"What is the meaning of life?" That question has haunted philosophy for decades. Many answer the question by looking through the lens of religion. "My meaning comes from my creator, who created me with a particular purpose." It is an admirable attempt, but not exactly a satisfying answer. If one looks beyond the scope of theism, what meaning does life have?
Outside of a religious context, one must look instead to science for this answer. While some may argue that science cannot possibly hold the key to such a complex and subjective question, I say that it may just be our saving grace. Imagine a world with no deity. There's no designer, no cosmic justice, and no grand imagination. All that exists is this universe as we can possibly perceive it. What would the purpose of life possibly be? Evolutionary biology may just be the answer.
Evolutionary theory argues that all answers have "descent with modification;" that is, each individual has been distinctly modified by genetics. In each generation, those modified genes become more and more modified due to their success in being passed on. One can easily make an argument that since the goal of the gene is "selfish" (or, rather, that the lifeless gene has a better chance of being passed on if its host body successfully passes it on through reproduction), that the meaning of life is to pass on that genetic code, thereby allowing our genes to continue on for as long as possible. What possible reason would one have to want this purpose? There is none, I would imagine. Yet, it is an instinctual drive within all of humanity and all of the animal kingdom as a whole.
That may be our nonreligious "meaning," yet it still feels empty and unsatisfying. One might even want to escape this purpose in search of a better one. This is completely possible if, again, we look into the scopes of science. How do we prevent ourselves from passing on our genes, while still maintaining the species and therefore maintaining the "collective purpose" that most human beings accept? It's simple: we bypass the natural life and end death itself. If the purpose is for our genes to live on, then we can fulfill this purpose while giving ourselves a new one. All that is required is immortality. That simply cannot be possible, though, can it? Transhumanists seem to disagree.
According to "humanity+," quoting Max More (1990), "'Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.'"
"What an absurd premise," I hear you quip. "Humanity cannot go beyond humanity!" You are awfully talkative today.
Ray Kurzweil, a prominent futurist and inventor, would beg to differ. He argues that such a thing is not only possible, but coming soon. Nanotech, a branch of technology focusing on using microscopic robots to repair damages to the human body, is advancing at such a rapid rate that, by 2040, we may already be guaranteed immortality.
Imagine immortality. There's no need for reproduction and no need to worry about death or illness. What purpose would life have in such a world? Well, it would have none. You see, life only has purpose through death. When any hypothetical purpose of life has been achieved in an immortal world, our lives become meaningless afterwards. One cannot have a solitary, singular meaning.
Maybe there is no meaning to life. Maybe life only has the meaning that we give to it through our limited time in it. Maybe life is a subjective experience that one singular meaning cannot satisfy? If a meaning to life cannot satisfy immortality, then it cannot satisfy all of mortality. So where does that leave us? "Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value."
So, yes, life is meaningless. Or, at least, it is meaningless in the sense that all of humanity does not have a singular, all-encompassing purpose. But why do we need one, when we can each live life the way that we want to and give it a sense of purpose through our desires? I think that meaningless existence is almost better than having a fated goal from which no one can escape.
