Robert Burroughs- Why Us

I’ve been reading Why Us which is a scientific book discussing what we have learned about the origins of humanity through science and what we can and can not infer from that information. A big part of the book actually discussed the limitations of what we know. Sure we can map out the human brain and test how it reacts under different circumstances, but we still can’t seem to figure out how little electrical surges firing off in the brain end up computing in our minds everything they do. Where does language come from? How did we go from ape to man?
It also discusses the double helix and how we can look at it to hopefully trace humanity back to our origins. There is a lot on Darwin and the survival of the fittest and our evolution, etc. But a big point here is that we don’t seem to have a really good grasp on our exact evolution because there are pieces missing. Our evolution just seems to make jumps that can’t be explained, as opposed to a gradual evolution in which we had fossilized evidence to support the whole climb.
But why does this all matter? I think it’s important to figure this all out if we have any intention of figuring out what is the right way for us to live our lives. The purpose of man is encoded somewhere in our past, and I think that we have only lost sight of it as language complicated our lives. It may very well be simple survival of the fittest; aside from staying alive and reproducing, maybe nothing else truly matters?
Tonight I read on a theory describing the survival of the fittest and how altruism seems to play against it. Why do humans, unlike any other animal species, feel that it is so important to save everyone? I suppose it doesn’t fit to say all humans are that way, but in modern times with the universal human rights and all, it seems that we are trying to protect life that potentially shouldn’t be protected, if we are to look from an animal perspective. And something about how it was described that only rich, wealthy, well-bred people should continue to breed made me think about the spread of resources currently, with a very small percentage of the population holding very much of the wealth, and it made me think that this may not be too far from the truth. To start, we are approaching the breaking point regarding over-population. Second, there are far too many people that can’t afford to take care of themselves and a family. My hypothesis is that far too many people are having children, people that aren’t equipped to take care of a child on any level rather than a very basic physical level, and we should start to decide who can and can’t have kids. Maybe there should be some sort of license or something. I don’t want to be elitist, but I think we have to be realistic, and everyone can not continue to have children. If altruism is actually some gene within us to aid our survival, the survival of the race over the individual, then subscribing to the idea that not everyone should have children is really for the better of the race. Also, it would free up time for the majority of people to pursue other avenues in our all too short lives. I love the idea of not having to give up my life so I can take care of a child. We must be able to derive meaning in our lives from some other function.