The Endpoint of Man
What should be the main premise to an end of human development? I believe that the ultimate purpose of human development is an end to strife. All other things we do are subject to this.
Although on its surface it sounds like a naïve hippie cliche, I don’t hold a utopian “why doesn’t everyone just smoke weed and get alone” perspective. Although those who hold this worldview will claim that they want this, they truly do not. These people would rather see mankind waste away into nothing, because avoiding conflict, rather than confronting it, is good. When they do start conflict, it will largely be passive-aggressive and petty in nature. No, the end of man as we know it go back to concepts such as the Second Coming of Christ and Norse Ragnarok; a final event that ends the world as we know it forever, if not destroying the physical realm itself.
Although perhaps not created this way, man was bred to bathe in blood, that of other men, other creatures and his own. For most men who have ever lived, no one else has harmed him as much as he has harmed himself. Conflict is what he knows best. At the same time, a man should want sons who are stronger, taller, and more intelligent than he is, even if reality is much different. I could not say what women would want for their daughters, but I assume being better-looking and more charismatic would be a common desire.
The relationship between genetics and conflict are a complex one. Genetics develop as a response to their environment, and it is unclear how much of this is immutable, or how much genetics on their own create conflict. However, there *should* eventually be an endpoint of human development, both genetically and in terms of everything that follows from it societally. Although war and strife are part of the human condition, naturally, these things would be obsolete once man has truly accomplished all that he can. In essence, this idea is both eugenical and socially Darwinist; we incorporate the best of us, and keep pushing until nothing can be better than what we have become. Once there is nothing left to improve on, if such a day ever comes, then man will truly have triumphed.
Eternal war for the sake of it is pointless: although conflict exists to make a subset of mankind rise above the rest, it cannot be the endpoint, as that will mean that man has not reached the ultimate point where strife among himself is no longer necessary. Some may posit that as long as scarcity exists, then man will always be like this. No matter how much he develops himself, he cannot combat the material world. Perhaps, even as long as there is a hierarchy, there will always be some level of strife – which tends to be a Marxist perspective - although I do not necessarily believe that is intrinsic, and worrying about such a thing will also be obsolete upon reach the endpoint.
Although scarcity will always exist, simply due to the way the laws of this universe work, this also must mean the pursuit to end conflict through strength is not something corporeal, but also spiritual. It is ultimately battling against the limitations of reality to transcend its constraints and add an end to the cycle to man. It may sound as if I am trying to re-invent the purpose of religion by saying this. I rather see this as taking our own presence in the material world to its logical conclusion. On some level, everyone who entertains these philosophical concepts will have to either accept or reject the notion that an end to strife is the endpoint to mankind. Even then, the way this should be accomplished to them often is through some delusional utopian egalitarianism ideal, rather than acknowledging the human condition is ultimately an unforgiving one. No amount of wholesome idealism that shirks from grief and pain will change what we are.