‘It’s not fair’ we cry whenever things turn out other than we’d hoped, or more precisely, when things turn out against us.
And it’s perfectly true.
Life on Earth* is the miraculous outcome of a series of improbable collisions of asteroids and continents and atoms that somehow produced a molecule that could copy itself just well enough to mutate and evolve and adapt. Copies that adapt quickly survive and the ones that don’t… don’t.
That’s the way things happen on this planet.
Fair doesn’t come into it; that was a purely human invention.
But somehow we got it into our heads that a Cosmic Scale of Justice corrects all the imbalances and imperfections in Life so that, given enough time, the good guys will win.
And sure, sometimes they do. But sometimes they don’t.
Life is neither fair or unfair.
Truth is, the Universe is completely ambivalent about who wins what, so our habit of expecting fairness only distorts our understanding of whatever we’re dealing with. It guarantees bitter disappointment as it raises a hope that will always, ultimately, turn out to be false. But worst of all, waiting for Life to restore justice diverts us from our own responsibilities to make things right.
So why not just be grateful for what we have, gracious about what we don’t and generous with everyone else?
Because even if you win some, you won’t win ‘em all.
That wouldn’t be fair, would it?
*Some scientists think there may be life on Mars. But none expect it to be fair.
dave isles
Nice one Jason! further consideration of the topic could be Monty Python’s Galaxy Song.. youtube clip, and the evergreen ‘Life’s Little Instructions’.. the very last instruction being the most important!!!
cheers, Dave I
Jason
I know the ‘Galaxy Song’ but not ‘Life’s Little Instructions’… I will check those out, thanks Dave.
Will
It seems to me that human ideology over the past 2000 years has scripted us to believe in a dichotomist way. Look at the teachings of religion: right vs wrong, hell vs heaven and infidel vs believer. It continues to this day with hollywood movies about super heroes defeating super villains. Every good movie has a villain and hero. It is only through understanding this dichotomy that we can ever break its bounds and perhaps believe in a more rational and responsible way about our actions and thoughts. What do you think?
My last comment relates to those who believe in destiny vs free will. I think that at times a belief in destiny protects us from self blame and crippling self criticism that may otherwise render us useless. Maybe this is why those free living hippies were always so happy. I mean the drugs probably helped, but still, do you see my point?
Jason
Hey Will,
Thanks for the comments! I absolutely agree with your first point: we’ve convinced ourselves of a simplistic yin/yang dualism that not only sounds right but is very attractive; it promises us a balancing of the scales, a day of judgement in which all is put right and it all eventually makes sense. My suspicion is this kind of Marvel comic view of the world has justified some of our worst acts as a species – I recently toured a Cold War missile silo designed to unleash nuclear death but only in retaliation, which to me suggests a counter attack not to make the world better but to exact revenge – or as my American hosts would have it, ‘justice’.
I’m not sure I’ve fully grasped your comment about destiny and free will… can you tease this out for me a bit more?
IdPnSD
A very good perspective – “Because even if you win some, you won’t win ‘em all.” Here is another approach, can be found in both Bible and Vedas.
“… atoms that somehow produced a molecule that could copy itself just well enough to mutate and evolve and adapt…” – Is that a good enough description? I know science does it that way. But humans are not like that mechanical objects. Humans have thoughts (soul). Our thoughts are shaped by the environment where we live and also by the way our neighbors interact with us.
The idea of thoughts can be extended to an atom also. I am sure you have realized that different parts of the same apple have different tastes. This is so because each atom has its own environment, each one was grown at different times inside the same apple, so its neighbors talked to the atoms in different ways. Doesn’t it mean that atoms have their characteristics beyond their mechanical descriptions? They also have thoughts (souls).
In the same way we can extend this concept of thoughts (souls) to the entire universe. All objects in the universe are simultaneously and continuously interactive with each other for all past, present, and future times. Thus we are all connected with our thoughts. It is quite possible that every object, living or nonliving has a soul. In that case – “… the Universe is completely ambivalent about who wins what …” may not be correct. Maybe this simultaneity law creates our global destiny, and we all really do care for each other. For, my destiny depends on yours, and eventually we all win. For more on soul theory take a look at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/
Jason
Thanks for that perspective; I’m familiar with the notion that our attempts to understand the Universe are merely ‘mechanical’ and that the difficulty we have in explaining our thoughts and feelings proves there must be something more; a higher form of reality that we sense as consciousness or ‘soul’. But that’s been our whole story so far, hasn’t it? Science is a slow and methodical process for making sense so there’ll always be a backlog of things we haven’t figured out… yet. We had alchemy before chemistry, magic before medicine and astrology before astronomy and although some people still cling to pre-scientific ideas, our attempt to understand the world through observation and experiment remains our greatest (and I’d argue our most noble) endeavour. Can we explain the soul in terms of neurochemistry? Maybe. Can we prove our consciousness is merely a subjective effect of known physical phenomena? No… not yet. Will we one day? I’d say YES. Just about everyone else would say NO. So all we know for a fact at this stage is that someone is going to be wrong…
IdPnSD
For – JASON on April 6th, 2016
“But that’s been our whole story so far, hasn’t it?” – You are correct!
Bible says in Ecclesiastes 1:9. – “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Vedas has a similar statement – Nonexistent cannot become existent. There is a theory called eternal recurrence popularized in the west by German philosopher Nietzsche – We live the exact same life infinitely many times. This is also a Vedic theory, the entire universe repeats. Thus everything is already discovered. We cannot do anything new. If you want to see more about this then take a look at the destiny chapter of the above free book.
Jason
Thanks for the comment, as always I’ve had to think it through before responding.
Let’s start with Ecclesiastes 1:9 – I can’t disagree with it because it seems so unoriginal, which, by its own logic makes it true. (It must be EITHER true OR original but cannot be both.) Am I right in thinking the Vedas pre-date Ecclesiastes? Did anyone say it before the Vedas? Was there ever a first time for this particular trope?
As for Nietzsche, he’s enjoyed the comfort of a theory that can never be tested; some people are impressed by notions that can never be disproved (they seem profound) I am not one of them. I’m no more compelled to believe in eternal recurrence than I am to pray to Odin – I can’t believe in something just because I really want to.
Are you sure we can’t do anything new? That no new ideas are possible because they’ve already been done? How many times have we discovered the atom or sequenced the genome or sent probes to Pluto? How many more times will we invent the Chicken Dance or the musical greeting card? When will the madness end?
Your assertion about living the exact same life over and over and that the universe repeats is merely that: an assertion. You’ve declared something as fact (and even moved to ‘thus everything is discovered’) without attempting to support your statement. Be careful, you may be merely repeating something you might have wanted to examine more carefully first. Thanks for the offer of the book!