All progress of our
species, civilization, and culture is the result of science. The rest of
mankind's endeavors is to provide an infrastructure so that scientists can do
their work. A better political structure (democracy?) means that scientists
can be more efficient. A better economic structure (capitalism?) means
more resources for scientists in their endeavors. Great art and music
means that scientists can be inspired to further the cause of homo sapiens. An
efficient garbage collection system means scientists don't have to worry about
such trivialities. Better roads means
we can get to our labs quicker. A fair election system means that civil
unrest won't disrupt the course of scientific research. Science and
scientists are the real reason for life. All the rest is an appreciated
supportive role. Thanks. (Disclaimer: I'm a physicist.)
© 2014 Lester C. Welch
The cruelest joke of consciousness is life. If consciousness could extent through eternity without the vicissitudes of having to feed our bodies, worrying about the collapse of the economy and the insaneness of politics (all metaphors for the mundaneness of day-to-day living) would it be enjoyable? Does "enjoyment" have a meaning outside of life? A tenet of many religions is that "consciousness" exists beyond life - label it as "soul" if you wish. But, I submit, that the components of life that we cherish may not be an integral of consciousness. Even if we have a soul, we may lose the essence of life upon death. If something exists - which I doubt - beyond our last breath, it is unfathomable.
The biggest and unanswerable question is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" My answer to that question - without specifying any further details, because of ignorance, (and rejecting all popular characterizations) - is "God."
© 2014 Lester C. Welch
A semantic problem we have is the definition of "love." Assuming you're old enough to have grandchildren, can you say that the love you have for your spouse is the same as the love you have for your grandchildren?
I propose that one definition of "love" (purely for the sake of discussion) is that you love someone (xxx) if you're willing to step in front of a speeding bus to push xxx out of the way, knowing that it will certainly result in your death. In other words, would you be willing to give up your life so that xxx may live? If so, you love them.
I think there are other definitions of "love" that are cogent and worthy of discussion, but for the sake of the current blog, let's focus on this one.
Speakly for myself - using the agreed upon definition - I clearly love my grandchildren. And, of course, my children. Why? Evolutionary biologists may profer that my children and grandchildren carry my genes and more physically fit (younger) than myself, and thus my impact on the universe is enhanced if they survive. I agree. I would readily give up my life for any of my descendents. (Need a kidney?)
What about your spouse? That argument falls apart. Using the agreed upon definition, is one willing to give up one's own life for your spouse's? In this case I think the bargain is different, The consideration is not the persistence of your genes but the process it takes to replicate those genes. One can't reproduce by oneself. You need a partner. So,...(enter biologically engineered lust)...you help me propagate my genes and I'll "love" you. I'll offer you my life, if necessary, so that my genes can be in the next generation. Oh, and by the way, so will yours.
I think this meme is so ingrained in us by evolution that the consideration of whether or not our spouse is actually capable of reproduction is irrelevant.
So we're willing to step in front of the bus for our child, spouse, and grandchild. What about our sibling? Our parent? We may have deep affection for them but - using this definition of "love" - do we love them? There must be another definition of "love."
© 2014 Lester C. Welch
