You Can't Handle Evolutionary Purpose

April 4, 2020

 

If you are reading this, your purpose in life is likely over or, at worst, you are not positioned to fulfill it optimally anymore. This is from an evolutionary point of view, of course. And, yet, you are still here. But... why?

 

Puberty, the period of sexual maturation, in which the human body readies itself up for procreation, runs from the age of 11 to 17, more or less, with variations between males and females, of course. There are a myriad of factors involved in selection, ok? But if we're speaking in terms of mere efficiency, of becoming able-bodied to fulfill an evolutionary destiny, and focused on the purpose of passing one's genes, pretty much this is how a minimalist model would play out. By 17 the male is strong enough and has a spot in some social hierarchy that makes him attractive to fertile females, whether that spot is due to an ability to hunt, gather, fight, or any other skill critical for survival that is recognized among a given tribe. The female, in turn, by the age of 17 should be proficient in activities that are linked to good child rearing or, at least, have developed secondary sexual characteristics indicative of fertility, be it the radius of the hips, strong ankles, firm breasts, you name it.

 

So, let's say that between the ages 11 and 17 these individuals (let's call it subject A and subject B) get together and procreate subject C. Their evolutionary purpose is not yet over, though, as subject C is born chubby, soft, and defenseless. Subjects A and B will have to nurture, protect, and raise subject C, because the latter contains their genetic material and the task will last until subject C spins the evolutionary wheel again, between the ages of 11 and 17 as well. By that time, subjects A and B can of course be productive and helpful, for example sharing the accumulated wisdom that they have developed during a period of 22 to 34 years, or helping subject C to find a subject D or even caring after subjects E, F, G and so on, so forth. However, their evolutionary purpose has pretty much been achieved in the model: they successfully passed their genes to the next generation and the latter even has passed them down one layer further. Hooray!

 

Now, like all models, this is, well, just a model. It does not reflect reality and, frankly speaking, it is obviously tongue in cheek. In reality, people today have neither matured nor learned anything remotely useful by 17, at least not something that would earn them a spot in a considerable social hierarchy and, thus, make them desirable for mating. There are cultural, geographical, economic, demographic, historical, medical and a multitude other variables at play at any given place and time that influence what people do or consider valuable to do. And then, there is one unshakeable fact that no objective model can handle, at least not if it wishes to maintain its veneer of objectivity: People. Refuse. To. Die. Actually, the most humorous aspect of it all is that, as time passes, people become more stubborn and cling to their lives as long as possible, way beyond a span of strictly evolutionary usefulness. Back in the Middle Ages or before, for that matter, it was known and accepted that several of the kids you had were meant to die, and so were you, at a young age by today's standards, and that life was not only going to be short but also brutal.

 

Funny, isn't it? Now, in this day and age, when all this technology and science have granted humanity both deep objective reach and a wealth of knowledge beyond Da Vinci's and Tesla's imagination, when it seems that humankind has mastered everything that can be known and, thus, there seems to be no use left for God... people just don't want to stick to the evolutionary plan! Not only that; not content with the trove of richness provided by science and the utopia of an atheist society suspiciously armed with values which come from heaven knows where (but not from any sort of mythological mumbo jumbo, uh!) people do contradictorily unscientific things, like willingly opting out of the gene pool and inventing 57 genders, denying scientific differences between men and women, talking about HIV or the ability to build bridges as socially constructed matters, the hocus pocus of intersectional snake oil peddling and whatnot. The so-called "google intelligentsia" counts in its ranks with a horde of frivolous, relativist, capricious, decadent, fluffy, and entitled crybabies... and who also (to place the cherry on top) refuse to fucking die!

 

So, when everyone's acting contrary to objective, measurable nature, and done so for thousands of years, isn't it time to wake up and smell the chai latte, fuckboi? There is a subterranean layer of meaning that escapes the strictly naturalistic view of the human condition. Unable to quantify that which escapes the objective reach, we pretend to live in a lie as in truth, submerging all our senses into a miasma of cognitive dissonance. Humanity has forced itself into a hazmat suit of virtual interactions when, at its fingertips, it possesses (but pretends to be oblivious to) the intimacy, immediacy, and meta-language cues that feed the collective unconscious. When Paul wrote that he had become all things to all people so that by all possible means he might save some (1 Corinthians 9:22), the Western mind finally crystalized from the seeds of the Torah and the Greeks and into a comprehensive understanding of the individual priesthood of purpose while in togetherness. In other words, this is the contradiction that Leszek Kolakowski wrote about in "Waiting for the Barbarians", and the duality that many other thinkers have been trying to illustrate --unable to pin it down although certain about its existence.

 

If you manage to factor that in, with precision, into a scientific model, get ready to get a bukkake of cash from the high priests of "hard science." Alas, it's impossible. Only when admitting defeat we shall win as a civilization, once more, and perhaps it may still be time to regain our soul.

 

 

 

Please reload