Last November, I was lucky enough to attend TedX Vancouver, a satellite conference based on the popular TED talks.

One of the speakers was Neill Blomkamp, director of the sci-fi film District 9. As his time slot arrived, everyone eagerly anticipated seeing the director on stage… until we realized he wasn’t coming.

Scheduling conflicts prevented him from being in Vancouver. Instead, Neill offered this video exploring what he thinks “real” aliens would look like, should humans ever encounter them.

He also discusses the various Types of civilizations (humans are currently Type 0), and the coming Singularity.

What do you think of Neill Blomkamp’s take on the future of intelligent life? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Photo: Adam Polselli / Feature: Gerald Yuvallos

Traveling offers us the chance to let our minds roam – probably more than at any time in our lives.

Not only do we have ample time to think, we also continually encounter new and exciting features of the world: amazing animals, diverse human cultures and awesome structures.

While I’ve certainly enjoyed the experiences for their aesthetic value and brilliance, I’ve found my thoughts turning to theories and philosophy. After all, Sir Isaac Newton’s groundbreaking theory of gravity was supposed to have been inspired by the chance witnessing of a falling apple.

One particular event stuck with me:

I was walking along a track near the Kibale Forest in Uganda, where I witnessed our closest evolutionary relatives: chimpanzees. Yet it was not my encounter with the chimps that inspired my thoughts, but a column of ants crossing a path.

An Altered View

As I watched the ants I thought how they resembled a column of human travelers seen from above. Looking closer, I saw ants guarding the flanks, as human soldiers might for a civilian convoy. The ants were oblivious to me and the potential threat I posed: they were focused on their immediate surroundings in the insect world.

While some ant species have managed to travel the world, as we and our machines are exploring our universe, ants don’t have the ability to comprehend Planet Earth as we do.

This inspired me to think how it may be the same for humanity in the great scheme of things. As ants are part of our existence but have no concept of humanity; maybe we are a part of something much bigger and intelligent than we can even comprehend.

It’s not the ants’ fault they cannot grasp this greater truth – just as we are limited by our own intellectual range. We may never have the intelligence to know the true meaning of our universe and existence.

Science Meets Religion

The limits of our understanding were highlighted by a recent BBC Horizon television documentary on black holes: Who’s Afraid of a Big Black Hole?

The show included Professor Michio Kaku and Professor Max Tegmark explaining how growing evidence of black holes in space has cast doubt on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which was the accepted theory of nature for much of the twentieth century.

Photo: bitzcelt

The scientists don’t think we have even created the equations for working out a theory of everything, let alone solved them.

Although the obvious limitations of scientific theory seem to open the door to religion, our growing understanding of the immensity of the universe also brings religious texts that focus on Planet Earth into question.

If we accept current astronomical discoveries as factual, why would a God spend so much time creating a massive universe, with ‘biblical’ sized events such as polar lights, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions on trillions of unmanned planets and stars for billions of years before humanity acquired the technology to observe a little of it?

We Don’t Know What’s Out There

One Minute Astonomer succinctly explained our planet’s diminutive size within ‘known space’:

• Our Milky Way galaxy is one of forty members of the local group of galaxies.
• The Virgo Cluster of galaxies, which is visible in our sky, has 2,000 galaxies.
• Each big galaxy in the Virgo Cluster has a trillion stars (and some are much bigger than our sun) or more.

I believe humanity’s ability to explain our cosmic role is limited today because we have hardly left our planet. We have not seen the ends of our universe.

In reality, humanity has only been physically exploring the cosmos for the last fifty years; a minuscule amount of time in the great scheme of things.

The concluding sentence from one of the scientists on the Horizon documentary admitted: “We don’t know what’s out there. People might give you an answer, but they’d probably be wrong.”

Relatively speaking, I believe we may know as much as those ants in Kibale knew about the planet we share. Our place at the moment is somewhere between ants and the unknown – offering plenty of terrain left to explore.

What do you think of the “ant theory” of the universe? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Photo: David Boyle

Looks like the next wave of treatment for alcoholism is here. Pretty darn soon, one can use a drug to deal with their drinking problem.

Well, it seems this treatment has been around for some time, but is only now beginning to get some heat behind it. According to an article in New Scientist magazine, Markus Heilig of the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) stated:

The dogma has been that you can’t treat a chemical addiction with another chemical…It’s well-meaning but naive, and in the end very destructive.

Clinical trials are happening, big pharma is very interested in getting treatment meds on the market (shocking, I know), and Heilig and his colleagues are hoping for alcoholism’s “Prozac moment” (i.e. the depression therapy “revolution” caused by the release of Prozac).

We’ve already debated at BNT whether alcohol is necessary to connect on the road, which prompted varied responses (some find it completely unnecessary, while others feel it is quite helpful in breaking down barriers and getting to know the locals).

Of course there is a big difference between having a couple of pints and being an alcoholic. But what might this type of pill mean for those travelers who need it, or even more importantly, don’t realize they need it?

Drinking, Drugs, and Travel

Sure, the loudmouth backpacker making slightly insulting comments at the other end of the bar can be funny…for the first hour. But what happens when you start seeing this guy drunk all the time during your week in Dehli – including daytime? Guy’s got an issue.

Worse yet, what if you are traveling with someone who has to have a drink to enjoy herself, even during a hiking breather in Munich or to check out the Uffizi in Florence? Sure, having a glass of wine during lunch is like feeling the European flava, but c’mon now, we have to be sober for some part of the trip, right?

I do wonder sometimes how much alcohol ends up changing the travel experience. I know it can be a good thing, giving you lasting memories of “that crazy night we had in Madrid.” But there is an unfortunate amount of over-doing it that occurs, as with any drug, and it might be impacting us more negatively than we realize at the time.

The Answer?

Yet…I know this may seem out of character (har har), but I’m not so psyched at the idea of using a pill to treat alcoholism. Yes, I understand that medication could help save people that otherwise wouldn’t be able to recover.

On the other hand, as even the New Scientist article notes, some experts believe the benefits of SSRIs like Prozac have been greatly over-exaggerated, and in fact, have even been shown to cause suicidal thoughts.

I can’t help but wonder what the side effects of these alcohol drugs might be, and if they will give people the chance to look deeply inside to figure out where the problem stems from in the first place.

Still, that guy in Dehli seriously needs some help.

What do you think about the use of drugs to cure alcoholism? Share your thoughts below.

This is your brain on travel/Photo: Frank Bonilla Abstracts.tv

Alright, now we’ve got some science to back up the point of travel.

Seems travel not only feels like an adventure, it actually acts as an adventure for our brain. Turns out seeing new places and experiencing new things actually makes us smarter.

Jonah Lehrer, author of Proust Was a Neuroscientist, wrote a piece for The San Francisco Panorama about what I’ve decided to dub “travel brain”. In it, he details why we continue to take those trips, even with all of the annoyances, tediousness, and aggravations that come with just about every expedition we take. He explains travel’s usefulness to our brains:

The reason such travels are mentally useful involves a quirk of cognition, in which problems that feel “close” – and the closeness can be physical, temporal, or even emotional – get contemplated in a more concrete manner. As a result, when we think about things that are nearby, our thoughts are constricted, bound by a more limited set of associations. While this habit can be helpful – it allows us to focus on the facts at hand – it also inhibits our imagination.

From there, by way of different studies Lehrer gathered, he postulates that getting away from the problem gives us a chance to envision larger outcomes and possibilities. Distance is key.

If One Could Only Imagine

Most of us can probably agree that the imagination which comes with travel – of new worlds, of other cultures, maybe even the reason you read Matador – is what makes us sign up for that next trip before we’ve even fully recovered from the last. Now we know the imagination actually experienced on trips can help us out in “regular life,” too.

The reason I love this “new” finding is because I’ve so often felt (or been told) that I’m running away from my problems when I decide to travel after hitting some sort of mental or physical wall. But landing in a new place has always given me clarity on some issue I couldn’t seem to find my way out of when caught up in daily life.

So in essence, it seems that traveling to new lands and reveling in different cultures may actually help you crack that problem riddle back home:

When we escape from the place we spend most of our time, … we start thinking about obscure possibilities … that never would have occurred to us if we’d stayed back on the farm…Experiencing another culture endows us with a valuable open-mindedness.

And the creativity of dealing with the unknown – which train do I take? How much money does this convert to? – is like taking our brain to the gym (and who knows, may help in warding off diseases such as dementia). That’s certainly worth adding to the perks of travel.

Do you think travel increases your problem-solving skills? Share your thoughts below.

“A new, wide eyed and freshly minted vision surfaces: as a species we are just now in the process of being reborn. Insights abound, awareness rebounds, and shackles are being untangled, we might, if all goes well, be free. Free of our genetic heritage and free of our biological roots, free to soar into a promisingly magnificent future, the future of commingled information, of interweaved sensation, of co-opted dreams.” – WildCat, SpaceCollective.org

My name is Jason Silva. I host and produce a show on Current TV, the Emmy-winning international cable network co-founded by Al Gore.

I’ve tried to use the opportunity as a platform to celebrate big ideas – to harness the power of the information technology revolution and use television, social media and beyond, to share my enthusiasm for human technological ingenuity: to celebrate our ability to find creative ways to overcome problems, go beyond our limitations, and extend our reach.

In surveying my peers and trying to gauge the level of enthusiasm for science and technology, what I have found is that there is very little excitement about the scientific breakthroughs that are occurring every day.

Not too many people in cocktail parties are aware of Bioprinting and growing organs, or the coming technological singularity; I’ve seen very little philosophical speculation about how far we can go, how much we could achieve.

I shared my disappointment with a close friend of mine; someone who shared a passionate and optimistic outlook about the future.

We decided that the problem was lack of art-direction. For whatever reason, the scientific community was failing to elicit a sense of awe and wonder out of people… you can’t win the hearts and minds of the masses unless you inspire them.

You must lift their spirits and enliven their hearts. We have to give people emotional experiences. Science can always use better art-direction: scientific progress and discovery must be presented to the world in a way that excites and titillates people’s sense of what is possible!

I recently read a Newsweek article about the space program that I think was right on the money. The article, titled ‘Rocket Men‘, written by Jeremy McCarter, spoke of the importance of artists in the effort to re-ignite excitement about space exploration.

It mentioned an idea by Buzz Aldrin, from his memoir Magnificent Desolation, in which he made an “intriguing suggestion: Send an artist into space.” The author of the Newsweek piece goes on to say that what is needed is a true “Romantic hero for our 21st-century space adventure” …and that we “might need a little star power to make it out to the stars.”

The point here is the same: big ideas need to be packed in a thrilling, sexy, emotionally-appealing way.

In the case of space exploration, the author eloquently puts it like this: “NASA itself needs to help the public grasp that sending human consciousness 40 million miles into space can be its own mesmerizing reward….”

I think this very same challenge applies to those working in other areas of cutting edge scientific exploration: Synthetic biology, genetic engineering, stem-cell research and beyond. We need to help the public grasp that enhancing humanity, merging with our technology, extending our lifespan, reaching for the infinite, really, is it’s own reward. It is the most magnificent of undertakings.

In the same article, I also learned about Richard Holmes’ fascinating book titled “The Age Of Wonder“, about the late 18th century, or as the author refers to it, “the romantic age of science” – a time when the scientists were poets and the poets knew about science… What scientists and artists shared then, and what we need to regain now, is a fascination and love affair with what Holmes calls “the exploratory voyage.”

My friend’s production company, Transcendental Media, uses the slogan “To agitate the sleep of mankind.”

I’d like to borrow this line as a mission statement for all of us who believe in reason, science and technology as the tools to help us overcome our limitations. Lets agitate the sleep of mankind and then find better ways to inspire people to embrace our next evolutionary leap.

Let’s all become what Alan Harrington calls “Un-comprimising Child-Voyagers”…. and let us retain a child’s-eye-view of what might be.

One of the best examples of the marriage between scientific speculation and brilliant, emotional aesthetic design, is www.SpaceCollective.org. Started by Rene Daalder and Folkert Gorter, this wonderful enterprise excites, inspires and thrills the mind. I recommend it to anyone in need of a little inspiration.

John Maeda, from MIT, quoted in an inspiring essay titled ‘The Universe will Fly like a Bird‘, said this:

“Amidst the attention given to the sciences and how they can lead to the cure of all diseases and daily problems of mankind, I believe that the biggest breakthrough will be the realization that the arts, which are conventionally considered ‘useless,’ will be recognized as the whole reason why we ever tried to live longer or live more prosperously.”

What do you think about science’s need to inspire wonder? Share in the comments!

Community Connection

Want more Jason Silva? Read BNT’s interview on How Science Will Make You Live Forever, and The End of Death: Further Conversations With Jason Silva.

Apollo Belvedere / Photo: alun salt

“If life is a journey, then philosophy is like a compass. It helps us to find our way through the jungle of possibilities that life presents.”

With these words, Thomas Knierim articulates his reason for creating The Big View, a website with the goal of “rendering a bird’s eye perspective on various philosophical topics, hence, the name.” Topics as diverse as Space Time, Buddhism, and Greek Philosophy are all presented clearly…and more importantly, concisely.

I caught up with Thomas to discuss the site, the importance of cutting through noise on the web, and the growing realization that everything is connected.

The Interview

BNT: How has philosophy acted as a compass in your life?

THOMAS: I mentioned this because some people believe that philosophy is a boring academic pursuit or perhaps just mind acrobatics. This is a misconception. Philosophy deals with the big questions in life and these questions affect everyone. Philosophy informs us about our limitations and our possibilities.

Thomas Knierim, The Big View

In my case, it has provided me with insight into human nature and with good advice about which goals in life are worthy following. Most people seek happiness in external things, such as wealth, love affairs, lifestyle, adventures, etc., and they put an enormous amount of energy into these pursuits.

True happiness, however, is a state of mind, and as such it does not depend on external conditions. This sounds like a cliché, but it’s true.

Philosophy directs attention away from the external world to the inner world. It directs the attention towards the development of self-knowledge and perfection of mental qualities… which are difficult but worthy goals.

You currently live in Chiang Mai, Thailand. What effect has traveling and living in Southeast Asia had on your own Western worldview? On the other hand, what do you see are the pitfalls of only relying on Eastern ideas?

I am living in Thailand for 16 years, so the Buddhist worldview has shaped my own worldview. If you live in Thailand you are sort of forced to learn Buddhism, because you cannot really understand the Thai culture without understanding Buddhism.

There is also a notable Chinese influence, especially in Bangkok, where I lived before. To experience Asian culture first-hand is quite educating, as it sets things into perspective. Things that I once considered universally valid turned out to be just culturally conditioned. I found Eastern philosophies, especially Buddhism and Taoism, very deep and enriching.

The major trap, on the other hand, is to see Eastern ideas as silver bullets, or magical solutions. Westerners tend to either ignore Eastern ideas altogether or develop disproportionate reverence for them. I think it is always a bad idea to forgo critical analysis.

You also say “Most people with Internet access are familiar with the problem of information overload.” How does information overload affect a person’s ability to discern quality ideas and philosophical teachings from the noise?

The major challenge is probably not to get carried away. There is such an enormous amount of information out there and it is so easy to get lost. This is facilitated by the interactive nature of the Internet and its associativity brought about by the hyperlink.

It’s eerily similar to the way the human mind works. Just as you can get lost in a train of thought, you can get lost surfing web pages. I have observed this process in myself.

For example, when I start looking for a specific piece of information, I inevitably come across some link that sounds interesting. If I decide to follow that link and to dig deeper, I might end up watching a video or reading a page that has little or nothing to do with the initial quest.

Another problem is the sheer amount of information that is available on each topic, which forces us to learn how to select information by specificity, presentation and scope.

How did you decide what philosophies (and philosophers) to include on your site?

I simply chose the topics and philosophers that interested me. Some of the material about Greek philosophy goes back to the pre-Internet Bulletin-board era when I had more or less scholarly (probably less!) discussions with other people interested in ancient philosophy.

Buddha / Photo: dnc

In the physics section, I tried to put well-known science topics into a less rigid philosophical perspective. In the Buddhism section, I tried to create a straightforward introduction that is intelligible to Westerners without any background in Eastern thought.

I had studied Buddhism a few years earlier from a number of books that used complicated language and unfamiliar Pali and Sanskrit terms, so I wanted to avoid that as far as possible. In future, I’d like to add new section about formal logic, Indian philosophy and evolution theory, but unfortunately at this point I don’t have much free time.

I have to ask, since I’m sure it’s a question that has plagued many philosophy archives. In your opinion, why aren’t women philosophers better represented throughout history?

It is not all that surprising, because you could likewise ask why aren’t female politicians, artists, doctors or female scientists better represented throughout history, and the answer is the same.

Throughout the last few thousand years, the patriarchy has dominated human societies. Not every society was patriarchal of course, but the one that led up to present-day Western culture certainly was a patriarchy and a quite rigid one at that.

Women were simply not considered fit to exercise the named professions; they were given little opportunity, little attention, and little credit. They were rarely able to gain public recognition. You only need to look back 100 years in European history to recognize the grip of the patriarchy.

So the grounds for female artists, scientists, philosophers, etc. have been infertile for a really long time. Fortunately, this has changed.

“Everything is connected.” This theme applies to many great philosophies throughout history. Yet it also seems to be the unifying idea of our time: from string theory, to weather patterns, to foreign policy decisions. Do you think humans will fully understand and here’s the key apply this idea in our lifetime?

Yes, I think that people will at least develop an intuitive understanding of interconnectedness. Things have changed, especially due to advancing technology and globalization.

My kids are growing up in a world that is different from the world I grew up in. Today, there is the Internet, there is a global market, and there is an emerging global culture.

My kids are learning three native languages as they’re growing up. They are at home in Asia as well as in Europe. They eat Thai food, Japanese food, German food, whatever. Intuitively, they understand that they are connected to different cultures.

For them, interconnectedness and global thinking will be quite natural.

For more, visit The Big View.

What do you think the importance of “the big view”? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Photo: freestylebmx

Early this year I interviewed Jason Silva, founding producer for Current TV and current host of Still Up. We spoke about his short film, The Immortalists, along with his own take on science’s goal of ending death…forever.

Jason paints a compelling argument. He believes death is an evolutionary flaw that needs to be overcome, rather than satiated by weaker philosophies or religion.

“By labeling death a problem,” he says, “it shifts our complacent attitude about death and turns it into an engineering problem, one that we can solve, much as we have solved impossible problems in the past.”

Since then, Jason’s interview has gnawed at my own personal beliefs on life.

I found similarities in his worldview and my own explorations in Buddhism – both which share the goal of ending our fear of death. Yet, both could not be more different in their approach.

I decided to contact Jason for a follow-up discussion. I start first with my own understanding of the Buddhist’s approach to life, then share Jason’s rebuttal.

The Buddhist: Ian MacKenzie

“Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” – Buddha

Photo: hurleygurley

The first of the Four Noble Truths, as discovered by the Buddha 2500 years ago, is the realization that “life is suffering.” For this reason, many people believe Buddhism is essentially transfixed with suffering.

But this is not the case. In fact, the second noble truth reveals the origin of suffering: attachment.

Why does attachment cause suffering? Because life is inherently transient. Nothing stays the same; not the birds, the trees, your job, friends, even your own thoughts, moment to moment. Our egos like to believe that we’re individuals, that we have an exalted place in the world.

And so we have a difficult time handling all this transience. We cling to what we enjoy and avoid what we don’t.

This is suffering.

While it’s tempting to believe that most people are affected by mortal anxiety, the knowledge they will die someday, I believe the opposite. I think most people vaguely realize they will die, but they don’t seriously contemplate it until they have a near death experience, or they’re on their deathbed.

So the problem is not quantity of life, but rather quality.

Our egos are not content to live with the present moment, instead we grasp at transient moments, never happy, never content. We can’t remain content for more than 10 minutes, let alone infinite.

For Buddhists, enlightenment is the deep realization that nothing is permanent. To fear death is to actually go against the fundamental law of the universe: everything that arises must pass away.

The goal is to become content with this transience, and therefore, content with life. Suddenly there is no more fear; life becomes eternally now. We aren’t worrying about moments beginning and moments ending.

In contrast, the idea of “living forever” seems the ultimate triumph of the mind (ego) winning over the heart (soul). The mind is so terrified of death it refuses to let the soul go. Life would become eternally static. Like a beautiful painting of a sunset…but nothing like a real sunset.

When you step back and attempt to see reality, to imagine yourself in the larger context of life, you realize that there would be no life without death.

Steve Hagen, a Buddhist author, captures it beautifully:

Pick up a flower – a beautiful, living, fresh rose. It smells wonderful. It reveals a lovely rhythm in the swirl of its petals, a rich yet dazzling color, a soft velvety texture. It moves and delights us. The problem is that the rose dies. Its petals fall; it shrivels up; it turns brown and returns to the earth.

One solution to this problem is to ignore the real rose and substitute a plastic one, one that never dies (and never lives). But is a plastic rose what we want? No, of course not. We want the real rose. We want the one that dies. We want it because it dies, because it’s fleeting, because it fades.

It’s this very quality that makes it precious. This is what we want, what each of us is: a living thing that dies.

Perhaps one day, through science, we will finally be able to preserve the body from dying. What then? We’d still have a lot of unconscious people, who now don’t have the face the ultimate moment of awakening…death.

I’m reminded of a quote from John Steinbeck, who spoke about his own impending death in Travels With Charley:

“I see too many men delay their exits with a sickly slow reluctance to leave the stage. It’s bad theater as well as bad living.”

And so, the fear of death is revealed for what it truly is: the ego’s fear of ceasing to exist. The essence of a human is not contained in the mind. It is temporarily channeled into a body for a moment of existence, before sinking back into the ocean of life. As Osho says:

“You have to pass through fear and accept it as a human reality. There is no need to escape from it. What is needed is to go deeper into it, and the deeper you go into your fear the less you will find it is. When you have touched the rock bottom of fear, you will simply laugh, there is nothing to fear.”

- Ian MacKenzie

The Immortalist: Jason Silva

“The philosophy that accepts death must itself be considered dead, its questions meaningless, its consolations worn out.”  – Alan Harrington, The Immortalist.

Jason Silva

The mindset of an Immortalist is simple and straightforward: death is an abhorrent imposition on a species able to reflect and care about meaning.

Creatures that love and dream and create and yearn for something meaningful, eternal and transcendent should not have to suffer despair, decay and death.  We are the arbiters of value in an otherwise meaningless universe.  The fleeting nature of beautiful, transcendent moments feeds the urge for man to scream: “I was here; I felt this and it matters, goddamn it!”

In the face of meaningless extinction, it’s not surprising that mankind has needed to find a justification for his suffering.  Man is the only animal aware of his mortality – and this awareness causes a tremendous amount of anxiety.

As a child I wanted to understand the world. Nothing much has changed – the sense of urgency has not dissipated; I’m still running around trying desperately to understand things.  To have emerged; to be self-aware, to know that I know that I am; all these things were troubling mostly because they fueled the panic over having some semblance of control over my experience. 

I think that when I first understood what love was at a visceral level was when I first grasped the concept of death- death felt real when I pondered losing someone I loved.   Imagining that everything and everyone I loved was temporary was unbearable, even as a young child.

This is not to deny that my life isn’t sunny and lusty, packed with fascinating hours; in fact it is. But when we start to grow a little older, when we pause for just a moment, there begins to intrude on all our scenes a faint disquiet.  

The psychologist Ernest Becker wrote in his pulitzer prize winning book, “The Denial of Death,” that in the face of an acute and agonizing awareness of his mortality, man has developed three main devices to sustain his sanity.  These illusions act as temporary solutions to the problem of death. 

The Religious Solution

The Religious Solution invents the concept of God and projects onto him the power to grant us what we all really want: the ability to bestow eternal life on ourselves an our loved ones; to be freed from disease, decay and death.  

This belief in an all powerful deity made perfect sense during the dark ages when people lived short, miserable, disease-ridden lives. With no explanation for their suffering, people were better able to bear their hardships by having faith in God and believing, that in the end, their gods would ’save’ them. 

However, the gods never came.  Suffering persisted; people lived and people died.  

In an age of science and reason, however, the Religious Solution has all but become obsolete.  The irrationality of religious dogma has become clear in our modern time of scientific enlightenment, and rather than alleviating our anxiety, it has only served to exacerbate it.

Alan Harrington, wrote in the Immortalist, that “Anxiety increases with education. As we grow more sophisticated, ever more ingenious rationalizations are needed to explain death away.” Man still needs something to believe in.

The Romantic Solution 

Enter the The Romantic Solution; the second illusion Becker identifies – when we no longer believe in God, we then turn our lovers into gods and goddesses. We idolize them, write pop songs about being saved by their love, and for a little while we feel immortal; like gods beyond time.  

Becker elaborates: “If the love object is divine perfection, then one’s own self is elevated by joining one’s destiny to it.” All our guilt, fear, even mortality itself can be “purged in a perfect consummation with perfection itself.”  

When in love, man can “forget himself in the delirium of sex, and still be marvelously quickened in the experience”.  We are temporarily relieved from the drag of “the animality that haunts our victory over decay and death.”  When in love, we become immortal gods. 

But no relationship can bear the burden of godhood.  Eventually, ours gods/lovers reveal their clay feet.  It is, as someone once said, the “mortal collision between heaven and halitosis.”  

This is the revelation we all come to in a romantic relationship when sex is revealed to represent “species consciousness;” a mere process of reproduction in service of propagation, not in service of “man as a special cosmic hero with special gifts for the universe…”

Man is revealed to be a mere link in the chain, with no lasting purpose or significance. Passionate love then tends to transition into housekeeping love; boredom and routine coupled with the impossible standards we have for our lovers collides in a flurry of disappointment, and perfection begins to show its cracks. 

This is why most marriages end in divorce and why love doesn’t ever quite seem to last forever.

The Creative Solution

At this point Becker identifies the last illusion man has devised: the Creative Solution.  This explains our urge to leave a legacy; to create a great work of art that has lasting impact and value; in essence to create something that carries our signature and lives on after we’re gone.    

“This is the artist’s way of scribbling ‘Kilroy was here‘ on the wall of the final and irrevocable oblivion through which he must one day pass,” Harrington explains. This is quite touching and clever, but ultimately fails where it counts: still, everyone dies. 

The absurdity and ache of our condition can be summed up by the opening line from the documentary Flight From Death:

“To have emerged from nothing; to have a name, consciousness of self, deep inner feeling; an excruciating yearning for life and self-expression.  And with all this; yet to die.  Human beings find themselves in quite the predicament.  With our minds we have the capacity ponder the infinite, seemingly capable of anything, yet we’re housed in a heart-pumping, breath-gasping, decaying body.  We are godly, yet creaturely.”

The Immortalist Thesis

The time has come for man to get over his cosmic inferiority complex. To rise above his condition – to use technology to extend himself beyond his biological limitations.  Alan Harrington reminds us: “We must never forget we are cosmic revolutionaries, not stooges conscripted to advance a natural order that kills everybody.” 

While Ernest Becker identified our need for heroism and our extensive attempts to satisfy it symbolically, Alan Harrington proposes we move definitively to engineer salvation in the real world; to move directly to physically overcome death itself: “Spend the money, higher the scientists and hunt down death like an outlaw.”  

While some cry heresy and might gasp in protest at the pretense of ‘playing god’, Harrington simply states: “The truth is, of course, that death should no more be considered an acceptable part of life than smallpox or polio, both of which we have managed to bring under control without denouncing ourselves as pretentious.”

What must be eliminated from the human drama is the “inevitability of death as a result and natural end of the aging process.  I am speaking of the inescapable parabolic arching from birth to death–the point is “being alive now, ungoverned by span, cycle or inevitability.”

Alan Harrington also rails against any philosophy that teaches complacency: “All philosophical systems insofar as they teach us sportingly to accept extinction are a waste of time… the wisdom of philosophers may nearly always be found trying to blanket our program to conquer death.”

“Death seems simply to be a return to that unknown inwardness out of which we were born,” state thinkers like Alan Watts.

But Harrington critiques those that embellish ‘nothingness’ as: “Voices preaching false consolation will not help us, no matter how skillfully and soothingly they arrange nothingness. This may be appraised as fine writing, but it serves also to glamorize death, and therefore, in the context of humanity’s mission to conquer death, to weaken and tranquilize our rebellion.”

The Immortalist point of view, then, could be described as a project that uses technology to “Individualize eternity, to stabilize the forms and identities through which the energy of conscious life passes.”  

This is hardly a stretch for human beings, as Harrington proclaims: “We have long since gone beyond the moon, touched down on mars, harnessed nuclear energy, artificially reproduced DNA, and now have the biochemical means to control birth; why should death itself, ‘the last enemy’, be considered beyond conquest?”

I want to leave you with this biting and eloquent passage I read somewhere on the internet:

“There is nothing about death that is less than abominable.  I am forever bewildered by the placating palaver wasted in efforts to quell this irrational horror. The cessation of all that is, the chasm that devours every memory, every fleeting intellection, every redeeming fragment of meaning and love and lust and friendship and hunger and hopeless vitality, and reduces it all to the inconceivable cosmic ash of nothing – That is my enemy.”

Enjoy your day.

- Jason Silva

Conclusion

In the end, there’s no right or wrong answer. It’s up to the reader to decide based on the evidence, and most importantly, their direct experience of following certain beliefs. Keep what works, and discard what doesn’t.

After all, very soon you may have all the time in the world to ponder life’s big questions…

What do you think of the debate on ending death (and the nature of life)? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Photo: paulus68

New research has once again thrown a wrench in the “nature vs. nurture” debate.

Looks like scientists from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory found that when they isolated a Zebra Finch bird, taking away its ability to learn certain songs from an elder male relative, the songs still emerged all on their own.

Ok, they were a bit rusty at first, but within four generations, these songs were as perfect as the originals.

As Luke McKinney over at the Daily Galaxy said, either:

a) Cultural information can be genetically encoded or
b) Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has embarrassingly bad sound insulation.

I agree with his assertion that it is probably a.

What does this mean for humans, and to those who often tune into this blog: travelers? Does this finding implicate that we lack the ability to fully integrate into a new culture, either when we visit or decide to live in a new place?

Even though we are obviously influenced tremendously by what surrounds us on a daily basis (including by cultures other than our own), this might mean that we are simply coded to have certain belief systems and rituals no matter what is happening externally.

Free Will?

There is also the idea that each generation of the bird “worked” to perfect the imperfect song their isolated dad taught them. Sound familiar?

McKinney adds:

At every point, if you’ll forgive the outrageous anthropomorphization, [the birds] “thought” they were working it out for themselves while dancing to the genetic tune. That’s the kind of thing that would make you think very seriously about free will.

I often believe the drive that I have to travel, or dance, or write is solely my own and based on experiences I’ve had in my life. But in reality, am I just playing out the “song” of my ancestors?

Do you think it’s possible to fully integrate into another culture, or are we slaves to our genetics? Share your thoughts below.

If you’re like me, you’ve probably heard of ’string theory’ before. It’s basically the idea that everything (me, you, the universe) is made of tiny strings of vibrating energy. Physicists have dubbed these energy strands “strings.”

But what does that actually mean? And why has it caused a huge uproar in the scientific community?

To answer that question, and share it with the laymen, PBS/Nova produced an excellent series explaining string theory and the wild implications. I found all 3 parts online in their entirety…enjoy!

Part I – Einstein’s Dream

Part II – String’s The Thing

Part III – Welcome To The 11th Dimension

To learn more about the program and string theory, visit Nova’s website The Elegant Universe.