The Purpose of Human Life

By -
Many people have troubled over the above question for a lifetime. Some have declared it unanswerable, and meaningless. Poppycock! Not only can it be answered, but the answer is easy: we exist to give plants a way to get around.

I realized this as I was lugging two heavy potted plants into my apartment yesterday, two plants that had just traveled from Pennsylvania to New York via automobile. Here's what happened: long, long ago, plants dominated the earth, but they realized they were unhappy with one part of their existence: their immobility. They talked this over (with chemical messages, that's how!) and decided that, through careful manipulation of the environment, they could ensure the evolution of a creature that one day would be willing to bring them around on little tours hither and thither.

So that's why we are here. Now get moving them there plants! In fact, I think your rubber tree would like to go for a ride.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more