"Just because we're breathing, doesn't mean we're alive" -Asking Alexandria
There's two obvious problems with this statement, the first being that I'm misquoting a British screamo band, the second being that breathing obviously indicates that we are, as human beings, alive.
But hearing this did stimulate a thought in my vicious little I/O device that everyone seems to call a brain. What exactly does it mean to be 'alive'? Well the obvious and factual answer would be that as a biological organism, we are able to function and produce consistently. If we look back at the controversial
Terri Schiavo case, we'll see that even humans that merely produce brain functions, no matter how simple, can be considered 'alive'. If the body continues to reproduce the cells required for a human to produce brain waves (or thoughts, if you will) we can consider said human to be living. We can really begin to see the basic requirements for human life when we break it down to this simple of a level. Even if you cannot move or produce words, your existence is still considered sacred by general human standards. (I say general because most humans believe life to be sacred, not all. Also, some people may have a different perspective on what being alive means.)
Is there a rate or measurement for how 'alive' one can be? Is there a certain level of achievement or personal satisfaction that would isolate one person as more 'alive' than the other? Lets take for example
Stephen Hawking . Dr. Hawking is one of the greatest minds of our time and has made tremendous contributions to the scientific community. If we take into account his accomplishments, can we really say that he has lived more, or at one point was 'more alive' than other people with
neuro-muscular dystrophy? Or even ALS? If a person with a condition identical to Dr. Hawking's makes less of a contribution, or is not satisfied with his life as Dr. Hawking is, should the mentioned person be considered less 'alive'?
I seem to be bringing up more questions than answers the further I dig into the subject. When we stop observing living as the simple function of cell reproduction and start taking into consideration the variables of life itself, we begin to question if we can measure the quality or even just the numeric value of being 'alive'.
Human life is driven by self-satisfaction. From reproduction to eating food, all of our choices are driven by our personal pursuit of happiness (as mentioned, self-satisfaction). We are driven to reproduce because it feels good, driven to eat because food tastes good and we instinctively care for our families because it makes us feel good. That statement was so poorly worded because I used good, more so as a variable and less as an adjective.
http://xkcd.com/263/ (Click image to enlarge)
L= Σa (Ga - Na)
L - Life Value
Σ - Sigma (The Sum Of)
a - Actions
G - (Self Satisfying)
N - (Ineffective)
I'll be the first to admit I'm terrible at math, but I've deviated this little equation to make a point. It reads out like so: Life (or life value) equals to the sum our actions, taken into account the difference between actions which are self satisfying and those which are ineffective actions that do not satisfy. One could say that the happiest man alive would have 0 Na, and that everything he has done has caused satisfaction or attributed to the overall objective of his life.
So, can we
now measure the value of life? And if so, is this directly proportional to being alive?
Are we really alive simply because we're breathing? Or can we take into consideration that without a purpose, we are no more than a biological reaction?
Feel free to comment below, anonymous posting is accepted.
