People are truly popular as to what they concern themselves with when they worry about others in the race. We are killing each other on the scope of thousands (or in some cases millions) by weapons of violence cause by governments and fueled by corporations, by hording resources for the rich of the world to live fat gluttonous lives, by driving cars instead of building transportations systems that have a high probability of getting you to your destination without more then a flutter of emotion several times during our lifetime, by allowing our population to grow unchecked by our ideals and beliefs, and by other ways. Our lives are based on this planet and we depend upon this planet, yet if we wish to survive as a species long enough to evolve to a new species, we are probably going to have to sustain colonies off this planet or find a method of redunance.
Yet what are we doing? In the quest for a national goal we worry about what pop album is “encouraging” violence on our fellow man, U.S. presidents have continued to aggravate and worsen the world feelings over the last several decades, cars are becoming slightly safer in the U.S. but every person must still have a car or two and public transportation is moving up, but isn’t becoming dominate, and etc. Survival of the race isn’t in the body politic of any country, popular opinion is.
I will not say that I am certain that survival of our race requires us to pursue any and all of these goals, rather I’m very vehement in saying that nothing of this is certain. I will say that there is a higher probability of survival in two planets rather then one, and a higher probability of survival in providing more mind power to our quest of survival (providing better environments for people to learn and doubt from), and that what is popular (aka pop culture) is cannot always be the best path for humanity. Our path to survival is not certain, but there is much that is providing a negative effect on our probability curve and yet amidst this we worry about what is unlikely to most direct affect our path based on what we know of science.
Diversity of genes, thoughts, mind sets, philosophies, and etc are likely to help us be adaptable to new paths, but attempting to bear much more of human ingenuity to match nature’s ingenuity seems just as likely in the term of our residence on this planet.
We let our biology rule us and yet why do we believe it’s it the best path? After all the technology that we have create in the blink of evolutionary time scale, we still let our lives be ruled by what our biology tells us. I would like to present doubt about the reliability of our biology given the introduction of technology. Why do we give veracity to our biology when the marketing of our cultures appeal to it, how does a bottle of beer tie in to reproduction and how does beer or reproduction have an affect on our long term survival. I want not to say either is absolutely wrong, I wish to introduce doubt that our biology’s directions are continuing to provide our for our survival.
We waste energy that should be reserved, when there is two energy sources in this solar system (with 8 to several thousand more possibilities) that may be much more effectively tapped and for a longer term. So then I look with horror on what we are doing and realize on top of my understanding of our possible destruction (perhaps by means of our own species) that human survival—as well as other symbiotic entities we exist with) is as uncertain as nature can make it, which is to say that nature itself is certain of it’s path, but humans are forced to guess and check.
Perhaps even beyond our survival our we need to further postulate possible primers for the universe which may give reason to our existence. There does seem insufficient evidence–perhaps it will elude humans during our existence—to postulate a exacting, nature based, rule (and reasons) of existence. While time exists that I believe this I will push survival to allow for evidence gathering and the possibility to allow future generations to understand and be better equipped to decide if evidence for meaning exists. Until then to quote Feynman:
Throughout the ages, men have been trying to fathom the meaning of life. They realize that if some direction or some meaning could be given to the whole thing, to our actions, then great human forces would be unleashed. So very many answers have been given to the question of the meaning of it all. But they have all been of different sorts. And the proponents of one idea have looked with horror at the actions of the believers of another—horror because from a disagreeing point of view all the great potentialities of the race were being channeled into a false and confining blind alley. In fact, it is from the history of the enormous monstrosities that have been created by false belief that philosophers have come to realize that the fantastic potentialities and wondrous capacities of human beings. (Richard P. Feynman, The Meaning of it All, The Uncertainty of Values, 32-33)
As for you I will not say, but I must yield for tolerance and hope that triviality is not so Let not pride stand forth in my path of human survival and wonder always if evidence exists truly does exist that gives life meaning.