Life in Cosmic Model A
By: Mr. Numi Who
Tags: Philosophy, Short Story, Social Critique, Science Fiction, Fantasy

“…and if our Cosmic Model A does not answer all of the questions…”

“Wait a minute — are you implying that your only motivating factor, your only goal, is to ‘answer questions’? Do you mean you have not thought life through any deeper than THAT? Do you mean you are addressing life, life in a harsh and deadly universe, that CLUELESSLY?”

“No, yes, and maybe.”

“Defend yourself.”

“No, then. The goal is to not merely answer questions — for it is implied that, by finding the answers to critical questions, we are benefiting life…”

“Hold on — wait just a minute. You cannot say that you are that enlightened, that your end goal is to benefit life, when the popular mindset is to pursue ‘happiness’, as clueless and hedonistic as that mental paradigm has become, and as suicidal, which does NOT benefit life.”

“OK. It appears that I am not that enlightened. So enlighten me.”

“First I will strap you down and I will place blinders on your head so you can stay with me mentally. There, and (grunt) there… ready?”

“If you say so.”

“That is not encouraging. YOU must say so. Let me know when YOU think you are ready…”

“I’m sorry, my brain just does not have that capacity. I would only be faking paying attention. Even being strapped down with blinders on will not prevent my mind from wandering. In fact, I will simply be watching your rubber lips flapping. So if you see me begin to giggle, that is where my mind is at. Maybe if you wrote it down on papyrus I could graze on it at my convenience, and eventually, just possibly, I may actually grasp it enough to become at least a little enlightened. So give me some words on papyrus…”

“I only have this electronic device’s screen at my disposal.”

“Fine. Make use of it, then. Use an Egyptian font on a papyrus background. Now begin with your written words…”

“Written words… concerning language, the question has LONG been, ‘Are mere words up to the task?’ The answer now is, happily, “Yes, words are now up to the task. They have become, in fact, in their written form, the preferred medium for extended, difficult reasoning. As for quantifying those concepts, we now have mathematics. As for technical communications, you now have diagrams, charts and tables, with written word paragraphs playing a minor supporting role, if they are used at all (and with technical communication, they are usually an absolute hindrance, being wrongly used — i.e. in place of diagrams, charts, and tables).”

“Gaaaaaaaaak! Don’t tell me that, in order to fully understand your enlightened philosophy, I must contend with mathematical formulas that quantify the relationships in it — you will lose me with any math above addition and subtraction, if I can even endure that…”

“No, quantifying relationships is not a critical component of my Philosophy of Universal Survival and Morality, for the Space Age, no less, for I address ‘Why Bother (to do anything at all)’ rather than ‘How Much of Each?’ The only math that IS critical is statistical probability, which is always estimated and speculative, the only purpose being to get a general sense of a phenomenon, though it is becoming more powerful with Big Data. Take the prospect of life-annihilating killer asteroids hitting the earth, for example. We can estimate the probability of one hitting us before we have, as a species, fully stood upright and have made it beyond the bounds of this planet, an estimate made possible by virtue of our analyzing the history of asteroid hits on this, and on other worlds. We can even refine our estimate of probability by learning more about the deadly flying detritus in this solar system, but we can never get an exact number. The important question is, numerically speaking, very simple: “Is the probability greater than zero?” If it is (and it has been verified that it IS), then there is no make-believe or speculation remaining about it any longer, and you have a life-annihilating possibility on your hands. If you ignore it, as 99.9999% of humans and 100% of lower animals currently DO, then that is either a sign of a fool, who has no excuse any longer, given the verified knowledge we now have, or the sign of a lower animal, who has a biologically-limiting excuse — a brain that just cannot handle broader awareness or analysis based on extended mental reasoning. It is still undetermined as to which class most humans fall into — ‘fools’ or ‘lower animals’… are you still with me?”

“No, I am just bathing my senses in your voice’s resonance. It is a pleasant sound, like a trickling waterfall in a mountain rain forest…”

“That is what an insect would say, and Zen aficionados. They are nearly indistinguishable from my philosophy’s perspective.”

“Ah, but you do not know that — perhaps insects are plagued by the broader awareness of a harsh and deadly universe, and are equally frustrated in not being able to mentally address such a class of problems yet, or in convincing others (such as humans) to properly prioritize them, such as cosmic life-annihilating threats. So whenever you see the little buzzing, creeping, crawling creatures, they may be actually reaching out for cooperation in addressing broader survival in a harsh and deadly universe, which they have become aware of in their own yet-mysterious-to-us ways. So what do humans do when they encounter such enlightened bugs reaching out to them? They squish them! They squish the philosophically struggling critters…”

“Perhaps that is because most critters see us as meals, and all that they will really share are deadly microbes through the wounds they inflict.”

“That may be, and now I am the one speculating on reality, and the question is, have YOU followed MY thoughts?”

“It appears like I have, since I have responded to them. Now back to my thoughts, meaning my Perspective on reality, meaning my Philosophy of Universal Survival and Morality, for the Space Age, no less, since it is a more pressing issue than the possible speculative thoughts of bugs. Let’s consider the cosmic issue on a deeper level:

The first question to ask is, ‘Is my philosophy a worthwhile perspective?’ Or, in my philosophy’s parlance, ‘Is it a Potentially-Useful Perspective?’ If so, then the ultimate question becomes, ‘Is it worthy of being an overall life-guiding philosophy for beings with higher consciousness, and, indeed, for all of life, anywhere and everywhere?’ Since that was my ultimate aim from the very beginning, I have a huge head-start on everyone else, my having put a LOT of thought into that specific problem already, which increases its chances of being adequate — meaning offering Final Enlightenment. Are you still with me?”

“No. My mind has wandered once again… give me a moment — it was a VERY PLEASANT mental wandering… Ahhhhhhhhh… yes, my wonderful love, I am madly in love with you, too, and we will spend eternity together in supreme bliss… Mwah… Ahem… OK… I think my mind has returned. You may continue your attempt to enlighten me. Where were we?”

“We were assessing the worthiness of my Philosophy of Universal Survival and Morality, for the Space Age, no less, for without it, you and your imaginary love will hurtle through space cluelessly, which does not return high odds for that ‘eternity of bliss’ that you just envisioned. You will have blind bliss in peril at best, as you remain at the highest risk of having it all snuffed out in an instant by either continued cluelessness or an unkind cosmos. In other words, you will remain at the mercy of an inanimate, chaotic, harsh and deadly universe. Quite frankly, you can do better than that.”

“Well, can’t the universe acquire some kindness? I mean, if a higher entity created the universe, can’t it value our bliss and make the universe completely safe for us?”

“Since there is, as yet, no evidence of a creator, let alone a creator who cares about your bliss, then the PRUDENT perspective to hold is that the universe is a body of inanimate, pointless matter that is still broiling enough in its chaotic soup to still be a deadly threat to all of life on earth. Let me emphasize again, PRUDENT, since we are not certain that there is no such universe creator who can still manipulate the universe to our blissful advantage (as opposed to simple getting the universe going, and losing all control after that). In other words, supernatural beings cannot be disproven (even by the contradictions of those who make such claims), only proven, which none have been yet.

This ‘Prudence’, by the way, goes for life after death, too. Since there is NO evidence FOR it (though there is plenty of institutionalized make-believe and wishful thinking forced upon us socially about it), then the PRUDENT perspective to take is that it does not exist (yet), and that it may be possible, but only if we make it so, and that we still have multi-generational work to do to realize it, since the odds are that our generations, in our ignorant states, are all doomed to die. Then there is the problem of gaining eternal life in the first place, and what to do after that, which are different problems altogether and which I have addressed… are you still with me?”

“Of course not! My mind was sail-fishing off of Cape Hatteras. A pleasant, bobbing daydream, you must admit.”

“Yes, I could become completely lost in that, and I would be justified, if I were in R&R&R&R mode.”

“R&R&R&R mode?”

“Yes, ‘Rest, Relaxation, and Recreation, and Rejuvenation’ mode, when my mind, and/or body, needs rest, or needs exercise and rejuvenation. This pertains to my Pinwheel of Life, where we revolve around various areas of life endeavors, such as animal needs, then broader survival needs, then procreation and passing information on, and then rest, relaxation, rejuvenation, and recreation, since we cannot ‘work’ continuously. Now, since I have just partially enlightened you, you may now be able to see the folly of the ‘pursuit of happiness’ as the highest goal of life when the problem of a harsh and deadly universe has not been solved yet.”

“But the US Constitution mentions the ‘pursuit of happiness’.”

“It was originally “the pursuit of property”, which you should also now see the folly of, if not the primitive mentality of, which, in my theory, was a concept originally invented to protect your woman from other men in the hunter-gatherer tribe (she was your ‘property’, and thus belonged to you, and thus was off-limits while you were out hunting from the soon-to-be-depraved men minding the village).

“Enlighten me further about happiness.”

“Current humans have a vision of ‘happiness’ being the ultimate goal of life. WORSE, their vision of ‘happiness’ is entirely hedonistic and selfish. Can you envision ‘hedonistic and selfish’? It is critical at this point…”

“Give me a minute… hedonistic and selfish… hedonistic and selfish… hedonism — the pursuit of physical pleasure, and selfishness — being concerned for only yourself… yes, I think I’m developing a clearer mental image out of the haze that is my current mind… your are describing the deficient mindset of most of humanity again. You may continue…”

“I will illustrate the pure folly of such a mindset. Let’s envision a human in pursuit of physical pleasure. Is that human concerned with individual survival, or, on a broader plane, broader survival?”

“Not necessarily — that person could be as tunnel-visioned as they come.”

“Correct. Now let’s envision a person only concerned about ‘self’. Is that person going to contribute to life beyond ‘self’?”

“Not necessarily, such a mindset could be completely suicidal in a broader sense, such as on a species level, or on the level of life as whole, which, in return, makes it suicidal on a ‘self’ level — for one cannot survive for very long completely on one’s own, and you can forget about future generations — the selfish person has no regard for the enlightenment or the well-being of future generations.”

“Correct, and which, I will add, not only adversely affects broader survival in a deadly universe, but it also affects the prospects for life after death, where our only hope is with the slim prospect of future generations recreating us via technology. I am PRUDENTLY speaking, remember, and not giving imprudent credence to any make-believe systems such as institutionalized religions, however primitive and preposterous they may be, and however terrible and self-serving they have been, concerning life after death. Are you still with me?”

“Need you ask? No, my mind had wandered again… you see, I have this hangnail…”

“Ech. Terrible. What did you do to it?”

“I chewed on it.”

“But you chewed off half your arm.”

“I have seventeen others growing out of my back. You may continue. I will give you my mind again, perhaps for a moment. You see, it is YOUR job to grab MY feeble attention, and my meager focus, away from all of life’s distractions, large and small. Can you present your philosophy in song and dance?”

“Sorry, not very well — it would be distracting in itself at best.”

“You should hire singers and dancers to communicate your new philosophy, then. That would grab my feeble attention, at any rate.”

“Being a deep, original thinker does not pay anything at all, so you’ll just have to imagine, or hire, a chorus line on your own.”

“How about becoming a parrot of a former philosopher. There IS money in that. Any philosopher from academia know that.”

“But, if I have enlightened you, just a little, already, then you will know that money is not the end goal of life. As with anything else, if it is pursued cluelessly, it is just mere folly.”

“Ah, so you say — but you can see that you will need a LOT OF MONEY to generate the ability to grab the feeble attention spans and meager focusing abilities of the average, normal human. You will, for example, have to pay a LOT of singers and dancers to leap and jump and spout your insights… perhaps with fireworks and a big brass band in the background… or perhaps some obnoxious in-your-face teen-mind hip-hopper and loud jerking in-your-face rapper to grab everyone’s moon-faced attentions, and you will have to give consideration to the latest fashions and trends or you will be dismissed out-of-hand by 99.9999% of humanity, who are mostly herd animals, after all…”

“Don’t knock herd mentality so hard — it has its uses.”

“Please, give an example.”

“Take microbes. When their colonies are at war of a resource, they emit poison to kill the other colony. What happens is the microbes closest to the other colony begin, and the rest just mindlessly follow, not giving it any thought. It would be like, ‘Hey, they are emitting poisons over there. We should too!’ ‘Why?’ ‘Don’t think about it, just do it!’ Now, the microbe colony that ‘wins’ will be the colony with the most herd mentalities emitting the most poison, even without really knowing why. The colony with the microbes that paused to ask why perished.”

So, getting back to humans, it would seem that, without money, your goal of enlightening even one human is hopeless, since you are failing to spice up your delivery with current fashions and trends, and candy-coating it with light entertainment. Can you say ‘dope’?”

“Dope.”

“Good. There is hope for you with that minor demograph.”

“You paint a dismal picture, where addressing broader survival with the life on this planet is still futile, given the current crop of foolish, clueless humans and the inability of lower animals to think extended thoughts.”

“Maybe you should address future generations.”

“Maybe.”

“Will you continue to try to enlighten us?”

“Yet I will continue to try.”

“That comforts me somehow.”

“Well, that is motivation enough for me, then.”

“Thanks.”

“So… there you are, comforted, but mentally wandering, and here I am, forced into the role of a zookeeper while I wait for you to grasp this new enlightenment…”

Zookeeper?”

“Yes — somebody has to look out for you while your mind is still imploded, which basically means ‘not looking up’.”

“Well, I do have a hazy notion of the perils, but formulating a clearer mental picture cannot be forced — I must let it happen naturally… do you agree?”

“I’m not sure — now we are entering the realm of cognitive science, and how the human brain functions, and its capacities… perhaps forcing the brain is the answer, or perhaps letting things happen naturally is the answer. This is a case for experimentation… will you be my experiment?”

“Sure. Here is a hammer and chisel. You can go to work on my brain… I’m not really using it at present, and I don’t foresee needing it much in my immediate future, since I just following trends and whatever attitudes the media feeds me…”

“But what if I irreversibly destroy it?”

“Then… that is blood in your hands…”

“But you will be no more.”

“Does that matter to you?”

“Yes.”

“Can’t you be a bit more selfish and inconsiderate and disregarding and brutish?”

“No.”

“Then that is your weakness, isn’t it.”

“Among today’s depraved mental mindsets, yes, such concern for others is perceived as a weakness.”

“But you can see, in the light of your ‘broader survival’, that is is not a ‘weakness’, but a critical factor in surviving in a harsh and deadly universe.”

“Yes.”

“And you are frustrated that humans resist your new philosophy?”

“Obviously, in light of what is at stake.”

“So continued human folly irritates you?”

“Yes.”

“So how do you react — with anger?”

“I have already thought all of that through.”

“OK. Enlighten me.”

“Based on my life observations and reflections, and on my extraordinary power of insight and self-assessment, I have concluded that anything that can elicit anger can also equally elicit sadness and pain. In fact, the perceived potential for the latter two (sadness and/or pain) leads to the former (anger) in any given situation.

“NOW, with regard to my response, I now have three choices: I can respond with anger, or with sadness, or with pain. I can also ignore it, meaning give no response, which gives me a fourth option.

“Each have their benefits and drawbacks. Anger is better for affecting immediate outcomes. It is like applying more force. The hazard is the destructivenature of that force — such as in destroying physical objects, or destroying human relationships (such as your own). Sadness is more maddening, because you are applying little force to affect an outcome. It is like trying to drive a car with your foot barely touching the gas pedal. The benefit is that it is more likely to elicit the desired outcome in other people — because they respond more positively to sadness than to anger. With your anger, they will simply get angry in return — and, I’ve penetrated this issue: It is because, in a primal sense (meaning they don’t have a clue) they know that you had four choices in your response — disregard, anger, sadness, and pain, and you chose anger, perhaps only because it is more immediately satisfying for you on an animal level, in spite of it’s being more destructive by nature. So they will get angry at your potential destructiveness, their anger being a forceful attempt to prevent your impending destructiveness. With sadness, you may have persuaded them by drawing their pity for you, and making it seem that it was 100% their choice, out of pity. The same goes for a painful demonstration — if they see you in pain, the natural and decent thing to do is to attempt to alleviate your pain. Humans are currently unnatural and indecent, however, and they may enjoy seeing you in pain, which will then not serve to persuade them. How long they will enjoy seeing you in pain will be a measure of their depravity and unnaturalness. The point is, I have four responses to choose from — total disregard, anger, sadness, or pain, and I will choose the most effective one for the situation, assuming I have command of each skill.

“A related current human pitfall is errant dishonesty. I say ‘errant’ because dishonesty is a mere tool, like the responses. If one’s philosophy is weak, such as with current humans, the goal will be weak, even depraved, both negatively impacting broader survival, just to note, and the tool of dishonesty will be used to ill effect, usually for capricious (clueless) selfishness, though current humans are too foolish to realize any of this. What this means is that stamping out the tool of dishonesty is not the answer, but enlightening its use IS the answer. The same can be said for firearms, just to note. Are you still with me?”

“Are you kidding me? Just look at the length of your paragraphs! Do you think any human alive can get through such long, rambling passages? You must be out of your mind if you think so!”

“So I need to break them up…”

“AND candy-coat them!”

“With lots of candy…”

“LOTS! Maybe, such as colorful and varied fonts, and exhilarating music, and explosions, and cute fluffy kittens pawing around, mewing.”

“I am currently into LEGO candy — it’s not too sweet, and it is interesting in the mouth…”

“Can you actually build things in your mouth with it?”

“No, my mouth is not big enough…”

“A pity — a big mouth would serve you well in your endeavor of disseminating your philosophy in the current world.”

“You mean the LOUDER I am, the BETTER my chances of enlightening humans?”

“You’ve got it. You will be heard above the din of all the other loudmouths who have nothing but folly to say, of which there are legion. As for the value of loudness, you can see it in singers. People prefer singers who can sing at the top of their lungs…”

“But those are the very people who were loud, obnoxious, crying pampered, spoiled babies.”

“And they are STILL obnoxious; but successful.”

“Point taken.”

“So… what is with the Title to this piece: ‘Life in Cosmic Model A’…?”

“My intent was to illustrate the role of creativity in science.”

“Well, now is your chance to present it — but briefly, please — my mind has a LOT of wandering to do (I’ll be right there, my imaginary love)…”

“With respect to survival, individual and broader, our odds are higher if we have a correct understanding of the harsh and deadly universe that we have awakened to. Agree so far?”

“It makes sense, though you have made a ‘Case for the Dumb’, where they may be the ones who survive the next cosmic calamity out of sheer dumb luck — the key factor there being diversity — their not being the same as you — not in the same place or in the same mode of living.”

“Yes. But ignoring dumb luck for a moment, a correct understanding of the universe will better equip us to survive in it, on the average, and especially in the long-term.

“Now, let’s say that we call our current understanding of the universe the ‘Cosmic Model A’ model of the universe. Now lets assume that we attain, through much hard work and sacrifice, and perhaps a little dumb luck, new verified knowledge. We will have to reassess our Cosmic Model A. If it is deemed no longer adequate for the purposes of survival — i.e. prioritizing the identifying and addressing known and unknown threats to life, and, more importantly, threats to our more fragile platforms (meaning our human bodies) that currently support ‘higher consciousness’ (of which humans possess), then we must develop a better cosmic model of reality, or a Cosmic Model B, to broaden our survival prospects. If that model fails to serve individual and broader survival, then it would be wise to strive for more verified knowledge in order to develop a better cosmic model of reality, meaning a Cosmic Model C. Are you still with me?”

“Incredibly, yes, by pure chance, I’m sure. Continue.”

“Now here is where ‘creativity’ comes into play in science. It stand to reason that, if you have many Cosmic Models already developed beforehand, based on current verified knowledge, and on current best theories (theories being the weak links in science, but better than nothing), then when your current cosmic model is demonstrated to be inadequate (such as not having prevented a large loss of life, such as not understanding volcanism, for example), you have other ready-made models to try out, which may be quicker than developing a better cosmic model based on actual experience. This means two things: 1.) that you have many Potentially-Useful Perspectives in your Perspectives Toolbox with which to peer into the unknown with, increasing your chances of seeing what is actually out there (or right in front of your nose) and discovering previously unknown threats (or benefits) to life (and higher consciousness in particular), and 2.) we will not have to wait for actual experience to understand the universe, which is referred to as being ‘reactionary’, which most humans still are, and which may be ineffective, too late, and suicidal.

“As for actual experience, consider the case of the KILLER ASTEROID (I said that through a loudspeaker, let’s wait for the echo to die down). Merely waiting for the actual experience would be too late, it would be suicidal. You would be vaporized before you had a chance to ‘react’. This is where the lower animal kingdom fails — it waits until actual experience before it takes action, and this is the very level that most humans, and all politicians, still operate on.”

“That is a sad statement on politicians.”

“Yes it is. If you want to elect a mere reactionary politician, elect an amoeba. It will tell you what to do — it will lead by example.”

“Well, you have finally worn me out mentally, and I am out of time. It is a wonder that I actually stayed with you this long, my life being so hectic…”

“Cluelessly hectic…”

“Yes, I will admit that, but hectic and distracting nevertheless.”

“You will work on that?”

“Maybe… no promises…”

“So you are still content with being a clueless, hectic human being?”

“Yes. You can fault me for it.”

“Or pity you?”

“If it works on me… otherwise your efforts will be futile.”

“Like trying to move an immovable stone.”

“Yes. But we will appreciate your efforts, even though we may laugh at the futility of it all.”

“That seems ironic somehow.”

“Somehow, in a hazy mental way…”

“Which is your preferred mental state.”

“It does lend itself to the romance of life.”

“Like an opiate.”

“Like an opiate. My preferred opiate is self-generated dopamine.”

“And how do you self-generate it?”

“By reading stories for sheer entertainment purposes.”

“And not for enlightenment?”

“Hell no! That would be WORK!”

“You are here for R&R purposes, then, and everything I say just bounces off of your forehead?”

“Perpetually.”

“Is R&R the ultimate goal in life for you?”

“Yes — I am a hedonistic cretin, after all, with no concept of broader survival, and little concern for the future, or of anything else other than pursuing personal pleasure.”

“So you are like a lab mouse pushing a pleasure lever?”

“Yes.”

“Until it starves and dies.”

“Yes, that is what happens to the lab mice with pleasure levers. Does it bother you that I am no better than a lab mouse?”

“Of course — all that wasted brain potential.”

“So why don’t YOU use my brain potential — I won’t mind.”

“Because, I have philosophized, free and independent minds are critical to broader survival, for it is only they that can contribute unique and varied solutions to the threats (and potential benefits) to life in the universe, the solutions stemming from free and independent unique perspectives, and the free and independent initiative to seek such solutions in the first place. If I controlled your mind, then I would, in effect, be negating it, removing your independence, and hence your potential unique contributions from such independence. You would become a mere mental clone. This is the drawback of an authoritarian society, by the way. It negates all the minds within it, thereby negatively affecting the prospects of broader survival, which, just to note, makes it ‘evil’. Take present-day China, for example. You have a billion or so minds that are all negated, forced to think alike, and all under the controlling thumb of a self-serving central authority, whose only purpose is to perpetuate their own clueless power over others, which, even without enlightenment, you can imagine is evil.

“I should mention Good and Evil here. Good and Evil are goal-based (says I). If an action serves the goal, it is ‘good’, if it opposes the goal, it is evil (think the other way for evil goals). This brings up philosophical subjectivity — where there is no universal ultimate value. It is the universal mental state of having any agreed upon Ultimate Goal in Life — a mental state that does NOT offer a clear ability to distinguish good from evil.

My having identified the Ultimate Determining Goal of life does, which is to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe. The underlying Ultimate Determining Value of life (from which the ‘goal’ is derived) is consciousness, and specifically, ‘higher consciousness’. Why? Think of the alternative — no consciousness; and without higher consciousness, you will not be able to think at all.”

“All very nice. My mind is going to wander now. Thanks for your efforts. Don’t give up. I may be mind-mush today, but tomorrow, who knows — your philosophy may start to sink in and fortify my sad mental paradigm, thereby increasing the chances of broader survival in a harsh and deadly universe. No promises. I cannot predict the future any better than you can.”

“So what are your immediate goals?”

“I’m going to go out and impress somebody!”

“How?”

“I don’t know — in some trivial, mindless way, to be sure.”

“And that will give you satisfaction in life?”

“Yes!”

“Because… by impressing someone, you will be socially more secure?”

“Yes, in a primitive way, or at least that is the general hazy reasoning that people have.”

“And once you are socially secure, then what?”

“Why, I don’t know… I haven’t thought it through yet. Perhaps I will do clueless, depraved things, like everyone else has done, and is still doing.”

“Or, armed with my philosophy, you can have a clue, and actually turn your animal-concerns-free attention to broader survival, finally giving it the priority it requires?”

“I don’t know, that sounds a bit beyond me right now…”

“I can wait. I have no choice, though we risk total annihilation from a harsh and deadly universe. In the meantime I will ponder the implications that my new philosophy will have on humanity, and on life in general.”

“Sounds… vague. Your broader survival can wait, at any rate. I have Tutti-Fruity ice cream to eat.”

“Where your eyes roll back in your head in sheer pleasure?”

“Where my eyes roll back in my head in sheer pleasure.”

“Which serves Rest and Relaxation?”

“Perpetually, however foolish you deem it.”

“Very foolish, and it burdens me with the responsibility of a zookeeper, with clueless humans as just one more of the zoo’s (meaning earth’s) animals.”

“Well, at least I’m not accumulating cows to impress my tribal neighbors, as half the people on earth are still doing.”

“No, at least you are not that primitive.”

“Though such primitiveness serves diversity.”

“Yes it does, as do people who are able to live in diverse environments.”

“Such as those where cows can flourish?”

“Such as those where cows can flourish.”

“So Western people ‘helping people in Africa’ is misguided and foolish?”

“Yes, it is, after a point, such as after basic health care and education is met, though, as you can see, the most important aspect of education is enlightenment, otherwise it will be applied cluelessly, if not depraved and foolishly. Beyond that, a Westerner does not have a clue as to what it takes to survive in such harsh environments, and any ‘help’ is irrelevant, and only self-congratulatory.”

“Self-congratulatory, as in, “Look! I helped the Africans! Aren’t I superior and grand!”

“Yes. Exactly like that.”

“So in current Western mindframes, the purpose of ‘helping others’ is not actually to help them, but to aggrandize oneself?”

“Precisely.”

“That seems deplorable.”

“It is. Perhaps a bit sad, too; but you can see that it all stems from not being enlightened.”

“You are referring to humans remaining universally clueless.”

“Correct.”

“Back to ‘harsh environments’. You mean environments that are too harsh to terraform, as Westerners have done with their cities and suburbs and farms and ranches.”

“Yes. You cannot make a concrete suburb in the harsh environs of the central Congo, for example. You must exist WITH nature there, unless you build a bubble there, which you can do anywhere, better if not on earth.”

“So ‘surviving in harmony with nature’ is a different survival philosophy.”

“Yes, though nature may not oblige you with such harmony in return.”

“Well, if it does work, then it will contribute to Diversity, and hence to broader survival, even though it is a primitive existence.”

“Yes, even though it is life at a primitive level, and even though at this level alone, future progress, and hence broader survival, are in jeopardy.”

“So you need advanced civilizations to progress toward securing broader survival in a harsh and deadly universe, and you need the primitive existence of higher consciousness, meaning humans, in the harshest of environments not only to contribute to Diversity, but as a fallback, from which to begin again in case the advanced civilizations fail.”

“Yes. That is the nature of, and the value of, human diversity, which means no one is ‘better’ than anyone else IF everyone is consciously contributing to broader survival in their own, critical ways. This will alleviate vanity, hate, xenophobia, prejudice, hate, war, depression, and suicide, just to name a few. Also, the more variances that higher consciousness exists in, for example from primitive to advanced, and from animal-harsh to animal-eased, and the more environments that higher consciousness can exist in, from temperate climes and fertile zones to the harshest extremes of heat, soil infertility, and cold, or in bubbles that can exist anywhere, then the higher the odds of broader survival, if only for the experience gained and shared in how to exist in more varied environments; though there is an additional problem in being able to exist in any environment.”

“What is that?”

“Our internal microbiomes. Not only is each unique, but they are locally adapted, meaning we are locally adapted. I could not survive in a New Guinea jungle — I do not have the internal microbiome for it. An example is having the microbes that digest seaweed. The Japanese have them, but I do not. I could acquire them over time, but in extreme circumstances, I may not have the time.”

“My mind is wandering again. Weren’t we going to stop many philosophical insights ago?”

“Yes.”

“And so we shall. So stop typing.”

“OK. I am stopping. My fingers are not moving. No typing. No thinking. My mind is a blank again. Blank. Blankness. Nothing. R&R. Nada.”

“STOP!”

“a………………………………………………. …………. ……….. ……… …….. …… ….. … .. .”

“That was hard for you, wasn’t it.”

“Yes.”

“Time to edit and post.”

“As if the editing will be ‘done’ when I post it.”

“It won’t be?”

“No, not by a long shot. I usually catch many mistakes AFTER I post it, and after eyes have fallen on it.”

“Do you add new thoughts as well after you post something?”

“Usually, then it settles down, then stops, and then I move on.”

“That is nice to know. I’ll see you later. I must wander now. There are too many flavors in life waiting for me, and you are just one flavor. Sorry.”