The Meaning of Life
by I consider myself a bit of an armchair philosopher. I am a thinker, and sometimes I think to much, I love a debate and was recently involved in one over the meaning of life.
Image via Wikipedia ”Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going”.
I consider myself a bit of an armchair philosopher. I am a thinker, and sometimes I think to much, I love a debate and was recently involved in one over the meaning of life. My husband puts forth that life is about experiences, that we are in a material body, and are here to experience material things. His early beginning in the Christian church taught him that life was about sacrifice. He has come to no longer consider that line of thinking to be correct, and it was reinforced by the large number of people who were living as hypocrites.
I reminded him that the sin of Lust, was originally the sin of Luxury, but when people started to live more luxurious lives the church decided to tweet the sin just a bit.
He found that people are often made to feel bad, just for being people (not Gods, not trees). I’m going to let him write his own article on that, let us get back to the point.
At work there is a plate that says “The purpose of life, is a life of purpose.”. I ask you, “Is it?”. I think the meaning of life is somewhat more simple, and oddly something my husband, himself touched on in one of his own articles earlier. The meaning of life, is, and always will be, to survive, and reproduce.
Unfortunately most of the human population has done such a good job of reproduction, that we are destroying our own planet. We are controlling the growth of pretty much every other species except our own.
The purpose of life is to live. It is not about fulfilling our spiritual role, it is not about making money. It is not about killing our neighbor, destroying other countries, or planting trees.
Perhaps when we try to answer the question about life after death, the answer is the life we leave behind when we die “is” life after death.
Does this mean that your life has no meaning if you have not reproduced? I would say not. In many ways those people who do not reproduce fill other roles that help those who do. Many animals do not reproduce, in the insect kingdom especially there are worker ants and worker bees who will never mate or reproduce but their lives have a purpose. So in this case the purpose (although not the meaning) is to help the species as a whole to survive.
Sadly many humans are only interested in their own survival, and not that of the species as a whole. In order for us to have a meaning to our life, a purpose to our life, and to allow for life after death, we must understand the system.
Image via Wikipedia This haunting image tells us of our destiny.
In order for humans to continue to survive as a species, we must reduce our role in reproducing our selves so rapidly. We must reduce our need to have and do everything they want (contrary to my husbands belief) . Rather than for us to continue to work on ways to live longer, we need to work on developing more sustainable ways of living. When we have reached a level of sustainable population (the United Nations has determined 5 Billion people is a sustainable level), then we can indulge ourselves a bit more.
To offer a summary, the purpose of life, is to reproduce, however humans have been too good at their own purpose for too long, and will need to stand down for a while to get back to a stage where we no longer have to worry that everything we do is bad for the planet.
Additional Links
More of my thoughts on Human over population
My husbands link on What is the Purpose of bugs and other things
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentPR Mace
On May 17, 2009 at 2:30 am
Interesting outlook.
HAPPYGEORGE
On May 17, 2009 at 4:04 am
Good outlook and philosophy about life.I like your article.
papaleng
On May 17, 2009 at 6:45 am
quite a good outlook in life.
Lostash
On May 17, 2009 at 8:23 am
I have no children, and probably won’t have any in the future! Have I failed in my role as a member of the species? No, of course I haven’t. I’m an Uncle 9 times over and I think that I have offered a great deal of support, advice and comfort to all my extended family….and I know that if I had a family of my own, that special relationship would certainly be watered down as I juggled my own domestic life. For me, that is enough to fulfill my family ‘needs’. This is an interesting article that warrants further debate.
Brenda Nelson
On May 17, 2009 at 9:28 am
Actually Lostash people like you are my HEROS, people who have not had kids that is, I personally only had one child than had my tubes tied.
The people who have kids then complain about the cost of them and the time commitments are people I detest. In fact studies have shown it is the more intelligent people who are resisting their biological clocks and having NO children – because they are aware of the impact on the planet.
Daisy Peasblossom
On May 17, 2009 at 9:39 am
Good points, B. I had a tubaligation after my third child. I had meant to only have two, but a little oopsy in the birth control…and there he was! I would not trade my youngest for anything; however, I think a fourth child would definitely have been one too many! As for our purpose in life…no one has yet said it better than Whitman in Leaves of Grass. Still…is the existential view the only one?
s hayes
On May 17, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I enjoyed your article x
R J Evans
On May 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Consistently politicians and preachers shy away from the fact that too many of us is what is killing the planet. The only species it would be bad for in the long run if swine flu wiped us out would be us!
fishfry aka Elizabeth Figueroa
On May 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The purpose of life,is an individual question. Whether religion, material items or leaving a family legacy of offsprings; is up to you.
Jo Oliver
On May 17, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I dont think there is just one purpose to life. If the sole purpose of life was reproduction, then there wouldn’t be any sterile people.
interesting topic
ken bultman
On May 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Sustainable population. When that is reached wouldn’t that mean selective euthanasia would become necessary at a certain age plateau? Makes my hair hurt thinking about all you raise in the wonderful article. Go debate.
Brenda Nelson
On May 18, 2009 at 10:36 pm
to ken – I actually have written an article about euthanasia of people once they reach a certain age…
http://www.socyberty.com/People/Solving-the-Biggest-Issue-Facing-the-Planet-Today.93212
Brian Daniel Stankich
On May 20, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I like your big picture thinking, that we need to be concerned and considerate of others, not just ourselves.
I would question your summary though that reproduction is the purpose of life, and that we need to stop doing it so well. It is not consistent that if we do our purpose well that it would get us into trouble. What kind of a system is that, a self-defeating one? Wouldn’t doing our purpose well lead to fulfillment and a system that works well?
Thanks and keep thinking,
Brian
D Silvey
On May 23, 2009 at 11:54 am
I myself have no children. I have been
Told I was selfish, being born and raised
In the Mormon religion I got a lot of
Pressure for it but stood my ground. If
You don’t have a good reason to have kids
Then you shouldn’t have them. Some of
My friends had kids to get more money
Back during tax time. I thought that was
Sick. I like your thinking and I agree that
We should be controling our own population
And not other species on this planet.
Karen Gross
On May 24, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Interesting debate you have opened.
Shouldn’t the intelligent people be the ones leaving their DNA behind?
Your one child per family solution has been put into practice in China. Wonder how it’s working for them? With only one baby per couple allowed, they aborted or euthenized the girls. Now they have a nation of “Little Emperors” inheriting the country. Should be interesting to see how that works out for the next generation or two.
The overpopulation in the world is mostly in Third World countries. With no social safety net (Old Age Pensions, Employment insurance) and a hand-to-mouth existence, families know that they will need as many children as possible in the hopes that one or two will survive to be able to take care of them in old age. If the last generation of Africans had only one child per family, the aids epidemic would have wiped out the whole population. Perhaps you would say that would be a good thing- that should take care of a few million.
D Silvey: do you think your friends were being serious about having more kids to get a bigger tax refund? I would think that with the expense of raising children, your friends are either joking or they are really bad at math.