Scientific/objective purpose of the human species

Be it atheists or theists, many may feel human life may be purposeless or untenable; i.e. a never ending search or a “why” question that’s perhaps not worth asking.

I think there’s a viable alternative to especially the “purposeless” based outlook, with the introduction of a recent concept called “teleonomy”, which is an atheistic/scientific way to describe nature in purpose driven language. (In fact, as seen on Wikipedia/teleonomy, Richard Dawkins; recently introduced the treatments “archeo” and “neo” purpose. See his video/speech “the purpose of purpose”.)

Anyway, for example, using the laws of thermodynamics, we can try to objectively discover non-trivial goals that humans may undertake, as far as nature goes. (i.e. grand purposes for the human species, that reasonably transcend the desires of individual humans, while seeking to be objective, much like how Science tends to follow the evidence, aiming to describe what the cosmos actually is, rather than what people may want the cosmos to be.)

Note: One may reasonably grasp an understanding of the summaries below, without clicking on the associated wikipedia etc sources. One may however get an even more wholesome understanding, by toggling the links conveniently provided throughout the summaries.

  • Hypothesis A - An atheist PhD psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017] : “Michael’s variant of Cosmological Natural Selection I


  • Hypothesis B - An atheist computer scientist named Jordan Bennett, hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015] : “Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?”



Crucially, Science can reasonably describe how organic life began (namely, via evolutionary principle etc) and also, reasonably where human life perhaps seeks to go (again, via evolutionary principle etc, as described in the hypotheses above.)



Anyone who asks why he is alive isn’t alive.

By what measure is someone “alive”? Is it objective?

And do you recognize that ascribing such a measure, is reasonably yet another sequences of why’s?

By ones own measure. I think that’s objective qua subjectivity.

There is an idea that objective and subjective are mutually exclusive. I don’t see how one can exist within the other. Like I don’t see how a house could have an inside without having an outside.

More a sequence of whats.