“Finally, there’s the fear of nihilism:
the fear that biology life of meaning of purpose. (…) For most people who ask
the question, “Why am I here,” the answer “To pass on your genes” is less than
comforting.” (Pinker 7)
“Why is this
less than comforting,” I asked myself upon reaching the end of his introduction
to the final fear. I have no problem with accepting the fact that our fundamental
purpose as human beings, another sexually-reproducing heterotroph, is indeed to
pass on our genes. Our ancestors have never had a problem with this idea
either; in fact, they were most dedicated to fulfilling this task successfully.
If primitive prokaryotes did not devote their lives to passing on genes, Earth
would remain nothing but a field of unicellular life forms and we humans
certainly would not exist. Subsequent life forms strived to improve their
capabilities and potentiate their own set of genes for the sake of their offspring’s
survival. I empathize with Pinker’s well-versed attempt at assuaging the wider
audience who accuse him of nihilism while remaining true to his beliefs. People
are driven by morals and values; of which seem, to them, more meaningful than
the transfer of genes. However, I ask, what can be more meaningful than
dedicating your life to passing on your finest traits; ensuring that a part of
you will be embedded within the meshwork of our future generations? Is it the
wording? Is the word ‘genes’ too simplistic, or sound unappealing as a cold
scientific term? If so, then I believe that a clarification of the word ‘genes’
is needed here. A common representation of genes is the sequence of nucleotide
bases coiled into the X-shaped structure seen in biology textbooks. However
genes are also symbolized in your best friend’s infectious laughter, your mom’s
ability to cook the perfect thanksgiving turkey, and in your own unique blog
posts that you have all made here today. If it is our lives purpose to make
sure that our voice, such as the ones filling up the pages of “A Billion Subtle
Thoughts,” will be represented in the next generation, why is Pinker’s meaning of
life disconcerting?
It seems
that people today are too preoccupied with endlessly seeking a satisfactory meaning of life that they miss out on life itself. Many drown in misery when
their attempts fail, selfishly taking their own lives in suicide. Others turn to
God, and the belief in an eternally blissful afterlife in return for certain
actions on Earth. Although this may result in goodness, the desperate need for life’s meaning opens dangerous
portals to suicide bombings and mass murders; the brutal truth behind the
headline: “Hijackers Surprised to Find Themselves in Hell.” More people need to
accept and find solace in that basic purpose of life is to pass on genes. Not
any kind of genes, but their very own best set of genes, carefully carved and
maximized to their potential throughout the journey called life.
I asked myself the same question after reading that sentence. My answer, after reading the question, was "To leave something behind." If all that I leave behind when I die is my genes, so be it. I have it in my power to raise that set of genes and in a way shape them to pass on what I feel is most important. Now that both of my parents are dead all that is left of them, physically, is me and my daughter, and my sister and niece, and what you called their "finest traits." I have my dad's infectious laughter, his blue eyes, and cleft chin, and my mother's small hands, short stature, and habit of cleaning the kitchen before I leave home. But isn't that, aren't those traits enough? I would say yes. And I would say it is comforting to have left something like that behind. At least I think it is.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely agree with you that the search for an ultimate meaning of life is misguided at best, I disagree that "passing on your genes" is a sufficient purpose to give structure and meaning to human life (which you imply might help to stop practices like religiously-driven suicide bombing).
ReplyDeleteFirst, in relation to passing on genes being the purpose of life, the claim that "our ancestors never had a problem with this idea" is empirically false. People of all societies and cultures around the world have long invented Creation myths, religions, stories, and philosophies to give their lives a sense of broader meaning. The search for a meaning of life is one of the most universal phenomena in human history.
The fact that we are around today does not indicate that our ancestors viewed reproduction as the purpose of life, but only that reproduction occurred. Reproduction is certainly a biological imperative - the majority of members of any species are biologically driven to reproduce sexually. However, imagining sexual reproduction as not only a biological but a moral imperative can have socially, economically, and ecologically devastating consequences.
What if someone is not financially stable enough to support offspring? Would passing on their genes still be the ultimate purpose of life, whether or not they can afford to feed the offspring that they produce? When reproducing sexually, we don't get to decide which of our traits get passed on and which do not. What about the people whose genes are no good? What meaning can they use to organize their lives, to make sense of their role in the world?
Pinker implies that "science has shown" that certain people are genetically inclined toward violence, weakness, and/or stupidity, while others are genetically inclined toward attractiveness, strength, and/or intelligence, and that because of this, upbringing can have little effect on how they all turn out. What is the purpose of life for these genetically inferior individuals? How should they conduct themselves, and how should society deal with them?
This whole discussion shows how ideas of science, religion, and ethics are inextricably linked in the modern (and post-modern?) Western mind, and how easy it is for all of us to slip back and forth from logically sound thinking into fuzzy moralizing and philosophizing without realizing the switch. Scientific studies are carried about by scientists, reported on by journalists, and made into policy by legislators who all have particular moral, philosophical, and ideological backgrounds that are difficult, if not impossible, to escape entirely. Guess that puts me squarely on one side of the science wars... I'll try to argue the other side next time : ).
I think this is a very interesting perspective in terms of what life really means and what we should do with our time here. I certainly believe in the theory of evolution and the idea of humans as biological organisms meant to pass on our genes. However, saying that passing on our genes is the meaning of life itself feels just too science related for me. Basically, because science has helped us figure out our biological workings and behaviors, we now know that this is what life means? It feels kind of cold to me to say life is simply passing on genes. While reproduction is essential for the human race, I just can't get behind the idea that it is the true meaning of life.
ReplyDelete