So, everyone loves modern medicine, right? Life-saving, life-altering, life-lengthening medicine that uses all of these advances in science and technology, studies and research, testing and experiments, to preserve the constantly abused human body and mind. Tablets of miracle and injections of phenomenon get lined up and put down faster than keystone light in college. So what's the result of all of this?
People always talk about 'living a full life.' But I think that living a full life is a.) a relative term and b.) subject to interpretation.
a.) What was the definition of living a full life in the 1700s? The 1400s? They considered 45 years+ living a full life. That was what they were used to. As time has passed on, and we keep thinking and inventing, obviously we live quite a bit longer now. Life expectancy is up at 70 these days. And its up closer to 80 for those kids born yesterday. Who's to say it won't be even longer in the future? What if someone invents the immortality pill. What's the 'full life' then? People argue that everyone deserves to live a full life, but with a constantly changing number, shouldn't it be up to the human body to determine how long you should live?
b.) 'A full life.' I keep coming back to this term. My thoughts aren't completely formulated on it, but my gut feeling is that it's what you do during your life that makes it full, not how long you lived. Many people want to live to see their kids grow old, but plenty of people never had kids and still lived a full life. Some people think that you need to travel to different countries, experience different cultures, meet as many people as you can, fall in love, whatever, and they believe that thing is what will make your life full and complete. It could be more simple than that. Is my life full right now, since I've established loving relationships with people that I truly care about, I've enjoyed so much of my time here, and experienced, what I feel, is a lot... does that mean my life is full? Well for 23 years, I'd say yeah. And it may not be a tragedy if I died tomorrow.
The point of a.) and b.) has gotten off topic. My initial thought was a sort of brash and harsh thought of the general idea, 'survival of the fittest.' I was thinking about the emotionless way of living, of not helping others, of letting your own instincts and your own decisions guide you through your life. And if you're not smart enough or strong enough to figure it out, then guess what? You're not gonna get very far.
And while there is logic there that I believe in, there's no way that I can contradict my general way of life. My length of fuse varies so much throughout the day, but deep down, I have a pretty innate desire to help people. I believe strongly in compassion. In honesty. In generosity. And in doing whatever I can to make others happy, maybe one day leaving a little of that happiness for myself.
So chalk it up to another batch of my dichotomous self. (I really hope that's a word) Put this last rant somewhere between I have no idea what I'm talking about and I have two strong opinions that are complete opposites. But that wouldn't be me if it wasn't. Writing often tells the truth. My fingertips know more about me than my mind. Sometimes it just takes the medium to figure that out. This one definitely started in lane 1 and crossed in lane 8, but I'm strangely okay with that. At least it was real. At least it was honest. Is that all that matters?
[No Picture Necessary]
Yes, it should be. As far as the 'survival of the fittest' is concerned, that applies to every other species besides humans,given our ability to reason; however there are a large amount of us out there that real struggle with this gift, and no matter how much you try to help them, they are who they are.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that was me again.
ReplyDeleteDad