Why is Human Life so Short?

Reads: 1468  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 1

Status: Finished  |  Genre: Other  |  House: Booksie Classic

Want to get rid of these ads?


Why is Human Life So Short!

The size of an object and its distance are relative, hence appearance can be deceiving!

***

If we ask people in their 50’s or 70’s about the human life span, their response will invariably be the same, that the life is too short. The responses may vary depending on respondent’s circumstances, e.g., an affluent, healthy, and happy person will be of the view that life is too short, while people in grief or distress may feel otherwise. 

However, as soon as they get over it, they start feeling the same way that human life is too short, in most cases at least. If we ask a child or teenager the same question, then the answer would probably be that life is pretty long.

The average life span of Homo sapiens has increased substantially over period of time, due to access to better medical facilities and concerted efforts like vaccination drives etc.

The average life of animals living in the wild is less than the ones living in captivity, and the reasons for that are obvious, elimination of implied risks and resulting injuries, improved medical care, and regular provision of sustenance etc.

The question however arises as to what should be the optimum span of human life in terms of years; will 200 years be fine, or 500 years or perhaps 1000 years or even more, or less for that matter?

But before we try to find an appropriate answer to that question, shouldn’t we first try to understand and define as to what life really is? Why are we here on this planet? Who are we, and where are we destined to end up, and finally, why?

I have tried to explain the topics of what life is, and where are we heading, see the links below for articles written on that subject so as to avoid repeating the same points here;

https://www.booksie.com/504582-project-life

https://www.booksie.com/507669-life-after-death-what-lies-beyond

The first mega scientific debate about assessing and evaluating the idea, and discussing about the possibility that the universe might actually be a simulation, was held in the US in 2016.

Though that concept is not novel, but it is quite interesting to note that scientists, philosophers, and even people in general are now more inclined to consider the idea, after similar concepts were presented with greater lucidity in various books and some of the iconic Hollywood sci-fi movies, such as 'The Matrix' and 'The Thirteenth Floor' etc.

You would have noticed that people these days are somewhat open to such discussions, and just don't brush them aside as absurd, as the case was sometime back.

If the concept that universe is a simulation has some merit, which to me is the most plausible option to choose from 'nothing' to 'multiple scenarios', then there are few important points that need to be considered, and they are;

  • Why are there so many planets and their respective generators (stars) in place, but only one has life per our current knowledge? Whereas, a close observation tells us that nature is pretty efficient at organizing and utilizing her resources? For example, an increase in the flora on our planet attracts fauna, with the cycle getting established and equilibrium being actively restored in case of any imbalances caused due to any reason whatsoever. it all appears to be agile, active, and deliberate management of resources! Not just the aftereffects of some gigantic galactic explosion!
  • If the concept of a simulated world is valid, then there could be more, perhaps millions of such simulations running in parallel, and in that case the presence of so many uninhabited worlds makes sense. A possible explanation is that all the simulations use the same programming infrastructure or platform, and only the inhabitants of a particular simulation see their own planet as being inhabited, while the rest having no life? as if being in a different dimension?
  • Like they share the same infrastructure but are not aware of the presence of other simulated worlds. At least not until the creator of the program so desires, and makes the necessary adjustments.
  • That assumption also endorses the idea that those who perish, from our perspective (Physical death), move to another simulated world, being active right away or staying dormant for a while?

Now, getting back to our starting question as to what should be the optimum span of human life in terms of years? Let us first look at the concept of age. If we are living in a simulation, then time or age is irrelevant, since the programmer can virtually make us immortal. Or our life span can be millions of years measured by our current yardstick, or it could be infinite.

From our so called logical perspective, it seems impossible, but from the standpoint of this all being a simulation, it is no big deal, just a major or perhaps a minor programming change by the architect of this ultra complex formation, from our perspective.

The idea that human age can be any value in number in the existing simulation, which we know is currently in the 70’s or 90’s range max, with some exceptions, and why would it change in the upcoming simulation, and to what extent?

Let us view it from a common sense standpoint, as it is almost incomprehensible from the viewpoint of our existing pool of knowledge that we so greatly admire, or our collective ignorance which we are so reluctant to acknowledge, whatever you may like to call it.

We are supposed to be the custodians of this world, planet Earth. We have limited time to perform certain tasks, and then we perish as we see it now.

It makes sense to assume that our contribution in this place will be utilized to manage similar but larger tasks in terms of scope in the next simulated environment. For example, a surgeon here will be a surgeon there, and so on and so forth. We may not require many professions there like teaching for example, as the information will simply be downloaded then, or it may continue as is for being the optimum solution?

There should however be some management roles, as there will be a massive and complete supply chain in place. People will require food and drinks and clothes to wear, and houses to live in, and the entertainment and fun etc. Though there might be 3D printers or other advanced technologies making most or all of the items needed, or there might be an optimum mix, something in the middle, and of course there will be people required to carry out various tasks.

The concept of complete automation does not exude luxury, and as such may not be available there, who knows...

With 'Time' no longer in existence, and 'Greed' gone, there won’t be any aging problems or deaths, and conflicts or wars. No time or time value of money, therefore no senseless competition which basically drives us away from, 'being human.'

So, our stay on this planet or in this simulation is not really short. It is sufficient for us to acquire certain skills, and make a positive contribution, proving to the Creator that we are worthy, and are fully prepared to take on bigger responsibilities and larger roles.

Like after passing an exam, we are assigned with certain tasks to perform, and the responsibilities to fulfill in life to get rewarded accordingly.

Cheers!


Submitted: July 24, 2017

© Copyright 2022 Razi Akber. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Comments

Bert Broomberg

This was a very interesting read, although I am not a believer of the idea that we live in a simulated environment. The existential questions you raised are always interesting to think and write about. I enjoyed this a lot.

Mon, July 24th, 2017 5:57pm

Author
Reply

Thanks Bert! Appreciate your comments. BR,

Mon, July 24th, 2017 11:00am

Facebook Comments

Boosted Content from Other Authors

Book / Thrillers

Short Story / Historical Fiction

Book / Fantasy

Short Story / Horror

Other Content by Razi Akber

Article / Editorial and Opinion

Short Story / Fantasy

Short Story / Fantasy