The more I think about life, the lesser meaning I see in it.

No manpower could compete against the naturally occurring events of nature. And even if it could, it would be disrupting the cycle of the ecosystem, causing nothing but suffering for the next generation. Humans, with their intellect, try to dominate the force of nature. They do things that they are not supposed to; or maybe they are, but where does it lead us? Events like lightning, ocean waves and volcanic eruptions are evidences of the prowess of nature. No matter how rich or powerful a person is, he/she would never survive the consequences of disturbing the flow of nature.

But if nature is so powerful, then why oppose it? Why not live like animals, fulfil our purpose to maintain the balance of the ecosystem and let everything happen as it used to, thousands of years ago? Why earn money, which is a standard of barter set by humans themselves, over which they fight, they compete, they kill? Earning the bare minimum to feed, help others and save for our children is a basic requirement of being a human. But if someone earns enough money to feed the next generation, then aren’t the lives of the next generation losing their meanings even more than ours? To work, to earn, to eat, to reproduce, to live is the purpose of life and if we skip any one of these steps, our life’s worth becomes much lesser. Earning loads of money has only led to competition, politics, hurting others in the name of business, crime, terrorism; all of this happens for the sole purpose of getting money (do not confuse it with earning it) to provide either to ourselves or to the ones we care about. But if we are using this money for luxuries, exploiting other human beings, hurting other life forms, then aren’t we already disrupting the cycle? Or what if, as an evolved species, that is our right?

That leads to a question, is evolution really the truth? What if it’s just dominance of one species and not the survival of the fittest? Humans use animals for their entertainment, for manufacturing products and a lot more cruelty. What if there existed such species that dominated the relatively weaker ones and that became the reason for their extinction? And if so, then is it the way of nature to create a species which could dominate the others, use others, kill others for their benefits. Then is technology meant to be advanced? Is animal cruelty governed not by conglomerates, but by nature itself? Again, if that is the case then why would nature follow such an order which causes its own destruction? Why is it that scientists claim that around 90% of marine life is yet to be discovered as it is beyond the reach of humans, deep inside the ocean? Is the marine life not a part of evolution? If we haven’t discovered it yet, then how can we not know if those species have been existing since millions of years ago or haven’t undergone evolution? What if there is an entirely separate, but similar, civilization beneath the ocean that we are unaware of? And like we couldn’t reach them, they are unable to communicate with us? Then what is the reason for letting the Voyager roam around the universe when we aren’t familiar with our own planet? Why even bother to go to the depths of the ocean, the secrets to the human mind are still unknown to us. We know what emotions are, how to control them, how to manipulate them, how to use our intellect but that’s just 10% of our mind. And if we’re questioning the mind, then why leave the core ingredient out of it? How, truly, is life formed? It’s not just about chemical bonds forming to create cells, body fluids, bones and flesh; there is much more to it. We consist of some elements which are present in nature in abundance, then what gives us life? Life cannot be explained by biology, chemistry or physics because these are the subjects which cover the formation, causes and effects of life and not the actual reason for the existence of life. If life began from unicellular organisms, then why did they start moving at their own will at the very beginning? The earth practically consists of all the life and yet, it is not moving on it’s free will, according to the laws of physics. It is just reacting to the gravitational field of the sun.

Now these are the theories put forth by humans. Maybe they had genius level intellect, but intellect is a standard created by humans, it’s not universal, but only a measure for our understanding of the smartness of a person. So why stick to the questions arising due to the events happening on the earth and not question the existence of the universe itself? What if someone wants us to believe what we are believing, what if someone wants us to think what we are thinking, what if someone has scripted it all and we’re living just the way they planned? Is free will really free?

The beginning of the universe, the big bang, is said to be billions of years ago. But what if it was not just the beginning of the universe, but the end of something else? What if the graph of the ever-growing universe, where X axis is time and Y is space, is not exponential, but parabolic? Could it mean that there was once a universe which came to an end and it had a new beginning? If so, then was the beginning for the purpose of changing the outcomes of the previous universe? If so, then where did the previous originate from? If so, then did the previous universe follow the order in which technology came first, which gave rise to humans, then came apes, then a meteor crashed and then came dinosaurs? Following this, life got compressed into unicellular animals and eventually, it ended? If so, then is the Z axis a proof of a multiverse, wherein infinite number of universes shared the same fate of ending at a certain point and then having a new beginning? Or does the Z axis consist of multiple timelines? And if there are multiple timelines, then there might be some trigger point which created these timelines. If this is the case, then is travelling back in time possible? And if that’s possible, then how? As we reach the speed of light, time gets slower and slower for us, according to special relativity. So, once we reach the speed of light, time must stop. But, according to the Lorentz equations, speed of light is a limiting factor and exceeding that is an imaginary situation. What if we humans are the ones who couldn’t perceive it and claim that it’s imaginary? What if someone exceeds the speed of light and reverts the flow of time? That might result into the creation of another timeline, considering the one who travelled back in time changed certain events. And if multiple timelines are considered, which are not perceivable by humans, then it would prove that paradoxes aren’t really true and it’s all just a natural phenomenon.

Understanding and answering these questions could be challenging. However, if we look at the bigger picture with the perspective of building things, instead of questioning the existence of the ones already built, we observe that if gravity was even slightly different than it is now, life might not exist. If big bang had occurred even slightly later than it was supposed to, life might not exist. If the events taking place in nature never occurred, life might not exist. This is not restricted to the life on earth, but anywhere in the universe. Hence, things that are happening, are happening to progress the universe, to move forward and not stay where we are. If we understand the concepts of the universe well enough, there might be a chance that we could control naturally occurring events in the future. But again, is that supposed to happen? If not, then how would the universe advance? And if the universe is not supposed to advance, does it mean that it is supposed to stay stable? And if it’s stable, then why did evolution happen and why do we have a mind which leans towards the advancement of our civilizations, our people, our world?

These are the things which could cross anyone’s mind but the answers might still not explain the purpose of life. A human might live for, say, 80 years. Now compare it with a cosmic year, the time required to revolve once around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which is more than 200 million years. It’s like comparing a drop with an ocean. Our life does not hold any significance when compared to such colossal objects. So why waste our lives in earning more and more money by sacrificing what we have to achieve something that we selfishly desire, while we can cherish each and every second by staying happy along with others, who we care about? Let’s try staying happy in our lifespan, however less it may be. Successful people say that it’s lonely at the top so don’t worry if you don’t have anyone to celebrate your success with. But we are primates, aren’t we? We are programmed to live in groups, form communities, rely on others when needed, trust others, feel emotions, give meaning to our lives by benefitting others. If this is the case, then isn’t success just another term for selfish? The people who have achieved great heights wouldn’t agree to this because they have worked hard to get where they are. They are satisfied because it was their goal and they have achieved it. If so, then is success relative? I guess so, because not all successful people are lonely, not all are rich, not all are at the top of everyone else. There are people who like to share what they have, however less it may be. They have seen suffering and so, they wouldn’t want others to go through the same pain. There are people who have reached such a point in life where they feel happy to help others, to share pain, to feed others at the cost of their own starvation. Wouldn’t this be considered successful?

I’m not sure what to think, how to think, where to move in life, in time, in space, in emotions, in relationships, in communities, in the world, in the universe. But one thing that I am certain of is, I choose to be happy by playing my part and contributing to the welfare of fellow human beings. I choose to provide, to feed, to be dependent, to trust others. I choose to take upon the challenge to come close to the answer to all the above questions. I wish to create a community wherein people are truly successful, in their own definition, without causing any harm to any other kind of life form or the ecosystem. I, being a human and being equally responsible for the crimes, the cruelty, the terror, wish to take upon all the hatred, all the negativity, all the burden that others have to carry in their lives, if it results into the development of a society free of anything bad, because if, at the cost of one life, a society is safeguarded, then that is what gives purpose to life.

BUT, is this what life is supposed to be about? What if..?

An IT engineer, curious about life, trying to find my place and share my thoughts.