms constituting the individual. Our species is humanity, and the attributes specific to our kind are the characteristics of our species sentience. Life on Earth is nature, the “living thing” which adapts to any environmental change, with fluctuations in the number and variety of its components altering its character, but not its fundamental purpose. The sum of all life that exists is comparable to what humans perceive as god; it is also “nature”, but on an all-encompassing level.
Although we can consider each form of awareness as an organism, they cannot be distinguished as entities in a human sense. A single brain cell is not a person in miniature, nor is our solar system the same thing as the universe, even though both are referred to as “space”. Humans attempt to personify nature/god; but mankind is simply a minuscule ingredient of the whole, with value only as it relates to all other living things, and is important only because of the niche it fills.
“God” would bear less resemblance to a man, being several levels removed, than you do to one of your cells. “God” is no more a “creator”, than you are the creator of your own component life-forms; all the cells in your body owe their existence to a single zygote, which was physically passed from other individuals, and so on backward through time. Nature is more aptly perceived as an “enabler”: governing the interaction and existence of the diverse life-forms which are its constituents, to ensure the perpetuation of life-in-general.
Microorganisms, mankind, our biosphere, and every other form and level of life in the universe are components of an organism which is infinite, both in size and duration. The universe itself can be considered as an immortal living thing; “living” in that all creatures provide the spark which is intent, with every inanimate element being the physical ingredients of existence, as they are for all life-forms.
We can only regard the universe from our infinitesimal point in space and time, and solely from a human perspective. Because of this, we cannot empirically validate an existence within levels of awareness. The concept may adequately explain phenomenon which are otherwise inexplicable, and provide a model based on observable aspects of microbiology and animal interaction, yet it must be founded on inductive, rather than deductive, reasoning.
Just as one of your cells cannot journey outside of you to interpret the world and determine the existence of the higher forms which it embodies, using the sensations and sentient capacity available to it; we could not comprehend nor detect something of a similar nature because we encounter the equivalent handicaps. However, whether a hierarchy of life is provable, or something we only perceive as fact, is of little consequence. Seeing existence from this perspective provides one with a reasonable model for how and why life is, and allows a person to possess a sense of purpose and worth; while causing only positive effects.
If we decide to live by a philosophy acknowledging that from our perspective, the universe is composed of progressively larger and smaller aggregations, how does it affect our perception of life as individuals; and how do we benefit from such an attitude?
All living things share an innate sense of purpose: driven by powerful sexual urges to perpetuate their kind, endowed with the instinct for self-preservation, and possessing the ability to make personal sacrifices for the good of others; these innate qualities ensure the continuation of life, and do not require any thought be put toward their function. Humans appear to be the only creatures with the capacity, or inclination, to analyze these attributes of existence. Although all people are capable of contemplating their place in the universe, a significant proportion of them do not, and simply focus their attention on concerns which impact their day-to-day lives. This is not necessarily a negative thing; for it is the way almost all other life-forms exist. However, due to our sheer numbers, and the impact this has on the environment, a segment of mankind must be aware of the consequences of various human activities, and act to influence the direction we take; otherwise nature will “take its course”, with dire consequences.
Contrary to what we are conditioned to believe, politicians and the rich do not represent the “brain” of our species. The majority of these people function on a very simple level, their desire for power and wealth a manifestation of the purely sexual competitive drive. Most individuals who enter politics receive a relatively modest salary, considering the responsibilities of the position, yet, of those not already rich, many leave politics as multimillionaires; it is interesting that their total income during their time in office amounts to a few hundred-thousand dollars, while their bank accounts grow disproportionately. Obviously, all but a few are in it for something other than altruistic motives.
Leaders of industry and government are typically people with the gumption to exploit the apathy of the general populace, and on a conscious level, are driven by self-serving impulses. The fact that they often have above-average intelligence is somewhat insignificant. Mental acuity is merely a human measure of value; nature has no use for mathematics: everything is measured as “enough”, “not enough”, or “more than enough”. An extensive vocabulary, a capacity to benefit from a costly education, and the ability to retain specialized knowledge, may be qualities respected by humans, but ultimately they are only characteristic of a portion of mankind; itself only an infinitesimal part of an interminable organism.
The worth of a creature or species is subject to its complementary relationship with all other life, and not its specific attributes. “Lesser” primates have rated as high as the equivalent of the thirty-fifth percentile on human intelligence scales, which means that thirty-four percent of people are less intelligent than some apes. This does not make these particular apes human, nor a third of us orangutans and chimps; that which is innate, and species-specific, identifies us as what we are.
Intelligence is the measure of one’s ability to reason, and although it is often related to knowledge and wisdom, these mental attributes are not dependent upon one another. A person can score poorly on an intelligence test, yet be wise and knowledgeable. If you do not have to reason out an original problem yourself, then the other abilities may well be of greater value than any amount of intellect.
The most brilliant of minds is severely handicapped, and may even be dangerous, without the qualities which enable foresight. The people who created the first atomic bomb were concerned that there was a possibility the explosion would cause a chain reaction involving the hydrogen in our atmosphere. They went ahead with their plans, determining that a quicker victory in the war was worth the risk of eliminating all life from the face of the planet. These scientists were obviously intelligent, yet lacked the wisdom to ascertain what constitutes an acceptable risk.
Every person possesses varying amounts of intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge; the latter two being very difficult to measure. Contemporary society tends to try and gauge these characteristics in material/sexual ways: someone who gains materially is consequently considered as a good potential provider or mate, and is “obviously” gifted with one or more of these mental attributes. Such a judgment is all well and good from the perspective of animals striving to preserve their genetic legacy, but does not address a situation where said animals are on a path to self-destruction.
There are people who apply their abilities in an esoteric way, with concerns that go beyond simple mating. Such individuals rarely receive notoriety in society, yet those with an exceptional aptitude for leadership have occasionally attained legendary status. Men such as Mohandas Gandhi, Socrates, Siddhartha Gautama, and K’ung Fu Tzu have been focal points for others who also share a more complex awareness of reality. These leaders would have accomplished little without the participation of that portion of society which thought as they did. Gandhi won India’s freedom from Britain through passive resistance, yet it was not Gandhi himself who taught the English that it would no longer be profitable to rule over the Indian people, but the sum of all those who believed in his idea and took action; some sacrificing their lives for the greater good when England responded to peaceable assembly with deadly force.
Many ancient leaders did not write down their thoughts, and many of the great philosophical minds adopted a celibate lifestyle; they left no written record nor genetic legacy, yet their wisdom lived on in the people who appreciated the worth of their contributions to mankind. Herein lies the value of those who would seem to be of secondary importance, for these often-nameless individuals perpetuated the knowledge which would otherwise have been lost, and subsequently were as noteworthy as the original mentors. A number of historical figures achieved little recognition during their own lifetimes; it was the efforts of a few “lesser lights” who later established their significance.
Every movement that has changed the course of humanity was the result of the actions of a great many people. The leaders who sparked the beginning of a transformation were formed by their experiences, including their encounters with numerous individuals who influenced their thoughts. Each movement succeeded due to the participation of others; and like the snowflakes that lead to an avalanche, not only is there a point where just one more triggers the event, each and every tiny snowflake equally contributes to the cause of the effect. The catch-phrase “one person can make a difference” is perhaps more accurately restated as “one additional person can make a difference”. Everyone is the sum of their experiences, and every effect is the sum of its causes.
Knowledge is to be passed from generation to generation, and mankind has advanced because each generation does not have to begin anew. The capacity to retain and perpetuate knowledge is part of our programming, and since every type of life-form, and each attribute, is genetically designed as a complementary component of our biosphere, the contributions each person makes are a part of the natural order of things. Man exists for a reason: because we fulfill a role within nature. The ability to preserve knowledge also exists for a reason; for it is a characteristic ensuring the survival of our species.
Therefore one of our roles as individuals is to build upon the wisdom gained by the preceding generations. Technology continues to advance, yet it is a reflection of our intelligence, rather than wisdom. We fail to stress the importance of wisdom, which is why it is said that “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Due to our selfish ways, the knowledge associated with material gain is carefully preserved, while the concepts that are most important to the natural (or spiritual) well-being of all humans are often neglected. As well, we tend to hold onto the lessons that appear to have positive results while trying to forget those perceived as negative; but these are actually positive, in that we learn how to avoid repeating the errors of the past.
If you are reading philosophical texts such as this one, by your own volition, you are an individual with the capacity to reason beyond the mundane, and should feel an obligation to live up to your potential. The great majority of people fulfill a different, although equally important, role; which is as a genetic resource. A fraction of mankind serves as the guardians of wisdom; perhaps they are the “brain cells” of our species. Humanity appears to have always known this, with ancient writings referring to these people as shepherds, teachers, fathers, and other terms which denote a guiding role.
The Mythical Age created a culture where all abstract thought revolved around the actions of mystical deities, and all ancient texts contained a religious element. This continued until relatively recently; and even now a significant portion of society insists that any treatment of the nature of existence be attributed in some way to the actions of anthropomorphic gods. It is easy to dismiss the wisdom of past religious figures as being tainted by superstition and dogma, but in many cases their actions were the result of the dangers associated with failing to accredit one’s gods, and the advantages of using doctrine to impose values upon the masses. Although much of what is believed in religion is based on the ideas of men who wished to promote their own self-serving agendas, being that any position of influence will attract these shallow creatures, there is also invaluable knowledge preserved as well.
Faith is an excellent tool for manipulating the thoughts and actions of people. Because a segment of the population requires rules based on simple conditioning in order to function within the complex society we have created, the reward and punishment of religion can satisfy their spiritual needs, while supplying the motivation for various forms of conduct. The problem is that people have difficulty differentiating between doctrine that was put in place to benefit a particular individual, and that which is beneficial to all; and because they blindly cling to the ideology that assuages their fears and provides a sense of belonging, it is the task of those who disseminate the dogma to ensure that the corrupt components are minimized.
We see the evolution of religion in contemporary Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; where much of the self-serving doctrine is now ignored, and the rest is interpreted symbolically. The clergy do not believe in all the things they teach the congregation, but they believe in the value of the methodology; which guides and controls those who would otherwise be lost, and potentially detrimental to society.
We see the dangers inherent to religion in fundamentalism. A literal interpretation of sectarian literature is illogical: the text being contradictory in both a practical and ideological sense. Yet followers are obliviously obedient to a rigid system that unsuccessfully mixes the ethics of the wise with the desires of the evil. Fundamentalism is a situation where the people who have a limited capacity for independent thought, and therefore need others to provide them with strict rules to live by, have also become the clergy. At this moment, somewhere in the world, fundamentalists are systematically murdering people because of their beliefs, as has been the case for thousands of years.
To some people religion is the antithesis of reasoning. In many ways it is, but when teaching ethics to individuals incapable of understanding the science behind behaviour, parables and symbolic mythology become the only reasonable way to deal with the problem. Fluid belief systems are not entirely logical as such, but the members who realize the need to give others the impression that certain beliefs are “true”, are wisely trying to move people in a positive direction.
Rigid belief systems have few positive attributes, and are intolerant by nature; perpetuating the fears and prejudices of primitive, long-dead cultures. There is no wisdom nor logic in the automatic acceptance of unbending rules, where the original intent has been forgotten, and no explanations are offered or asked. Fundamentalism in particular is hence the adversary of reason, for it inhibits the advancement of knowledge.
People who follow a literal interpretation of Abrahamic beliefs have become a small minority, yet some of them cause a great deal of death and suffering in the world due to the comparative ruthlessness of their doctrine. Although one should strive to be accepting of beliefs different from our own, this must be tempered by the potential for harm inherent to certain systems. Some people lead an unthinking existence due to inborn shortcomings, but we must make every effort to prevent the controllers of such religions from imposing their will upon those who do not share their level of need. Tolerance of fundamentalism is dependent upon deeds, and those who cause harm cannot be ignored, just as those who commit crimes against others must be dealt with.
Humans are spiritual by nature, and tend to consider the mental aspect of existence separately from the physical. Because religion is a methodology which enables a segment of society to comprehend something more than basic physical being, it can be considered a component of spirituality. The nature of life is far more complex than that of the simple gods mankind creates, with their human frailties and vices, yet some level of figurative understanding is better than a complete absence of comprehension.
You exist with a purpose; the sequence of cause and effect has made it impossible for it to be otherwise. An infinite chain of events led to your birth, to the person you have developed into, to your reading of these words. Life perpetuates through its components, and each individual is a step in the sequence of genetic recombination, preservation of knowledge, and continuation of physical existence. Life persists because there are no gaps in this sequence; a perpetual flow of being, with the constituents changing each moment in time, yet the whole existing within the infinite passage of time.
Every human is a part of the stream of life-in-general, but the effects of each individual upon the universe are unfathomable. It is easier to concentrate on one’s influence on our own kind, and therefore contribute to how humanity changes that which it is a component of. Mankind’s health as a species is our greatest comprehensible purpose (acknowledging that the well-being of other life-forms is part of this).
The individual exists only for a brief moment, but that person’s legacy lives on, and for the majority of people it is the genetic aspect that matters most. Our innate drives ensure that the majority of us feel compelled to mate. The programming that causes pair-bonding (love) is in place to guarantee that our genes are perpetuated through the care we provide to our offspring. Although the problems with the artificial environment we have manufactured for ourselves has created a situation where society frequently must substitute for one or both caregivers, which has led to further social maladjustment, our population explosion attests to the power of our sexual instincts.
Most people will fulfill their primary purpose in life through reproduction, providing new genetic combinations which may ultimately be instrumental to the survival of our species. Millions of years of programming compels us to protect that which is the future; we have been designed to risk our own lives in order to guard our children, so that the chain of human existence remains unbroken. For most, this applies only to their own offspring, but since the components serve the whole, the efforts of a sufficient number of individuals equates to the security of the species.
Your physical existence lives on in your children, the genetic map which defines your material substance is within your progeny, and all subsequent generations. Nature demands that you make sure your offspring grow up to be both mentally and physically healthy enough to perpetuate your genetic legacy; and being that this behaviour is the preeminent instinct, anyone who produces children and then neglects their obligation is by definition, behaving in an aberrant, or unnatural, way.
This is one aspect of your immortality, another is the spiritual. The essence of your individuality; your values, beliefs, and knowledge live on most significantly in your children. Positive influences increase the likelihood of their perpetuating what is/was “you”. If the effect you have upon your offspring leads to their living long and productive lives, then they are more likely to pass on your physical and spiritual legacy; for a negative influence usually results in children who grow up to be maladjusted adults, and are less desirable as mates. As well, the tendency to try and forget the unpleasant conduct of one’s parents means that eventually all that will remain of your existence as an individual will be suppressed memories; and in subsequent generations, will only be kept alive in the psychological problems each generation inflicts upon the next. No person’s effect can be removed from the world, whether good or bad, but it is human nature to try to eliminate the negative.
Does this run contrary to the reality that we must control our soaring population; if the common person lives on through their children, do they lose their significance by practicing restraint? Aside from the fact that raising one child alone produces a result far superior to raising one among many, hence everyone who feels compelled to reproduce can contribute to the vibrancy of our species by stopping at one; there is the logic of genetics.
We all share the same lineage; that which is human grew from that which was first human. When you have a child, half of its chromosomes are yours, and half are from your partner. That child may eventually produce one of its own, which will then contain one quarter of your DNA. Mathematically speaking, it takes relatively few generations before you would be almost as closely related to any given person, as to the future recipient of your genes. Of the DNA which is unique, you share about six percent with your great-great-grandmother, while almost ninety-four percent is that of other people. When we consider that the genes which differentiate one person from another make up a minuscule portion of the total, and all humans are overwhelmingly genetically identical, it becomes apparent that kinship extends to everyone.
Logically the innate drives apply to anyone’s children; and for that matter, to all those in need. Protective instincts are intended to enforce obedience to nature upon the “lowest common denominator”, but the purpose is to ensure the security of the species as a whole. People who cannot comprehend the “big picture” will fulfill their role through their immediate family, while those with the ability to understand that they are a component of something far greater will contribute in a different, yet corresponding, way.
Even if we were completely successful at reducing our birth rate, there would always be enough genetic diversity to serve the requirements of our species; the few hundred-thousand people who existed for most of our history were evidently enough to ensure an overabundance now. What appears to be of equal importance, and perhaps more so, is the perpetuation of knowledge. Overall human mental ability continues to decline, and recent studies suggest that it may be falling at a considerably faster rate than first thought. We thrive because of our aptitude for reasoning, allowing us to keep the wisdom accumulated over the ages alive in today’s generations. If mankind were forced to begin anew, without the knowledge retained from the past, would modern humans still have enough intelligence to survive in a purely natural environment?
Of course it is quite improbable that we would ever face such a circumstance, but the mental/spiritual attributes of our design are obviously important to our roles as individuals. A large portion of the population will always reproduce indiscriminately, which guarantees random variation in chromosome pairings, but likewise results in an expansion of what is predominantly human "mass”. As the makeup of our species changes, the importance of the shrinking number of those who represent the “mind” of humanity grows.
Without ever producing a child, you nevertheless contribute to the continuation of humanity simply by thinking. It is an inescapable fact that you cannot exist without influencing others; every encounter, regardless of how trivial it may seem, has an affect upon the participants. Knowing this, one can see that positive interaction serves the purpose of perpetuating our kind, and in a way, our own significance.
Blind obedience is the chosen path for most people, but for the ones who have the ability and desire to fulfill the mental component of our programming, it is poison to the spirit. A large segment of the populace feels that their lives are inconsequential, with no purpose or worth; this attitude so deeply ingrained that even their religious vision of a mystical reward, which is supposed to make up for enduring a trivial existence, condemns them to an equally pointless eternity of groveling before an ethereal master.
A sense of personal value comes from knowing that everyone makes a difference. It may not be obvious that you have changed the destiny of someone you have encountered, and any noticeable consequence may not occur until long after your death; but you are constantly a contributing cause of future events. If this realization were widespread, all organized religions would have beliefs similar to Buddhism, where being a component of “God” engenders worth, rather than token subservience.
Earlier we addressed the subject of how a living thing can physically perish, but does not end. Energy and matter cannot be destroyed; the material constituents continue on in other forms, and the energy is dispersed. The animating life-force is no longer detectable, but as evident with bacteria, it remains available to “dead” organisms for millions of years. All of the components of life are essentially eternal, and the defining property of life, intent, is perpetual in that it endures ceaselessly in all life-forms as a generic attribute; in the same way that your individuality remains intact despite the fact that many of your cells die each moment. Because of this, we must see our own substance as everlasting in the sense that our physical components continue as part of existence-in-general, and that which is spiritual remains a constituent of the human identity. Your individuality, like that of any particular brain cell, may have ended in a material way; but its contribution to the consciousness of the whole is alive in the greater entity.
Sentience exists as cause and effect. The process enabling awareness is an ongoing sequence of mental events. On a basic level, it is a series of impulses occurring at the speed of light; but we only perceive “whole thoughts”, rather than the aggregation of inputs and sensations constantly contributing to these thoughts. Each infinitesimal fragment is undoubtedly critical to the total, but we ascribe a higher importance to successively greater sums of mental events, equating to longer intervals of time.
When you are an infant, any object or activity capturing your attention represents the most important event of your life. Later it may be your first day of school, and then it is the sum of all of the experiences associated with the period in which you attended that gain the most significance. Ultimately, you look back on things such as marriage, a career, and then your life in general, as that which was of consequence. Beyond that, some consider their potential affect upon the world; which is again a greater total of contributing events.
Your effect is perpetual, and being that it becomes an ever-increasing component of the human consciousness, as people you influenced continue to pass the changes you made in them onto others, you become immortal in the sense that your mental/spiritual essence remains part of the physical substance that constitutes humankind as a whole. It is obviously ever-changing, which is no different than the process which occurs during your own material existence, and just as your current perception of the events that formed your past have evolved with the passage of time, the memories being held by brain cells that did not exist during the actual events, your essence lingers in the future within the cells of others.
In some ways individuality is only a perception. You owe your material structure to those who lived before you, the design being a replication of actual pieces of your parents. Your innate behaviour, including the capacity to feel, and how you respond to emotions, is a perpetuation of that which exists in all normal humans, and is likewise physically passed through generations. Most of what you know was not gained through first-hand experience, the knowledge was accumulated and developed in the past, and taught to you by others. Nearly everyone will go through life without having a particular thought that wasn’t thought by someone before, nor a specific experience that is outwardly unique.
Individuality seems an insignificant attribute in the vast majority of people; for the most part, they appear to be simple ingredients of the concepts created by those who wish to promote an agenda. During the Cold War, Americans felt and expressed a hatred for Communism; likewise, Soviets considered Capitalism to be a manifestation of evil. Few people on either side had any understanding of how each government actually worked, nor any knowledge of the reasons why a society would find it necessary to adopt a particular system. People thought as they were told to think, and as so many desire, felt part of a national identity. For most this was preferable to being compelled to reason toward an independent conclusion, and risk being different from the other members of their “pack”.
For the majority, there is no “higher purpose” comprehensible to them, there is only a relatively thoughtless existence; which does, of course, fulfill a purpose, and hence is actually their “meaning of life”. A small segment of humanity is aware, either consciously or subconsciously, of how mankind functions as a unit, and has the capacity to direct the behaviour of the masses. Of such people, there is a constant conflict between those who are enlightened, and concerned with goals that supersede the life-span of a single individual, and those who only grasp the obvious, and focus on superficial, material pursuits.
In the Communism versus Capitalism example, each side magnified the flaws inherent to the other system, and cultivated an unreasonable fear of, what was to most, the unknown. This is the way it is done in almost all instances. Mankind, as a whole, is comparable to an ocean liner; where mass and momentum make changing course a slow and ponderous action. In order to establish new patterns in human behaviour, it is necessary to impart a sense of urgency, which involves exaggerating the negative aspects of what is unwanted, while minimizing the cost, whether material or social, of the desired effect.
The predictions of impending environmental disaster voiced by many organizations are obviously not entirely true; facts do not support most of their claims. Assertions of the imminent destruction of the human race due to overpopulation were likewise overblown in the late Sixties and early Seventies, when such concerns first gained prominence. That said, we must realize that if we had not seen a shift in the attitudes of a significant proportion of the populace, these dire forecasts would have ultimately become truth. Because an extraordinary effort is needed in order to redirect humanity, dangers are misrepresented so that we can begin to change course in advance.
You cannot simply give the average person data that portends disaster, and have them extrapolate to a logical conclusion; they lack the foresight to understand cause and effect beyond the moment. Everything must seem to have an immediate and substantial affect upon their lives, otherwise it will become something that only warrants attention in “the future”; meaning that it will not be addressed until it is likely too late.
We must keep these things in mind when tempted to criticize the methodology of certain organizations, scientists, or clergy. Although some of us wish to think for ourselves, and make decisions based on factual evidence, we sometimes forget that manipulation of what the masses believe is often the most logical of choices. Accurate knowledge must be available to everyone, allowing those with the capacity and inclination to contribute to our collective pool of wisdom; yet those who do not think independently won’t seek out this knowledge, nor will they believe it, if it conflicts with what they have been told to think. We must hesitate, before proactively interfering with others, and determine what is ultimately in the best interests of everyone.
All individuals contribute towards our destiny as a species, but only a portion of humanity has the potential to choose our direction as a society. The influence you have, as one person, is an important component of the whole; logic dictates that there is a point where one more or less equates to “enough”. If enough people want tighter safety procedures at nuclear facilities, politicians will campaign for new rules; knowing that it will increase the likelihood of reelection, which will enable them to fulfill their own unrelated self-serving agenda. If enough people desired fewer moral restrictions on broadcasting, network executives would fill the airwaves with nudity; knowing that they would gain market-share, which increases profits, and hence their own personal fortunes.
Altruistic goals are often facilitated by capitalizing on the selfishness of others. Progress does not have to be flawless, for there will often be negative aspects to our attempts at improving the lot of humanity; but each step is a component of the greater good.
Some people disagree with referring to our role in life as an obligation, but this is exactly how it must be viewed. We are responsible for our actions, and being that a failure to act will have negative consequences of some sort, we are obligated to do what is right for all concerned. An off-duty doctor who comes across an injured person feels morally bound to provide assistance. Having the capacity to make a difference, the doctor does what is needed without thought of inconvenience or the victim’s ability to pay; this is due to there being something much more valuable at stake. Because the physician can help, he/she is demonstrating worth; psychologically, this builds a strong self-image, and reinforces the instinctive human need to project Alpha status.
Being the “Alpha” does not require that a person do anything other than that which is ostensibly self-serving; but our other programming, to behave as gregarious creatures and guarantee the perpetuation of the species, makes actions we perceive as altruistic inherently self-rewarding. Doing what we feel is right is fulfilling an innate agenda, and consequently has a positive affect on our mental health. We feel good about ourselves when we donate to charity, or perform an act of kindness without an expectation of palpable reward. We experience a sense of personal value, and realize that our actions make a difference in the world.
Not everyone can afford to donate their time or money, although statistically the less money one has, the higher the percentage of their income is contributed to charity; which says a great deal about the mindset of the rich. If you recognize that everything you do can be compared to acts of charity, in that your positive affect upon others is perceptible and perpetual, you will gain self-esteem from the things you do every day. You can feel a sense of duty to the higher purpose in nature, which is the perpetuation of life, and of our species; but you also have an obligation to yourself.
Self-respect leads to self-confidence, and being sure of oneself means that you are aware of your value as a person, and acknowledge that you have the capacity to overcome obstacles. Life’s problems, so many of which are trivial in comparison to the greater scheme of things, tend to sort themselves out because they can be taken in context, and never gain the significance to corrupt your judgment. Self-confidence is tangible to other people, allowing you to have a more substantial influence upon them. Your opinion matters, and although nobody knows all there is to know, the self-assured individual is certain that they can, in time, find the knowledge to come to a logical conclusion.
People who are sure of their abilities and values tend to take responsibility for their own actions. Since their faith in themselves is a source of their sense of worth and defines their individuality, they are less likely to permit the negative actions of others to reflect upon themselves, nor use these influences as an excuse for personal failure.
You accomplish little by comparing yourself to others. There was only one Mohandas Gandhi, and only one Mother Teresa. Circumstances dictate our opportunities, and a combination of genetics and experience shape us into who we are. Each of us is unique, and contribute to overall existence in a manner determined by cause and effect. Doing our best is enough, and what each of us is capable of, is relative. If we can conceive of practical ways to be “more”, then we should be more. We have an obligation to ourselves to fulfill our maximum potential, which ultimately meets our obligation to mankind, and life-in-general. We can begin to sort out humanity’s problems simply by putting our own lives in order, but there are those who have the capacity, and often the need, to go beyond the basics.
The interchangeability of altruism and egoism means that by ensuring our own feelings of personal value in a mental/spiritual way, we contribute to the well-being of the whole; the parts define the sum. Every sad person is a component of the sadness in the world, every hateful person is a part of global hatred. One less angry individual still logically results in less anger within humanity, just as one more adds to the total. Because we cannot exist without affecting those we encounter, one can translate into many; because a change occurs as the result of a single additional cause, one can change the world.
