The Purpose of Humankind

5 posts
User avatar
Gender Male
Points 1165
Reviews 50
Please note that I consider the existence of life to be a coincidence. As such, I do not actually believe that there is a purpose to any form of Life, including Humankind. However, as Humans are capable of assigning a purpose to more or less everything, and I am a Human, I am not ashamed to use the word "purpose" in the title, or anywhere else in the essay, though I don't think I have in the case of the latter anyway.

Humans are unique among the species of Earth. It is true that most traits which we once considered to be ours and ours alone are shared with other species - many apes show a capacity for complicated language, ants could be described as "civilised" (perhaps more so than Humans), dolphins masturbate, etc. But even if we don't have a single unique trait, we have perhaps the most useful mix of rare traits. We have the intelligence and diversity of expressions to form and use complex languages, the structure of our hands gives us the ability to build and manipulate objects in a way most other creatures cannot, and no single other species makes as much use of as many different species as Humans do.

Regardless of how unique we are, we can be certain that, one way or another, Humankind has established itself as the dominant species on Earth. In the grand scheme of things, we have not been the dominant species for long - a few millenia, if that. But we are the first species with the potential to live beyond the existence of Earth itself (though by that time we will have most likely evolved into something else, but for simplicity's sake I will refer to present-day Humans and Post/Trans-Humans as Humans throughout this essay). Due to the caring nature of a large number of Humans, we could also prolong the existence of other species. Indeed, no Apocalyptic Scientific prediction of the fate of the universe took the existence of Humanity, or other sentient lifeforms, into account. We may well be able to preserve the current (desirable) state of the universe indefinitely, and even if we can't it is worth the attempt.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that it is Humankind's responsibility to:

1) (Attempt to) Preserve the existence of Life originating from Earth beyond the existence/habitability of Earth itself, preferably eternally.
2) (Attempt to) Preserve the habitability of the Universe, preferably eternally.

Note that other Human-like Lifeforms may exist, whether it be at present or in the future, so even if we fail at the latter, or even the former, it is possible that another species will succeed where we failed.

Also note that I consider non-existence to be better than a joyless or excessively painful existence, so as far as I am concerned Humans should only preserve life on Earth and in the rest of the universe for as long as there is joy, the possibility of joy, no more than a reasonable degree of universally experienced pain and/or the possibility that any excessive and universally experienced pain will be gone.

Finally, we cannot prove that there will be a saviour, so we may as well make ourselves the saviours of the universe, and if there will be a saviour then he/she/it will probably be glad we made the effort.
I refuse to acknowledge the existence of this signature.




User avatar
Gender Female
Points 890
Reviews 7
Wow! This was very interesting.

I'm guessing you believe more in Scientific Theories more
than Creationism.

I have to say I disagree with you but that's probaly becuase I
am a Christian. I do not believe it's humankind's responsibility
to preserve the existence of Life originating from Earth beyond
the existence/habitability of Earth itself, preferably eternally becuase
it is in my beliefs that we will live for eternity after death... but that's
just my opinion.

But anyhow,I don't really understand on what
you mean, that Human Life is a coincidence.

I respect your opinion and I am always willing to listen to others'
thoughts.

Great Essay!

Keep Writing!
"She walks in Beauty, like the night,Of cloudless limes and starry skies;And all that's best of dark and bright, Meet in her aspect and her eyes:Thus mellowed to that tender light, Which Heaven to gaudy day denies." -George Gordon Lord Byron




User avatar
Gender Female
Points 5588
Reviews 94
As such, I do not actually believe that there is a purpose to any form of Life, including Humankind.

"Actually" doesn't need to be in the sentence.

though I don't think I have in the case of the latter anyway.

There is no reason why you need to explain this.

It is true that most traits which we once considered to be ours and ours alone are shared with other species - many apes show a capacity for complicated language, ants could be described as "civilised" (perhaps more so than Humans), dolphins masturbate, etc.

It is civilized, not civilised.

But even if we don't have a single unique trait, we have perhaps the most useful mix of rare traits.

"But" shouldn't start a sentence because it is a conjunction.

In the grand scheme of things, we have not been the dominant species for long - a few millenia, if that.

It is millennia, not millenia.

But we are the first species with the potential to live beyond the existence of Earth itself (though by that time we will have most likely evolved into something else, but for simplicity's sake I will refer to present-day Humans and Post/Trans-Humans as Humans throughout this essay).

But is an conjunction.

Finally, we cannot prove that there will be a saviour, so we may as well make ourselves the saviours of the universe, and if there will be a saviour then he/she/it will probably be glad we made the effort.

It is savior, not saviour.


Overall, your essay is good. Spelling and conjunctions were the main problems, and even than they were minor. Keep on writing.
There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.
-Ernest Hemingway




User avatar
Gender Male
Points 1165
Reviews 50
"Civilised" and "saviour" are British variations of their American equivalents. But thank you for noticing my the mistakes that were mistakes.
I refuse to acknowledge the existence of this signature.




User avatar
Gender Female
Points 2490
Reviews 19
I would like to agree with you, being very pro-earth preservation and feel that future generations need to reap our benefits, not suffer our irresponsibilities, but I also believe that us Americans should not get anything from China, so we can come a) more self sufficient and b) not promote their working conditions, which are practially the equivalent of enslavement. But our government didn't ask my opinion...
However I believe that humans by nature are self-destructive creatures. Our bodies want us to live by eating nutrients, getting sleep ect, while our minds want stability and habitual pattern. Our senses, on the other hand, with to destroy patters by drinking, overeating, getting less sleep and putting our mind and body at risk for the sake of creating memorable sensations. Such is an addiction.
I think most humans are too wrapped up with trying to curb these feelings, and not enough of them know how to redirect these "passions" to a worthy cause; so humans will always be a cycle of self-destruction. We see this all the time in Empires: birth, rise, peak and fall, either rapid or dwindling.

How's that for cynical?



You cannot have an opponent if you keep saying yes.
— Richard Siken