One of the deeper philosophies that I have come to recognize within my current perspective of the world is one that may be difficult for many to understand, or to even view as sane from any perspective. This philosophy of mine describes humanity as destructive and harmful to the “whole,” which I perceive as “The One,” “The Universe,” or “God;” whichever words you choose, it’s all the same to me. However, my view of the world, being as “One”, and the insignificance of the role that humanity seems to play against the grand scheme of things, according to my perspective, allows me to view our human existence as something of little importance, which the universe, in general, may be better off without. It is usually at this point in my philosophy, where many suggest that my view is self-defeating and pointless, since it requires that humanity no longer exist…but I say humanity is not the issue. We are only one problem in an entire universe of problems. And since I do not believe that we are the only conscious beings occupying the universe, then it would be quite selfish of me to think that without us here to have a perspective, that there would be no point in finding solutions. This world has been here for a very long time before we, as humans, came about, and will remain for even longer after we, as humans, have gone. To imagine that there will be nothing worth fighting for once we humans have gone is, from my perspective, far too limited a view in a universe so vast.
I believe that we, as human beings, are a negative force within the universe, such as a virus or disease, destroying and consuming everything we touch. It may seem that we, as human beings, are of such insignificance in relation to the size of the universe, that we couldn’t possibly cause enough damage to make much of a difference. However, there are several factors we must observe and account for in making this decision, the first of which is size. By comparing how destructive something as small as a virus can be to us, in relation to the size of our bodies, to how destructive we can be as humans, in relation to the size of the universe, allows for comprehension of the potential negative impact we can have on the universe. Obviously, this is not something we must discern, specifically, in order to make a point or understand. The point is made simply by asking the question. Certainly, a seemingly insignificant organism can cause great destruction to a comparatively enormous organism. Therefore, size is obviously not of much significance here. The next factor we must observe concerns our ability to “spread” or migrate to other parts of the universe. The fact that we are already discussing and preparing for future emigrations to planets throughout the cosmos in order to further inhabit other systems, and possibly other galaxies, is enough to cause alarm in a philosophy which regards humanity as a harmful, even fatal, virus, infection or disease.
When we observe the methods we plan on using with the intention of inhabiting other planets in the relatively near future, in the far reaches of the cosmos, it becomes clear that we may have repeated this same sort of emigration, many times before. The time it takes to successfully inhabit, generate, and develop another planet, taking into account the probability of destructive, natural events, which undoubtedly occur many times throughout the process of developing the land and civilizations, upon each of these new, unusual, alien planets, means any recollection of historical events, including our original immigration to the planet, will have been lost and/or destroyed by the time we have yet again advanced, technologically, to the point where we will have inherently destroyed the planet we currently inhabit, and have begun the process of emigration all over again. Therefore, if we have been spreading whatever negative force which lies within us that causes the destruction of each planet we inhabit, then how many planets have we already destroyed? How long have we been migrating like this? Would we even recognize the organisms we may have deposited onto other planets long ago, or will we regard them as “aliens?” Would any organism yet still exist on other planets if our innate nature is destructive? Many questions arise with the possibility of this philosophy.
This philosophy is obviously imperfect. But, for me, it explains why we are so intrinsically destructive to the environments in which we find ourselves. When compared to all other forms of life on this planet, we are the only ones who absolutely destroy the environment, and all its inhabitants, from one end to the other, seemingly, without end. We behave as though we are an organism that devours its environment entirely, knowing that when all is gone, we will have found a new environment to devour. When compared to large mammals, the group to which we supposedly belong, our behavior is unlike any other. We do not even behave like other animals as destructive as insects, fish, birds or reptiles. We are far more destructive, behaving more similarly to viruses and bacteria. If we are to see ourselves as a virus, attacking the universe, we would seem to be to scale. But again, this is in reference to size, which I feel is of little importance. Behavior is more significant.
No other being that I know of takes more from their environment than is necessary to survive, or stocks up for more than themselves, or for more than one season. No other creature kills for the reason’s humans seem to kill. It seems all other creatures require at least one of the following, obviously, personal reason’s in order to bring oneself to kill: hunger, defending offspring, self-defense, territorial disputes, and even sexual encounters or disputes over females, or to bring females back into season for the purpose of sex, which ultimately results in more offspring.
Humans, however, seem to kill for reason’s resulting from behavior never before observed in any of this planets creature’s; none other than in humans, that is. We kill for selfish reasons as well as impersonal reasons. We kill in mass, as well as individually. We often seem to have a sense of “ownership” of an individual’s life. We kill for satisfaction, revenge, greed, and what often seems like for no reason at all. But this is only what we do to each other, and is not the issue. The issue lies in what we do to the environment; an environment to which we belong, as much as every other living being that depends on it for sustenance, and not that which belongs to us. What in our nature makes us believe that we are entitled to all of the Earth’s resources, destroying habitats and ecosystems which support other living beings along the way, or that we have any right to collect and retain these resources, and to distribute them as if they are our own to supply?
It has been observed in what we know of evolution that certain organisms evolve too rapidly to allow for environmental adaptation. These organisms typically tend to go extinct, akin to a flame accelerated by fuel, burning out before its time. It seems that our behavior is not unlike these organisms, which rapidly evolve themselves into extinction. However, I feel that the human being, as an organism, is far too complex to simply evolve itself out of existence. I feel that there must be another answer; therefore, emigration to other planets seems to be the obvious one, thus revealing the human being as a viral-like organism, which consumes and destroys all within its path.
Coming to this conclusion has ultimately made me into a self-hating human being. The disgust I now possess at what we have done to this planet and all its inhabitants, not even considering what we have done to one another, or to ourselves, is a feeling an organism should never have for oneself. This is truly a self-defeating ideal, but only if one believes oneself to be separate from the world, which I do not.
The universe, in my view, is simply one, enormous entity, and we humans are simply part of this whole, just as any cell in our body, good or bad, is part of us. Unfortunately, I feel that in the form we take as human beings, we are, as I previously exclaimed, a negative force. Whatever form our bodies take as we adapt to each environment, must contain some negative force which ultimately destroys the environment in which it finds itself. However, I also believe that the universe and all that it contains is in a constant struggle for balance between negative and positive forces. The negative force within the bodies in which we find ourselves as human beings, belongs to the physical beings themselves, and is impossible to destroy. It can only be transformed into another form. The “mind” “spirit” or “soul,” whichever term one uses to describe the consciousness of oneself, however, is capable of escaping the negatively charged physical body we have been born into as human beings by way of enlightenment. It’s as though the human body, similar to a computer, serves as the “hardware,” while the “mind/spirit/soul” serves as the “software.” Through this struggle to balance the negative with the positive influences of the universe, as human beings are physically adapting to the environment, or making the environment adapt to it, rather, the “software” or the “spirit” has been attempting to escape from this negatively charged, physical “hardware” form. As our consciousness or “software” becomes enlightened to this interaction between the physical and ethereal, only then are we capable of making the conscious decision to escape from this cycle of human existence, or “Samsara.” Therefore, my conscious awareness of the negative actions of my body, as a human being, combined with my disgust for the nature of humanity in general, leads me to believe that my “software” or consciousness is nearer to Enlightenment than those of us who cannot separate oneself from humanity and the need to maintain a human existence. Whatever I may become as I escape this cyclic, human existence, I will not grasp or want for the so-called luxuries of this human life.