Ending a Stalemate

I’ve been at a philosophical stand-still for 10 years. After my de-conversion from Christianity, I made quick leaps into a secular world view. I merged science and ethics into a nifty little package that did well for me. I came to the conclusion that mankind is not a random product of nature, or the creation of some designer, but a systematic result of the principles of evolution when placed in the environment of Earth. We were essentially animals who progressed through the evolutionary advantage of high intelligence. So the next question was apparent: should we embrace our animal nature? Or should we press on toward this seeming non-animalness?And there I hit a brick wall.

If we’re just animals, then what is the point? Sure, we can try to transcend … but why? Ten years later, I still couldn’t find an acceptable answer.

I shouldn’t feel surprised, but I am. Last week, science finally answered the question. The context of the answer came from Carl Sagan’s book The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. In this book Sagan explores our position in the universe, and the possibility of there being a god within it. Sagan’s approach is fair, and a subtle opposite to Richard Dawkins’ approach in his book The God Delusion. Dawkins borders on snarky, and he really really really wants to prove that there is no god. Sagan is equally disciplined, but almost hopeful–as if the discovery of god for him would be in some way deeply satisfying.

The other, initially unrelated message that comes out of Sagan’s book is that life on other planets seems quite likely, and intelligent life on other planets is a very distinct possibility. He asserts that humanity is not an unlikely accident, but the likely result of physical laws that are omnipresent. He shows how the building blocks of biological matter can be found practically everywhere in the universe. He discusses the Drake equation, and shows how we are chipping away at it to show the greater and greater likelihood that intelligent life exists out there … somewhere.

Sagan also says that IF there is intelligent life out there, it is likely quite far away, and visiting such a place would be extremely unlikely. Talking to them via long-distance communication, however, could actually happen. Now we know why our phones are also cameras.

But here’s the rub. If the same forces that promote intelligent life continue unabated, that intelligent life is likely going to kill itself off. Darwinian principles are brutal, after all. And we learn how to destroy things far faster than we learn how our environment actually functions. The same challenges that face humanity would likely be facing any other intelligent life forms out there. In order for us to find and talk to them, we have to overcome the forces of nature that brought us this far–long enough to make a really great intergalactic phone. In order for them to answer, they will have had to overcome the same thing. So when we finally say “hello,” we’ll have something in common with them.

Then last week scientists found a habitable planet. This took another chip out of the Drake Equation. It started to become apparent to me that intelligent life is … <gulp> … probably … out there. And I want to talk to them. And why do I want to talk to them? Thank you Sir Edmund Hillary–because they are there.

The only way to ever talk to them and hear their story is to fucking SURVIVE long enough to figure out how to do it. The only way to survive is to transcend the brutal laws that got us where we are.

Stalemate ended. Reason: curiosity. That’s good enough for me.