What is the purpose of the human species?

[threeStepfourStep]

I don't mean our own individual purpose, but what our end goal is for the species as a collective. In the animal world we have a lot of species that execute a specific function within a consumption hierarchy, allowing some kind of an ecosystem to exist. We're at the top of that food chain. And in a way, humans as a species have somewhat transcended that ecosystem and have used technology and atomic and chemistry science to render that ontological need to fit into a natural system moot.

Individually, we do what we please, and even in less developed countries, there is a sense of freedom as to what one can pursue in life, although the freedom is constricted as one ages. For much of the living species on earth however, the purpose of the species is to safeguard the status quo of the ecosystem and to create a balance in that ecosystem. But then again, that is from the perspective of the ecosystem- it's not like a species as a collective understands itself to function in the dynamism of nature. So having transcended that system, the human species is not like the other species on earth, we do not care much for the system of nature- in fact climate change and environmental pollution are definite indicators that our collective purpose is not to bring some kind of order to the natural ecosystem on earth.

When I studied economics and the history of the banking system (the US one at least [it mostly had to do with farmers]), I got a feeling that the entire purpose of the economy was to help organize human society so that it can expand into higher populations. A unified currency helps consolidate and organize a society because values and wealth become homogenized. This in turn allows the possibility of organizing much more people, in a way that creates a way of life that balances purpose with freedom and wider political rights. As a species, we've organized from tribes, kingdoms, then parliamentary life, then full on democracy. We also have one party political systems, where, namely China, has achieved great success, at least in measure of how developed a society is. So when bigger populations cannot be sustained by a kind of political system, an upgrade is kicked in, and a new political system develops. Mind you, the leaders in these political systems are not directing humanity, in the sense that they are providing purpose to people. Political leaders, whether they like it or not, act as stabilizers for a nation in the human species, directing the economic growth of a country by providing consistency and safety with the organization of law. Political rulers used to be imperialists, that they had a motive and a purpose- but now their main objective is to keep the economy of a nation running, or at least hold that objective as the ideal.

I would argue that in the past, the purpose of politicians was grow and make society better. The higher and better policies, the better we can socially organize our ever expanding populations. But in reality, I find that several things get in the way.

In contemporary politics, in the development of democracies around the world, we find that democratic politics usually develop into two highly polarized camps that try to maximize voter turnout by adhering to a specific voter base. There is something odd that happens when technology and politics come together- chaos breeds itself into politics and truth values become more obscure, often confusing and covering itself with misclarity. This might be misplaced, but I blame the rise of the smartphone for much of political chaos in some of the developed world. We've bled the public and private sphere so much with the smartphone that we confuse the casual with the governmental.

So in this respect it makes me think: the human species is not headed towards a better politics or the development of some kind of a perfected political system. There is much economic development or a better quality of life for a vast number of people, but the ultimate purpose does not seem to lie in a better political system because of the obvious stagnation we see in our political organizations. The inability to overcome technological advancements in politics, and the inability to organize our vast populations into some kind of purposeful economic activity, seems to show that a better social organization, as a species, is not our goal. A better social or political life does not seem like purposes to us, as the idealistic politicians envision things.

So this makes me think a bit: what is the purpose that we, as a collective, have to conjure so that we actually have a purpose? From what perspective should we be looking at life, from the eyes of history or the eyes of the system? Or from a moral code? Religious systems from the past have tried to uphold certain virtue traits and inadvertently create civilizations out of them. Nietzsche for example argued that Christianity was the fault that created democracy, and then secularism. But here we are.

So where are we headed, or towards what purpose should we go towards?

 

[Cognisant]

I think human civilization is undergoing a crisis of nihilism, the death of God has finally arrived and now that we have become the arbiters of truth we find ourselves lacking. But such is the lot of a child becoming an adult, forced to wear the shoes their feet don't yet fill. In time they will, in time.

We are currently learning the hard way that without objectivity there can be no understanding, and without understanding there can be no meaningful discourse, but I am confident that reason will ultimately prevail.

 

[kuoka]

I don't mean our own individual purpose, but what our end goal is for the species as a collective. In the animal world we have a lot of species that execute a specific function within a consumption hierarchy, allowing some kind of an ecosystem to exist. We're at the top of that food chain. And in a way, humans as a species have somewhat transcended that ecosystem and have used technology and atomic and chemistry science to render that ontological need to fit into a natural system moot.

Animals who execute a function and hold a place in a foodchain also don't have a purpose. They just carved out a niche that works for them, keeps them alive. On a different planet in a different ecosystem that same animal could fill a different role or evolve differently.

We are far far away from being in a position to ignore our ecosystem and reality and it may in fact be the reason for our extinction, that we ignore what shouldn't be ignored.

In a sense humanity is undergoing a cultural and mental evolution, a very rapid one. Mere 10,000 years and we've stopped treating women like property and all men of lower class as slaves, but this is just a beginning and, I believe, an average human needs to reach a level of enlightenment of our top ethical human. This will take generations, the change won't effect currently living humans.

Without our individual growth, mental discipline and ethics improving to a sufficient degree we will be incapable of controlling the technological power that already is at our disposal.

It is very much a case of humanity needing to individually improve so that it can continue existing on a species level because our technological sophistication calls for higher ethics.


I think it's incorrect to view a successful civilization as one with an ever growing population. Growth can be unsustainable, a population may exceed its ecological feeding capacity. It may be easier for a population to find happiness and fulfill its needs when it is smaller with less competition for resources.

Though the low birthrate crisis points at something else. The economic conditions in many developed countries have deteriorated to the point where it is exceedingly difficult to have the money, time and energy to have offspring. With the level of mental sophistication of modern people we do not procreate unless we have the resources, the right partner and the will to do so, therefore our cultural, social and economic conditions do not support the existence of modern man.

I wanted to discuss this problem somewhere else, but the housing crisis is real. Imagine a young couple trying to afford a home that used to cost 50,000 in 2020 and now costs 200,000 or more. This is the property price hike that we're seeing across the western world.

Prices have outpaced wages by a very large margin, purchasing power has dropped significantly to below 1960 levels. All the resources are increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the most wealthy, the wealth inequality gap is increasing.


One could argue that the wealth concentration and various means of information control and low social activity may lead to a reversal to feudalism. Democracy cannot be healthy without an active demos.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

In a sense humanity is undergoing a cultural and mental evolution, a very rapid one. Mere 10,000 years and we've stopped treating women like property and all men of lower class as slaves, but this is just a beginning and, I believe, an average human needs to reach a level of enlightenment of our top ethical human. This will take generations, the change won't effect currently living humans.

I thought this part you wrote was interesting, because Kant in his Idea for a Universal History (1784) remarked the same (last paragraph of the 7th thesis). That was roughly 240 years ago and we haven't improved much.

I think it's incorrect to view a successful civilization as one with an ever growing population. Growth can be unsustainable, a population may exceed its ecological feeding capacity. It may be easier for a population to find happiness and fulfill its needs when it is smaller with less competition for resources.

I think this is the view most political leaders had the in past century. To excel during the industrial revolution, you needed a lot of labor. Labor requires human capital- that is, more people. For the human species, the problem isn't 'feeding capacity', or the more widely known Malthusian Trap, it's the problem of providing equitable jobs for people so that their political rights do not impede others. For example, the current economy normalized in a way that economic 'forces' determine market prices, for labor and product costs. This means that there's always someone who receives the lowest pay because the market determines the pay, and there's always a way to create products more efficiently, effectively lowering the need for more labor, driving down labor costs. There always will be someone who will be willing to work for less because they need work, thus they become exploited. In the United States we see this often with minorities because unions and political activism is not in their experiences, and thus their rights are impeded. It goes the other way around as well: rich billionaires can make political donations or influence media to influence politicians, effectively impeding the rights of other citizens who cannot afford such political leverage.

The problem isn't about not being able to feed people, we can feed everyone on earth and have things left over. The problem is the equal or fair distribution of political power that is naturally formed through the wealth people are able to accumulate, which comes from their labor. We just don't have enough jobs that pay a respectable, equitable number of people to provide that environment of political fairness.

Though the low birthrate crisis points at something else. The economic conditions in many developed countries have deteriorated to the point where it is exceedingly difficult to have the money, time and energy to have offspring. With the level of mental sophistication of modern people we do not procreate unless we have the resources, the right partner and the will to do so, therefore our cultural, social and economic conditions do not support the existence of modern man.

I wanted to discuss this problem somewhere else, but the housing crisis is real. Imagine a young couple trying to afford a home that used to cost 50,000 in 2020 and now costs 200,000 or more. This is the property price hike that we're seeing across the western world.

Prices have outpaced wages by a very large margin, purchasing power has dropped significantly to below 1960 levels. All the resources are increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the most wealthy, the wealth inequality gap is increasing.

Yup, this is something I think about a lot. What's the purpose of the human species if most of the population cannot find it easy to create a family? Is life naturally something that structures itself so that classes emerge to create societal structures? Isn't progress about being able to provide a rich livelihood for everyone? As in, as time progresses, shouldn't we be creating a society where freedoms and material wealth are maximized for the most amount of people?

I think politicians used to believe in this idealism, but I think the nature of democracy, or at least the current trajectory democracy has taken in the current world, shows us that democracy cannot take us there.

 

[sushi]

survive

 

[Chibi]

goon