Being careful what you wish for

Like most of us, I subscribe to a number of online newsletters that advance a number of topics, whether subtly/not-so-subtly or overtly/covertly provocative, and I came across this transcribed interview this morning, where the following exchange took place:

http://singularityhub.com/2014/03/06/in-depth-with-jason-silva-brain-games-trance-states-and-the-abomination-of-death/

Will our parents be the last humans to die without having any say in the matter? Or maybe it’s us?
 
That to me is an abomination. I can’t fathom it. The dream would be to save our parents, wouldn’t it? I mean my whole interest in this stuff came from being unable to contemplate the mortality of my parents. Just being unwilling to accept ever having to come to terms with something so horrific. How do we address this horrific imposition by a supposedly meaningless universe? Well, if the universe works through us, and we are it and it is us—then we can change the rules.

Now, I have never been someone who's been able to walk away from a provocative act or statement, though as I've gotten older, I've gotten better at doing so; if for no other reason than the simple fact that reacting impulsively to something has never worked out well for me.

However, something about this exchange rankled me, and I wasn't sure why...I suppose part of it had to do with the audacity, the sheer arrogance implied in the phrase "then we can change the rules".  I've read my share of TED talks, of well-intentioned prose where the utopia of existence can occur if only this or that occurs or is changed, and after the euphoria of that heady pronouncement fades, what is left afterwards is a kind of basic response...namely, 'ok, how?' 

In a way, 'how?' is the easiest one of the core questions to reply...this is where the logician, scientist or enthusiast have equal footing, and whether or not a solution proves plausible or not, realistic or not, this question can always be answered, in many ways.

After this, though, the questions get more complicated...who? what? where? when?  All these can narrow the focus but can also (whether intentionally or not) raise some true moral questions of their own.  As inconvenient as the latter may prove, they are essential because whether or not we like it or not, life...life on this planet; life as we know it...is not based on pure science or pure logic, and that applies to every facet of life, which includes death.

But as challenging as 'how?' is, the most compelling, the most difficult of all, may be: 'why?'

Mortality is a fact of life.  Period.  Everything is born or created; it follows that everything will either die or disappear.  To me, that simple fact can be funny (thank goodness there's a limit to puberty!, thank God there's a finite time to my teens/twenties!), profound (we must recognize every moment we have with appreciation for its uniqueness and evanescence and that applies to our interactions with others), sad (I miss my grandparents and mother and friends who have died), or basic (I will die some day), but whatever the situation, to suggest that death can somehow be dealt with like a minor inconvenience seems to misunderstand the illogic of that claim.  How can one live indefinitely?  And what would be the quality of that life lived in perpetuity?

Judging from the situation of most of the world's current population, ALL countries, governments, municipalities are doing a poor job of caring for their populations, let alone natural resources.  There are people everywhere who are hungry, unwanted, exploited, illiterate...and yet if you looked inside at basic anatomy, there would be no overt difference between a beggar off the streets of Mumbai and a notable literati or tycoon from New York or London.  Every difference, every distinction or prejudice occurs on the surface of our culture/society, and this is what we consider worth continuing forever?

It is entirely possible that the person being interviewed was speaking from an earnest desire to do something altruistic; that the way most people die in the western world is not from old age but from disease...but wouldn't it be more effective to spend the time and energy not only to cure ailments but ease the suffering involved?  Wouldn't it be better to spend the time and resources on preventing certain things from happening in the first place, things that left untreated could lead to disease and pain?  Wouldn't it be better to take the time and effort to have more people care about what life means instead of taking it for granted, being oblivious to everything around us except ourselves and maximizing one's 'share'?

All these things contribute to the quality of a life, not a measurable quantity but something indefinable...intangible.  It seems to me that viewing the universe as supposedly meaningless is inherently sad because it suggests that because we don't understand the why of that, it's completely irrelevant and something to fear or rail against. 

To me, the fact that the universe isn't completely explainable to me is a source of endless relief!  Realizing that I don't need to know every thing in order to understand or appreciate some things lends perspective and depth to my present existence....the fact that every day begins and ends the same way provides a sense of continuity and balance, a zen koan that defies any answer other it simply is.

And I might just simply be wrong, but knowing I have a finite time here makes it possible for me to care more about what I leave behind; in the same way that if I'm going to be somewhere special for only a certain number of days, I will cherish that time much more than if I was there indefinitely.

I think what people in general need to realize is that it's not the quantity of something that counts the most; it's the quality that matters, and it is as true for one's life as it is for everything within life itself...how else can one explain the contradiction between the opulence of the developed world and the number of genuinely unhappy people in it, feeling the way they do while using all manner of drugs, meth, alcohol, tobacco and other stimulants/distractions?  How many of these poor souls could relate to the story of Citizen Kane where true happiness lay in a simple child's sled named "Rosebud?"