The other day while listening to the original radio play of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, I was fascinated by the amount of scenes and dialogue which I had either overlooked or forgotten since the first time I listened to it. One piece in particular though stuck in my mind. The scene in question revolves around the unveiling of the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. The conversation goes like this:
"Deep Thought: The answer to Everything ...
Vroomfondel: Yes!
Deep Thought: Life, The Universe and Everything ...
Majikthise: Yes!
Deep Thought: Is ...
Vroomfondel: Yes!
Deep Thought: 42
Majikthise: We're going to get lynched you know that
Deep Thought: The problem such as it was was too broadly based. You never actually stated what the question was.
Vroomfondel: But it was the Ultimate Question, the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything."
Just like the hapless philosophers Vroomfondel and Majikthise in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, quite a lot of thought has been given over to this question over the course of history and more than a few trees have had to lay down their lives so some person or another can expound their idea of the answer. The problem with historical philosophers just as with the fictional ones we have seen here is that they truly didn't understand the question they were asking. I think this is why this question has consumed so much human activity because as far as I can see, the most obvious facet of the question of life, the universe and everything is relatively easy to answer and explain, namely the oft-asked question of why are we here.
Before we tackle that question though, it is worth considering the complexity of the whole question of life the universe and everything. As I've just mentioned, the common "why are we here question" is just one facet of the problem of answering the ultimate question. A facet is an appropriate term to use here since the question remains the same but the sense in which it is used changes, thus all the head scratching. So that I don't lose anyone's attention or my own train of thought at this point I shall simplify my argument. The question of why we are here is similar to the stone soup fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm. In the end you only get out of it what you put into it. By that I mean, if you are pondering how the universe came into existence and consequently humans you will best find your answers among the big bang and other physical theories. On the other hand if you are wondering about our current purpose on earth then your eventual answer will be completely different.
Before we tackle that question though, it is worth considering the complexity of the whole question of life the universe and everything. As I've just mentioned, the common "why are we here question" is just one facet of the problem of answering the ultimate question. A facet is an appropriate term to use here since the question remains the same but the sense in which it is used changes, thus all the head scratching. So that I don't lose anyone's attention or my own train of thought at this point I shall simplify my argument. The question of why we are here is similar to the stone soup fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm. In the end you only get out of it what you put into it. By that I mean, if you are pondering how the universe came into existence and consequently humans you will best find your answers among the big bang and other physical theories. On the other hand if you are wondering about our current purpose on earth then your eventual answer will be completely different.
For me the question of why we are here has always been about human existence and our purpose in life. The question of the existence of the universe was never really a problem either because I felt it was unimportant or because I've never really had a problem understanding the concepts of the creation of time and relativity and an infinite universe. Human existence and behaviour on the other hand is a far larger subject than the universe. At first the task of divining any sort of meaning on this subject seemed impossible. Then a few years ago I happened by accident on a book by zoologist Matt Ridley called "The Red Queen". It laid out with unanswerable simplicity the nature of human behaviour and the purpose of existence.
Since then the natural world has been opened up to me and I can see the whole of human behaviour with a clarity I never thought possible. The revelation was like opening your eyes for the first time. I don't wish through these essays to deliberately change anyone's mind and this is not some pulpit from which I preach some new doctrine but if you find yourself at a point in your life where you're looking for the big answers in life then you could do worse than reading The Red Queen.
Getting back to the point though, the answer to the question of why are we here is now so simple to me that I have trouble imagining how people have trouble answering it in the first place. It reminds me of first going back to teach youngers students having completed my degree. Some equations were so fundamental and easy to understand it was hard to explain it to people who had never seen them before. The real reason why we are all here on this planet (or another like it somewhere) is sex. Its kind of anti-climactic for all of human existence to be broken down to one word but there you go. We are here to reproduce, to spam our environment with little copies of ourselves so that our genes gain some measure of immortality. From the earliest days of this planet we have worked together at one biological level or another to ensure that our essence, our genes are passed on from one generation to the next. Once you can get your head around that, every other little detail starts to fall into place.
A female friemd once asked me (in a moment of mild frustration) why are all the best men taken, to which I replied - because they are the best. When you look at the science of human behaviour it all becomes clear. Women have a large biological investment in having children compared to men. A woman is limited to one child every nine months, a man is limited to, well a man is limited to as many children as the number of women he can seduce. Thus over the course of history these differing biological traits have lead to defined behavioural patterns when seeking out future mates or partners since that sounds better. Men seek quantity and women quality. Thus the physical characteristics which a man looks for in a woman is the ability to bear healthy children: hourglass figure, pale skin (i.e. less able to hide any genetic imperfections) and of course a bountiful chest. Think Angelina in Gone in 60 Seconds and you're there. Women on the other hand have different ideas, not only because of the time issue but because of the altricial (helpless) nature of human children. Thus a woman looks for a man who is reliable, dependable amd loyal. Because of this trait, a woman will often choose a man who is less good looking than one she could possibly get under normal circumstances akthough it has to be said that most of the time both sexes will attempt to get the best possible match if they can. As Gregory House once said to the wife of a patient in an episode of House MD:
This disparity in behavioural attitudes leads to the common misnomer of the battle of the sexes although it is really a balancing act of the tendencies of both sexes. Thus when we look at the course of family structures over the years we see that families have varied from harem type families with one dominant male and many females such as in ancient kingdoms and of course Utah to polyamorous societies like the free love movement. Human family structure is like a tide ebbing and flowing between these endpoints.
Once you start to look at the science of human behaviour what before seemed like everyday easily dismissed facts of life become fascinating trips through the history of human development. Eventually the answer becomes apparent and your perspective is changed forever. Some people have argued in the past about the most important field of human endeavour be it artificial intelligence, space exploration or cosmology. But for me at least, nothing could be more important than exploring our own selves. The only real risk of failure in this endeavour is the temptation of false promises or easy solutions like religion or astrology. To demonstrate this point I will leave the closing words to Stan Marsh, an eight year old wise beyond his years:
Since then the natural world has been opened up to me and I can see the whole of human behaviour with a clarity I never thought possible. The revelation was like opening your eyes for the first time. I don't wish through these essays to deliberately change anyone's mind and this is not some pulpit from which I preach some new doctrine but if you find yourself at a point in your life where you're looking for the big answers in life then you could do worse than reading The Red Queen.
Getting back to the point though, the answer to the question of why are we here is now so simple to me that I have trouble imagining how people have trouble answering it in the first place. It reminds me of first going back to teach youngers students having completed my degree. Some equations were so fundamental and easy to understand it was hard to explain it to people who had never seen them before. The real reason why we are all here on this planet (or another like it somewhere) is sex. Its kind of anti-climactic for all of human existence to be broken down to one word but there you go. We are here to reproduce, to spam our environment with little copies of ourselves so that our genes gain some measure of immortality. From the earliest days of this planet we have worked together at one biological level or another to ensure that our essence, our genes are passed on from one generation to the next. Once you can get your head around that, every other little detail starts to fall into place.
A female friemd once asked me (in a moment of mild frustration) why are all the best men taken, to which I replied - because they are the best. When you look at the science of human behaviour it all becomes clear. Women have a large biological investment in having children compared to men. A woman is limited to one child every nine months, a man is limited to, well a man is limited to as many children as the number of women he can seduce. Thus over the course of history these differing biological traits have lead to defined behavioural patterns when seeking out future mates or partners since that sounds better. Men seek quantity and women quality. Thus the physical characteristics which a man looks for in a woman is the ability to bear healthy children: hourglass figure, pale skin (i.e. less able to hide any genetic imperfections) and of course a bountiful chest. Think Angelina in Gone in 60 Seconds and you're there. Women on the other hand have different ideas, not only because of the time issue but because of the altricial (helpless) nature of human children. Thus a woman looks for a man who is reliable, dependable amd loyal. Because of this trait, a woman will often choose a man who is less good looking than one she could possibly get under normal circumstances akthough it has to be said that most of the time both sexes will attempt to get the best possible match if they can. As Gregory House once said to the wife of a patient in an episode of House MD:
"Sevens marry sevens, nines marry nines, fours marry fours. Maybe there's some wiggle room if someone gets pregnant or if there's enough money but you've got at least three points on your husband and your frock says you didn't do it for the money and your breasts say you don't have any kids."
This disparity in behavioural attitudes leads to the common misnomer of the battle of the sexes although it is really a balancing act of the tendencies of both sexes. Thus when we look at the course of family structures over the years we see that families have varied from harem type families with one dominant male and many females such as in ancient kingdoms and of course Utah to polyamorous societies like the free love movement. Human family structure is like a tide ebbing and flowing between these endpoints.
Once you start to look at the science of human behaviour what before seemed like everyday easily dismissed facts of life become fascinating trips through the history of human development. Eventually the answer becomes apparent and your perspective is changed forever. Some people have argued in the past about the most important field of human endeavour be it artificial intelligence, space exploration or cosmology. But for me at least, nothing could be more important than exploring our own selves. The only real risk of failure in this endeavour is the temptation of false promises or easy solutions like religion or astrology. To demonstrate this point I will leave the closing words to Stan Marsh, an eight year old wise beyond his years:
"The big questions in life are tough: why are we here, where are we from, where are we going? But if people believe in asshole douchey liars like you we're never going to find the real answers to those questions. You're not just lying to people, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind."
No comments:
Post a Comment