Bailey Moorhead
ENGCMP 0200
February 20, 2009
Dr. Adam Johns
"Potatoes. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew." This was the ludicrous answer my friend Neal gave me when I asked him what his thoughts on the meaning of life. The answer was via text message, so it was impossible to sense any sarcasm he may have been trying to convey, but knowing Neal the answer was meant to be ridiculous. The phrase, however, embodied what I thought was the perfect answer to the question. No matter which way you cook them, potatoes are potatoes. They are planted, grow, and are eaten. I think the case is similar for humans. Every individual human lives as they choose, but the amount of time spent on Earth is miniscule. I believe every human has a meaning to their family, friends, and society, but humanity as a whole, whether it develops into a utopian society or destroys itself, simply exists to exist. Humans are as meaningful to the universe as a sack of potatoes.
Don't get me wrong. I really like potatoes. I eat them bashed, baked, fried, and even raw with salt. I like humanity, too. I just don't think we have a purpose. Some of the best things are purposeless: rolling down hills, Jello jigglers, everything Billy Mays tries to sell me late at night, etc. Humanity is pretty amazing. We've explored the depths of the sea and the surface of Mars and it doesn't look like we will stop anytime soon. Put in perspective, though, our existence on Earth is comparable to the blink of an eye. It is generally accepted that humans have roamed the Earth for 2.5 million years, and anatomically modern humans did not originate until about 200,000 years ago (Kreger). The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This means that modern humans have only inhabited the Earth for 0.0044% of its existence and the percent is much smaller in relation to the history of the Universe, which is 15 billion years long. I find it hard to believe that any organism that has existed for this tiny period of time will have any great significance to the Earth or the Universe. Even dinosaurs, which existed for 160 million years, have had no lasting impact.
Though humans have created civilizations, we are no different from any other organism roaming the Earth. Creating and innovating are human attributes, but they are no more significant than a bird's singing or a bee's hive-building. We simply do it because our genes have instilled the behavior in us. The way we are raised may dictate how and why we do such things, but our DNA dictates what we do as human beings. Bill McKibben argues in his book Enough that our individualism is our purpose. I do believe individual humans have individual purposes. We set goals and make decisions based on our personalities. This does not make me believe, however, that we, as a species, have a purpose. Our species has most likely come to exist through chance mutations causing our evolution from a unicellular organism. The exact same process created other animals, plants, and bacteria. Basically, a random series of events has caused our existence. How, then, could we be designed to have a higher purpose? Though we may be more intelligent than other species, we live and die just as they do. Though the life of a fly may seem unbelievably short to us, the length of our lives is hardly longer than theirs from the perspective of the Universe.
Nihilism is a rather depressing philosophy at times. Personally, I like to think my life has meaning. Why else do we go to school, work, and abstain from unhealthy behavior? Silver argues that the need for religion is ingrained in human beings. It is human to want to feel that there will be rewards for leading a productive and moral life. I don't believe that religion is the only reason to make the most out of life, though. Just because humanity has no higher meaning, does not mean that we can't make the most of our own individual lives. Humans can have a happy existence even without a purpose.
6 comments:
Albert-
So obviously I need serious help on this paper. I just wanted to let you know that I was having serious problems writing this and feel free to go crazy with the comments.
First, I really like your paper, but I think if you make a few improvements it would be incredibly strong.
Second, you have a trivial argument. In your intro and first paragraph, you present this argument that there is no purpose for us from a universal perspective. In the chasm of infinite time, we are minute; that people are just people just like a potato is a potato. However, from another person’s perspective, or from a much smaller view, what are people for? When I read these paragraphs, I imagined I was in a little spaceship a trillion light years away from the earth, looking at it from out of a tiny window trying to describe what people are for which kind of gave me a flawed, skewed perception of reality. In the year 2009, not viewing our existence as a fraction of time, would everyone share your same apathetic view towards humanities meaning? Would everyone agree that we would make as little a footprint as the dinosaurs? I’m certainly not convinced. Dinosaurs were incapable of communication, abstract thought, constructing tools, etc… dinosaurs were products of their environment whereas people can now manipulate their environments to be products of them. If “humans are as meaningful to the universe as a sack of potatoes,” are humans as meaningful to another human as a sack of potatoes? Provide a counterargument not only in the context of the universe, but in the context of reality.
Third, you provide several examples of the best things that serve no purpose. Again, you need to provide counterarguments. I can understand that some of humanities most monumental achievements can be arbitrarily described as “purposeless,” but some of the most trivial things, in my opinion, are monumentally profound. For example, the English alphabet: 26 little letters arranged in an infinite number of combinations makes up our entire language. Would you argue that these also serve no purpose? What the alphabet is for is to provide us with language. What rolling down a hill is for is to give you a sense of peace and enjoyment – and possibly nausea.
Fourth, you say, “our DNA dictates what we do as human beings....” Which contradicts other statements you make, for example, “we make decisions based on our personalities,” and “individuals do have purpose.” Now here, we get into the classic debate of nature vs nurture, and I believe that our purpose and behavior are elucidated from both because nature and nurture are fundamentally intertwined. Do you agree? You suggest, by saying “the DNA dictates…” we are 100% products of nature and 0% products of nurture. However, personalities and individual senses of purpose are products of the environment. You go to college, you do you homework, etc… so were you born/did your DNA predispose you to ambition and purpose? Or did your parents encouraging you to have good grades, study, etc… produce your individual purpose? In addition, I don’t treat individuals and human beings as mutually exclusive categories. An individual is a human being just like human beings are collections of individuals. So are you suggesting that individuals serve a purpose, but humans don’t? Do you agree that individuals and humanity are exclusive?
In your last paragraph, you say, “Humans can have a happy existence even without a purpose.” Now one thing you need to realize about my family in this instance - my ENTIRE family are h-core Buddhists (except for me, because I am a product of other influences such as my Jewish and catholic and agnostic friends that my parents weren’t exposed to growing up in a dominantly Bhuddist community [again, nature vs nurture?]). I’m familiar with some Buddhist philosophy, and the Dalai Lama has said, “The purpose of life is to be happy.” In this context, Buddhists, and my family argue that having a happy existence is serving a purpose.
Oh by the way, I forgot to say Hi, that was rude of me. So HELLO BAILEY!
Also, as a kind of heads up... the fundamental argument of my paper is reflected in my comment - so be cognizant of that... it'll definitely help when it's your turn to write a riposte on my paper, and I hope we'll have an interesting kind of revision thing going on
Cheers!
"Potatoes. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew." This was the ludicrous answer my friend Neal gave me when I asked him what his thoughts on the meaning of life. The answer was via text message, so it was impossible to sense any sarcasm he may have been trying to convey, but knowing Neal the answer was meant to be ridiculous. The phrase, however, embodied what I thought was the perfect answer to the question. No matter which way you cook them, potatoes are potatoes. They are planted, grow, and are eaten. I think the case is similar for humans. Every individual human lives as they choose, but the amount of time spent on Earth is miniscule. I believe every human has a meaning to their family, friends, and society, but humanity as a whole, whether it develops into a utopian society or destroys itself, simply exists to exist. Humans are as meaningful to the universe as a sack of potatoes. Potatoes, however, are infinitely significant to the humans and other animals throughout the world that rely on them for sustenance. Many cultures have relied on the potato as the main source of nutrition. The significance of the potato was made obvious in the Great Famine of the 1840s. Similarly, humanity is meaningful to our fellow Earth-inhabiting organisms in that we have the power to have great power to affect their lives. Whether we are destroying it with our excessive use of raw materials or helping to save species from extinction, we have more influence beyond our place in the food chain on our world than any other organism.
Every organism on Earth is meaningful in some way to other organisms, whether it is as a source of food, as a predator, or as a form of shelter. Humans, however, have expanded our role on Earth beyond our traditional place in the food chain. Since the beginning of our existence, we resided at the top of the food chain, hunting and gathering as we pleased. The restless species of Homo sapiens was not satisfied. We began to cultivate crops and hunt more efficiently, leading to our existence now. Today, an episode of a human being hunted, by a bear or shark for instance, is shocking and newsworthy, but even our gradual shift to dominance in the food chain does not encompass the entirety of our significance. Our species has only been around for approximately 200,000 years. This amount of time is miniscule; horseshoe crabs have been around for 400 million years. Despite our youth, we have greatly impacted our environment through our way of life. In his book Endangered Species Richard P. Reading calls us the “ultimate weed species…we have shown an incredible ability to invade, change, and inhabit every habitat type on the planet” (Reading, xvi). We inhabit the majority of the land on Earth and we hunt excessively for sport and for precious animal materials causing certain species to become endangered. We have been genetically engineering crops and livestock through selective breeding since the agricultural revolution in the 1600s to increase our food yield. Our capacity to alter life has been greatly increased over the past century as the genetic code has been unlocked and our understanding of DNA has deepened. In addition to altering the living, we have also greatly altered our environment’s temperature through our excessive raw material use. Homo sapiens have altered the Earth to a greater extent in our short existence than any other organism. To our environment, other organisms, and ourselves, the meaning of humans is that we have the capacity to alter life on Earth.
“Having nothing to do is one kind of hell” (McKibben, 94). Bill McKibben argues that as we become more materialistic and invent more objects to make our lives “easier” we are creating a hell for ourselves in which we will be in exceedingly boring state of retirement. Innovation and ambition are a part of human nature. We are constantly trying to perfect our lives. Though we may never agree on the means to make this happen or what we consider to be a perfect society, it can be agreed upon that it will have major consequences for the rest of Earth’s inhabitants. Of course it is impossible to improve our lives without harming other organisms’. Presumably, no one would argue to preserve the life of a bacterium if it endangered the life of a human being. Over the years, however, our actions have had terrible consequences for the Earth and many of these have been irreversible. Scientists are beginning to believe that human hunting led to the extinction of various species after the Ice Age (Durfee) and our hunting still causes extinction of species. The fundamental cause of animal extinction in modern times has been human demand, either of the animal itself or of its habitat (Animal). Over the past two hundred years, we have invented various new means of transportation and communication, but these require use of raw materials. The excessive use of fossil fuels has dramatically increased pollution and changed our climate. Historically, the Earth has been the victim of our undying need to improve our lives.
Essentially, we are greedy capitalists mercilessly exploiting the Earth and its inhabitants for profit maximization. The way we treat the Earth shows no respect for the value of other life on our planet. We may even be destroying our own lives. According to Bill Joy, we may render ourselves useless through our unchecked development of GNR technology. By replacing ourselves with robots, he claims, “our humanity may well be lost” (Joy, 5). This is not necessary. We have the ability either to live with less impact on the Earth or to innovate ways to do so. There is little chance we will cease the quest to perfect our lives, but we need to consider the effect we will have on other organism’s, and our own, lives. Though we may think ourselves far superior to other forms of life, we are no more likely to survive a massive natural disaster than bacteria. In fact, we are less likely. We do not have the right to destroy life either for our enjoyment or as an unnecessary result of our selfish living habits. On the contrary, our meaning, our capacity to alter life on Earth, can also enable us to positively influence our world. This is not to say we should put the needs of other organisms before our own. Obviously we should solve world hunger and the AIDS epidemic before concerning ourselves with improving the lives of plants, but rather than trying to improve the lives of other organisms on Earth, we can focus on not harming them.
Unlike other organisms on Earth, we have an ability to change the “natural” progression of life. Often, the way we adapt to our surroundings is adapting our surroundings. This has historically had terrible consequences for other forms of life on Earth. Because of our ambitious nature, however, we have the ability to find ways to improve our own lives without harming others. Although we are significant because we have a greater ability to alter life and the environment than other organisms, this does not give our life more value nor does it mean we have the right to destroy for our benefit.
“Animal Extinction and Endangerment Main Causes.” Tropical-Rainforest-Animals.com. 2008. 21 February 2009. < http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/Animal-Extinction.html>.
Durfee, Rachel. “The Human Cause of Animal Extinction.” Popular Science. 2008. 20 February 2009. < http://www.popsci.com/node/23348>.
Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” April 2000. Wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=5&topic=&topic_set=.
McKibben, Bill. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: Henry Holt & Company, LLC, 2003.
Reading, Richard P. Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.
Albert - Your response is arguably an essay in itself, or at least close to it - and there's some good material in there. Good stuff.
Bailey - This is the most ambitious paper of the semester (for anyone so far), and probably the most memorable. I had some difficulty reading it because paragraph breaks weren't properly preserved (you should double-check that when posting revisions), but here are some of my thoughts.
What's very good here is that you are tackling a huge and ambitious topic in a more or less controllable manner. The best part, really, is the beginning, where you establish a working metaphor between the meaning of life and the meaning of a sack of potatoes -- this was impressive. In the ideal version of this paper, you would have been as specific and focused as that all through the paper. In reality, you drifted perhaps a little too much into abstraction. It's not like you lost all focus -- you're talking about the relative meaning of life throughout -- but most of your later examples are overly general and abstract, unlike the potato.
What's implicit here, but doesn't quite emerge for me, is that you're deriving a specifically environmentalist politics from the seemingly abstract question about the meaning of life (or really, in the prompt, "what are people for" - they aren't quite the same!). Had that been more explicit, it would have been truly fantastic.
Post a Comment