TED Conversations

Richard Roose

Reader & Writer, retired

This conversation is closed.

A scientifically proveable Purpose to Human Life?

I believe the primary purpose of human life is the Unconditional Love, Care, Nourishment and Education of all of Earth's children; and I believe this can be proven scientifically without any reference to any Deity. The proof lays in the scientific evidence found in the 3.8 billion year fossil record of life on Earth. It is simply that life before humans and most of all living organisms today perform no function other that survival to reproduce.

By the definition of the words function and purpose being interchangeable according the both the English dictionary and the English thesaurus, I believe it is reasonable to say (as many of scientist on earth believe) that the purpose of all other lower evolved life forms is simply to "survival to propagate the species".

As human are simply another organism like all others, which just happens to occupy the top link in the Earth's food supply chain, does not mean that the purpose of human life is any different from other life forms. It is just a bit more complicated because of intelligence; and the size of a mature human brain is much larger than the size of a a female virgina, therefore requiring some 15 or so years during which the child needs Unconditional Love, Care, Nourishment and Education in order to mature into a just, moral and productive citizen of society

I believe almost all of humanity's problems stem from the abuse heaped on children by parents who are ignorant of the fact that they are abusing their children.

I also believe the best way to solve most, if not all of humanity's problems is to teach children How to be Parents before they become parents.

My intentions and hope for posting to this forum is scientific verification or rebuttal of these and other connecting hypotheses.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 21 2011: I found this reply just as problematic - your last sentence is just your value judgment and although I don't agree with much of what loop johnny said, I did think his reply has a place in this legitimate debate because it sparked many relevant thoughts. For example, his analogy of the apple, was useful if only because it provokes further analysis. The "purposes" of the apple are in fact not the apple's purposes at all, they are the purposes of the humans and more dimly and less obviously the "purposes" of the worm and the plant and this can illuminate the meaning of your entire topic.
      Thank you for starting the conversation, but it would serve us better if we either directly addressed the arguments of others or ignored them than if we discourage contributions by denigrating the author.
      • thumb
        Feb 22 2011: Hi Eric,

        I take your point and I have deleted the offensive reply. Thank you for the criticism and for reading my hypotheses. I look forward to further replies from you concerning my theories.

        For my education - I did not think I was "denigrating the author", rather I was just voicing an opinion for which I provided some justification. Does every one agree with Eric?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.