If anything could happen, subjected such by quantum states, would it not be preferable to accept leading a happy life than an unhappy one? That is, more to the point, if we hold life experience as subjective (because if it were objective, then we would be all so uniform as nullifying the point of individuality), we can imprint our will to the life we lead, to the courses we take. Doing otherwise would simply contradict some basic facts about metaphysical freedom insinuated throughout human history as individual attributes determinant for one's existence (most notably Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Sartre, to name a few).
Now it is possible to imagine such actions and situation that go above our individual will. True. That point holds to the separation between will of the mind and will of the...well, our physical self. It is perfectly unarguable to decide that we cannot lift a piano. On the other hand, it is completely arguable to confront your boss with trivial language and resign. Don't say you don't have a choice, you can't do it. It is, simply put, the lack of will. And lacking will might as well deprive you of some human defining attributes granting you others in return. Cowardice is a natural feature that shouldn't shame you of possessing. The bad part in such an approach is that negating reality (thus, what you can and cannot do) might be evidence of some pathological issues that you need sorted out. I would recommend suicide, unless you want results deriving from the removal of your frontal lobe. Hell, inland fantasy is quite common these days, take advantage of its care-free environment.
And thus I'm brought circumstantially to another point in this discussion. Homo sapiens evolution vs. natural evolution (I'm derogating the term in order for it to apply to aforementioned species). As we see everywhere in the natural universe plainly outside artificial human mastering, nature favours the most powerful, the gifted, the most beautiful, but as seeing how less is more, only the fit survive. The human universe is by these standards, something quite odd and peculiar to a natural endeavour.
It has come to my attention that in the past few years, genetical diseases, of which most neurological, have become more numerous and have begun to affect a bigger chunk of the world's population. Apologists may argue quite effectively that this is because the increasing population. I'd agree, up to a point. Of course, I haven't exactly done my homework in the sense that I know not the exact numbers. However it is quite obvious that these afflictions are not mere random things and not because of the human population growth. Rather it is because our evolutive course has taken a devolutive path, different from that of nature. Instead of disposing of those unable to take care of themselves, that would never in their life bring any plus to the society they live in or the species as a whole. Quite oppositely, they would waste resources for no reason and live for no purpose other than the feelings of those close to them.
Now I'm exempting from my accusations the old and crippled for they might've done something for society in their time and deserve some sort of reward, as in nature, nothing is created and destroyed, but is perpetual. Even so, clinging for the life of some disabled freak that could never live on his own, would never live up to its human potential and that anywhere else would die because of the practical inability to LIVE, I find it pathetic and a downturn for the human species as a whole, as it allows, within the confines of societal development and mores, to perpetuate genes and behaviours detracting from true evolution. You may think me to be wrong, but think this: if I were as my topic, I wouldn't be here writing, now would I? I would most probably be trying to breathe on my own and be fed as a retarded specimen that would most probably be forced to perpetuate his existence one way or another, thus creating even more problems for future generations to deal with.
As we don't have enough genetic mutations from viruses on our hands, we need more genetic mutation from bad breeding. Think about it, you wouldn't breed a diseased dog with a prize-winner pedigree one, would you? Think about that. I'll think about the future.
Earth (2007)
16 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment