41 Whys

I was Googling for information on that thing little kids do when they just keep asking "Why?" I didn't really find the discussion I was after, but I did find this Wikipedia article. And that will have to do as my hook.

Last night, during an insomnia spat, it dawned on me that existentialism is basically the reason that little kid always wins.

1. Wow, Micheal Phelps is awesome!
2. Because he won 8 gold medals; that's an amazing achievement.
   
3. Because that's really hard to do.
4. Because there were many other good competitors.
   
5. Because they were very dedicated to training.
6. Because they wanted to win Olympic gold medals.
7. Because people respect gold medals.
   
8. Because most people cannot do it.
9. Because they haven't trained enough.
   
10. Because it doesn't seem worth the effort.
11. Because they don't like it that much and they don't believe they could ever reach the Olympic level.
12. Because they are not successful enough.
13. Because it wasn't in their genetics or formative experiences.
14. Because their parents didn't make it a priority.
15. Because they weren't good at it.
16. For the same reasons their children aren't.
17. Because that's how people become dedicated enough to sporting activities to get to the Olympics.
18. Because there's really no other reason to put that much effort in.
19. Because sporting activities are not really of any importance.
20. Because sports don't have any inherent value for people except for the competitors.
21. Because sports don't really affect other people.
22. Because their livelihoods don't depend on the outcome, except for risk-takers.
    
23. Because our quality of life depends on caring for ourselves and our loved ones and having the freedom to make choices.
24. Because modern Western culture emphasizes family and freedom.
25. Because those are our traditions.
    
26. Because people acting under those beliefs have survived – it's social evolution.
27. Because families sustain the young and then provide unconditional emotional support while capitalism justifies actions that give people an advantage.
    
28. Because the roles of bread-winner and home-keeper were effective at raising healthy and capable children and anonymizing inequity behind markets means consumers don't realize the ultimate, negative consequences of their actions.
29. Because "out of sight, out of mind."
    
30. Because abstract things that don't affect our immediate safety don't carry much weight in our minds.
31. Because the human mind evolved in environments that did not include such complex systems.
    
32. Because before we formed societies, there were no natural systems under our influence that actually had indirect consequences on our survival, like global warming, terrorism, deforestation, water pollution, or fair trade. (Things like meteors and natural climate change did exist, but we had no mental model of our influence over those things.)
    
33. Because no human system could effect change on a global scale.
34. Because no human systems had yet reached the global scale.
35. Because there weren't enough of us yet.
36. Because our species' growth rate wasn't that big.
37. Because we didn't have the knowledge to survive en masse.
38. Because we didn't develop language until relatively recently.
39. I don't know.
40. I'm tired.
41. I just played 40 rounds of the why game with you!
42. Want some cake?

Disagree with anything?

It always boils down to something like "I don't know why we were the first species to develop language; we just were." And that's a pretty dissatisfying reason to work with when you're trying to make a difficult decision. There is no root cause to rely on, unless you bring faith into the picture. But I also find that dissatisfying. I'm looking for some reason that exists beyond my mind.

Here's what I find most frustrating. Tyler C just got a free subscription to Seed magazine, and in the first issue there was an article that caught my eye. One of the two experts says,

[Thoughtful evolutionary biologists are] saying, "Look, there are basic aspects to human nature that are common to all members of our species and have been there a long time." What's exciting is that we've developed this cognitive mechanism to free us from the things that determine so much of our behavior. And by doing so, we've sort of cut the rope from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Emphasis mine. That sentence pisses me off. I can identify my natural tendencies, I just don't know if I should listen to them. "Being free of them" is really confusing. Very few things compare to their immediacy, but our societal norms tell me it's laudable to deny some of them and to embrace others. Who says so? Why is that?

1. Because philosophy over the past 3000 years has not identified – Ooooo! Is that cream cheese icing?

Whatever the reason, is it good enough? Or is it also something vacuous and underwhelming like, "we just were."