EPTThe gift that no one asked for
I do not believe in any hidden meaning or higher purpose in life. Our individual consciousness is the curious result of the properties of nature. We exist by a not yet understood mechanism of electrical impulses stored in a lump of brain matter. When we die, we cease existing; the configuration of molecules inside our skull is no longer in a state that supports a functioning mind.
Some people struggle with the lack of inherent meaning to our lives. But the answer is not so difficult. We have no purpose, so we might as well enjoy the time that we are alive. “Happiness” is a sufficiently broad concept that can capture all the good things in life. Many people would accept the proposition that finding all-around happiness is a worthwhile life goal.
Life is the gift that no one asked for. It is thrust upon us without our consent, and we are expected to accept it with gratitude. If, after examining this gift to our satisfaction, we decide that it is unwanted, we should have the right to cast it away.
The previous paragraph is a paraphrased excerpt from the book The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes. I was prompted to read the book after coming across a preview featuring those lines. It turns out that it was, for me, the best part of the book. The rest of the story was good but failed to measure up to the beautiful selection which hooked me in. It was describing the contents of a suicide note, in which “there was practically a QED at the end.”
I have previously written on the evaluation of a life by measuring happiness. The concept in economics is utility, which is the same idea. Happiness is all the good (positive) things in life, and pain is all the bad (negative) things. Happiness and pain come from both physical and mental sources. A life is worth living if the net present value of all future happiness net of future pain is positive. We should accept all projects (lives) with a NPV>0, and reject those that are negative. Or put a better way, allow those with a NPV<0 to self-reject.
The perception of happiness and pain is entirely subjective to each individual. Two people subject to the exact same set of external events and experiences will have different happiness NPVs because their sensitivities to the events are unique. Past memories, even though they are fixed and unchangeable, still affect forward-looking NPV because they alter perceptions and expectations, and reminiscing on good memories can be a source of enjoyment.
In my model, suicide is entirely justifiable if life happiness NPV is below zero. Such a life contains more pain than is justified by any compensating happiness. It is only rational to “return the gift” that causes more trouble than it is worth. An individual’s perception of their own life is purely subjective and cannot be understood by others. Just because an observer would gladly accept Person X’s life circumstances does not mean Person X must place the same value on those circumstances. And there is nothing wrong with Person X if he chooses to reject it altogether.
The heavens’ embroidered cloths
But I, being poor, have only my dreams.
I have spread my dreams under your feet.
Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.
+ Show Spoiler +
I encountered the above quote, originally from a poem by William Butler Yeats, while watching the movie Equilibrium. I was simultaneously confused and intrigued when I heard it. I did not understand what Trevelyan was sputtering about dreams; it seemed random and out of context. I was watching with my brother, and I asked him, “What was he saying?” He didn’t understand either, and we skipped back a bit to rewatch it twice. We did not know that he was reading a poem. Even though I was confused, that scene left a deep impression and has stuck with me. I looked up the lines shortly after finishing the movie. Sean Bean’s delivery of the poem was absolutely terrific. It has become one of my favourite quotes. It captures a delicate sense of hope, desperation, defiance, servitude, the imbalance of power, and the capacity to single-handedly determine another’s fate.
I cannot say that I am materially poor, and for that I am always grateful. But I would venture that I am emotionally poor. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I have satisfied my basic physical needs but not much beyond that. I would self-assess that my current short-term happiness NPV is very low or even below zero. It is very much my future prospects that drive me forward. In that sense, “I, being poor, have only my dreams.”
So what are these dreams I so highly value? Not deviating far from conventional attitudes, wealth and power come quickly to mind. I will not even ask for love – though I cherish it greatly, love’s fickle and unpredictable nature make me careful of what I wish for. How much wealth and power is enough, and what will I do once I achieve it? The discovery that wealth and power are overrated, and that true value comes from love and relationships, is a cliche lesson which I dismiss. Having wealth and power does not exclude love and relationships. There is no trade-off, and it only makes sense to strive for both.
Best before
Say in the near future we develop a treatment to prolong life indefinitely by “curing” aging. I don’t think we’re that far off – in my opinion, it’s all in the telomerase. Say I am able to afford this treatment. Do I have an obligation to go through with it? I think the general consensus is “no”. If I choose no, I am choosing a short life over a longer (though not necessarily infinite) one. Compare this to when a person wishes to commit suicide. What’s the difference? Why is one morally reprehensible but the other not? If one is justified in deciding that living to 100 years is sufficient, why can’t the same be said for a lower number? We all have a different utility curve, and for some, going all the way is not in their best interests. The only difference I see is that we give great and undue deference to the “natural” life span.
Man vs nature
People are products of nature. The only thing special about us is our ability to drastically manipulate our surroundings to impose great danger on ourselves. And that we are pretty smart.
Is killing another person wrong? No, not inherently. Consider a man alone in the wilderness. He would not be criticized for harvesting vegetation to eat. Or killing a mosquito out for his blood. Or killing a snake on his path which posed a danger. And finally, even killing a pig to eat. In nature, some animals eat other animals to survive. But if that man were to kill a pig, not to eat, but just for entertainment, is that wrong? If he were truly on his own, he would be no different than a wild animal. I think we would generally avoid classifying a predator as “wrong” even if it killed without a discernible purpose. We are animals; animals are part of nature; nature has no concept of right or wrong.
But a fellow human may be more worthwhile alive than as a food source. We developed clans, tribes, communities and civilizations on the basis that people can achieve great things when working together. The standard of living for everyone is higher than if they were to live on their own. This depends on cooperation and following a set of rules to maintain order. People who deviate from these rules are punished, not because they have done something inherently “wrong”, but because they cannot contribute anything to the community, are a net drain on resources, and in fact only make things worse for others. The goal of punishment is either to get the offender to change their ways and accept the social contract of civilization, or to remove them from the community altogether.
Following this logic, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Even someone who engaged in torturing animals, something I am absolutely appalled by, is not inherently wrong. However, they must still be punished. No person was directly harmed by their activity, but that is irrelevant. Collective society has found value in extending empathy to all things capable of thinking and feeling, and rightfully so. The offender failed to show an understanding or share this sentiment, and is making the world a worse place for everyone else. Thus, the community can dispose of the offender as they see fit.
In my religion, I am god
The atheism “debate” rages on for many people on many platforms. I personally have little interest – it will take time for believers to review their position, but I expect (and hope) religion to slowly die out over the coming years or decades as the internet enables greater access to information for all.
Instead, I subscribe to my own school of thought that the ultimate, and in fact the only, duty you owe is to yourself. (Actually, I tried to look up a term that expresses something along the lines of personal individual supremacy, but couldn’t find one. I thought I came across something like that before... dominion of oneself?) I am my god, and I am the only being I will ever truly know. If you are a person lacking the confidence to be your own god, and seek guidance elsewhere, then you may worship me. I will exploit you for my own needs, and if that is what you desire, it is win-win for all.
That would be fun, wouldn’t it? And scarily, not far from reality, as things like scientology have shown. The power of brainwashing can be frightening.
Finally, that takes me to what I will do with my ultimate wealth and power. I will decide what’s wrong with the world and fix it. In the process I expect to eliminate all those who are a source of trouble and a drain on the world. I will accept only those who behave like a good citizen. Then I look around my utopia and decide I do not belong among those people. I can finally leave. And it will be accepted, and they will rejoice.
.
