Talking to myself - Chapter 2

Sub1. Why.

Sub2. Why? Why what?

Sub1. Why, you've forgotten haven't you? You asked me why we should think so hard instead of being barbaric and making sure only the fittest survive. And why ethics and morals exist.

Sub2. Yes, I remember now. Please, explain.

Sub1. Could we first presume that nature isn't God, as in, isn't the personal God that some people hold.

Sub2. You mean to say nature has no consciousness?

Sub1. Exactly! No ethics, no morals. Nature itself is not a being. There is no 'mother' nature. Instead, we must presume that life is a game of survival, with earth and perhaps the universe as the arena, every living organism the contestants. There are rules and goals.

Sub2. And what might these rules and goals be? And does every living thing have to follow these rules, or are they permitted to bend or break them to achieve their ends?

Sub1. You ask to many questions, boy. The goal would have to be, as we've discussed, survival of the fittest. And the rules are the same rules that we find in our sciences. As in rules of gravity apply to every creature, and so on. And I'm sorry, but we cannot allow God to be the overseer of this whole game. That would be giving nature a consciousness and every living being would have to play fair.

Sub2. But isn't that fair? As in, wouldn't it be fair if the creatures that break or bend these rules be punished or disqualified?

Sub1. And from your questions, we have inferred that life isn't fair.

Sub2. I do not understand.

Sub1. That's because you're slow. You see, in order for one species to flourish, sometimes another must perish, or at least degenerate. Say in the case of predator-prey relations.

Sub2. But surely the predator must strike a balance, or risk having overeaten and not left anything for its long term survival.

Sub1. Quite true, but we've not taken into consideration the fullness of my statement.

Sub2. Explain.

Sub1. If the predator can exploit the prey, and give the prey the illusion of luxury, as in having a rich supply of food, etc, then a balance is struck. Here we see that the predator has not been greedy by eating all its prey, instead farming it. You see where I am going?

Sub2. Almost, I still don't see how the prey is degenerated if it's survival is ensured in such a paradoxical way. As in, for the survival of the prey as a species, it must be killed for the predator.

Sub1. You see, although the prey has the advantage of surviving, so long as the predator survives, that is, it cannot develop and is therefore born to die and not born to live. Pardon the ambiguity of my words.

Sub2. So...

Sub1. My dear, the predator here is clearly the superior species. And here on earth we represent the predator. The superior species that holds the fate of every other animal.

Sub2. Oh. That would mean, we'd have to be extra careful. In fact, I should think our brains will set rules and lines to not cross so that we do not abuse this power. For our own good. As you say, if we get greedy and not think of the long term, we might swallow the prey whole.

Sub1. Precisely my point. Ethics. There isn't anything divine about not wanting to destroy every other species on the planet. Even if we could do without some. It has developed in our minds, and can sometimes be used as proof of evolution of the mind.

Sub2. How so?

Sub1. How differently cultured people treat animals. It shows the genetic instruction of 'don't be stupid, don't kill everything, your grandchildren might need this' from one generation to another. This sort of inconsistency between cultures is the reason why there is no hard and fast rule in ethics. The reason why not everyone feels the same about eating killing an animal. You see?

Sub2. And morals, how would you...

Sub1. Enough. Good night.