Work and the "meaning of life"

Joe Moran writes in Sunday's Guardian/Observer (Cif), The ants march on, but we'd be happier as grasshoppers: the idea that work is the meaning of existence has little basis in biology:

". . . nature writers like Mabey have pointed out that seeing work as the meaning of life is a human, metaphysical invention; it has little basis in biology."

Actually, the work ethic which governs and is wrecking our lives (as well as the planet) DOES have its roots in biology: in the misplaced and perverted expression of our Darwinian nature, which, in the artificial environment of human civilisation, has latched onto the pursuit and exercise of POWER as the most useful route to individual survival and reproductive success.

Work (of the kind we are talking about) translates into economic growth and MONEY, which is POWER in its most versatile form.

Just as humans domesticated certain animals, not for the fun of it, i.e as pets, but in order to exploit them in their struggle for survival, advantage and "success", so too society's ruling elites domesticated their own kind, and themselves into the bargain, in order to exploit them. We are trained and conditioned (just like a dog, by a regime of rewards and punishments, or promises/threats of them) to work long and hard, in order to produce the material wealth which, originally society's elites, and now everyone, wants and feels entitled to.

Work is a source of POWER (though not just, or even primarily, for those actually doing it), the possession of which has the potential to greatly enhance an individual's chances of survival and (especially male) reproductive success, which, from a purely biological perspective, IS the "meaning of life".

What evolutionary anthropologists are missing

Open email to Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University:

Dear Prof. Dunbar,

 

I was very impressed by the interview you gave to the Observer's Aleks Krotoski, but please forgive my boldness for saying that there is a vitally important aspect of evolutionary anthropology which you and your colleagues seem to be missing.

 

It is the fact that civilizations (most relevantly, our own) are a product of man's Darwinian nature and its misplaced and perverted expression in the artificial environment of human society itself, which states and economy, I postulate, developed over the centuries to facilitate the (self)-exploitation of, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, by deceiving us all (exploiters and exploited alike, and now often embodied in one and the same individual) into believing that the state represents of our original tribe (or Dunbar number!).

 

In the artificial environment of our civilization, man's Darwinian drive for survival and reproductive success has been largely reduced to the pursuit of POWER, i.e. money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc., which, of course, has the potential to greatly enhance the individual's chances of survival and reproductive success.

 

The profound implications of this insight, I believe, are what make it so difficult to recognise, even for anthropologists, because it undermines the political and socioeconomic order on which we all depend (academics, if anything, more than most), and because our brains didn't evolve to grasp reality itself, but to interpret it (i.e. its environment) to its own (now perverted Darwinian) advantage.

 

If we fail to recognise and develop an understanding of this harsh reality (instead of using our prodigious brains to rationalize and disguise it from ourselves), it will inevitably become progressively harsher, as we exploit ourselves towards extinction . . .

 

With best regards

 

Roger Hicks