But what if the answer to your question is that there is no meaning or purpose in life, other than that which you bring with you, or otherwise acquire. It's all up to you? There is no guide to everyday behaviour that you can lean on.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

That's true. If that is the case, it would be more difficult for more people to reach agreement on some topics to unite these people and generate more power and we probably would resort to inherited psychological mechanisms which was developed for the primitive times.

Correct me if i'm quoting you wrong but i do not believe evolution excludes god or gods. — christian2017

Evolution does not excludes god or gods. It excludes gods from the account of life's meaning.

Your question is not the meaning of life, but the meaning of being. — Herve

That's true.

Thank you. I think I'll continue attacking on the problem of objective moral goal. Though I may fail, I'll try my best, since I feel that I thought something and if the objective moral goal exists it could prevent us from lost in the world that is changing faster and faster.

Each living being dies, and that's a fundamental discontinuity in life. Evolution, which is a changing of the existing forms of life, as time passes, is dependent on this fundamental discontinuity. So your assumption of continuity is discordant with this fundamental principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Continuation" in the essay does not mean continuation of an individual. It means the continuation of "forms of continuation" (e.g. a sexually reproducing species) as a whole.

The word "continuation" may be confusing. I just can not find a better word.

Sorry about the term "objective moral goal of the universe". Maybe changing it into "objective moral goal of the lives in the universe" could make it clearer?

Thanks for pointing this out.

Based on my knowledge of Hume's is-ought problem and the Naturalistic Fallacy, I think what I'm trying to do here is to respond the is-ought problem by deriving an ought from the fact that the universe tends to keep those who try the best to continue than those who don't.

Here is how:
There are those who don't try the best. It's OK to them and the universe. However, only those who do will be left in the universe in the long run. In other words, it's an objective moral goal of the lives in the universe ("ought") enforced by natural selection, which is a fact ("is"). Thus, from this point, the "ought" realm is bridged to the "is" realm.

Don't know if anyone has proposed a similar thing.

How about what is the meaning of the universe (less arrogant)? — julian kroin

To me, asking the meaning of the universe is more arrogant, since we know little about the fate of the universe and nothing about what's before or after (if any) the universe or what's outside the universe.

Musk? Elon Musk and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee. — Bitter Crank

:grin:

Thank you very much. I do searched a lot before I chose the word perdure.

That fact that life in the universe changes over time need not lead us to the conclusion that the universe is meaningless. — Bitter Crank

Right. Maybe I should change it into "Darwin's discovery of evolution showed us a seemed meaningless universe."

There are inordinate difficulties in colonizing distant planets; like, they're not at all suitable for us or they are just too far away — Bitter Crank

It IS difficult. But humans' technologies are developing fast. Elon Musk has actually started to do it. Humans have years to go to make it practical.

Thanks a lot. Now I have better understanding of nihilism.
I thought nihilism has fundamental contradiction with pragmatism and secular humanism. It seems not from your words, right?

My argument is like this: Nihilists say why bother to try so hard to continue existing? Indeed there is no why. It's just that if they don't they will be gone and the universe is left to those who do.

I'm not satisfied with nihilism. I'm looking for an objective interpretation. I think Darwin has shed light on that.

With a common goal given as the meaning of life, if people disagree on how to reach it they will fight to death — leo

That's true. An extreme example of such is the cold war. It had some good effects though. It proved the Soviet Union's way was not the best. Such competition is a mechanism to weed out bad solutions and is a component of current human's form of continuation. In that sense the movement originated from Russia the last century is an important experiment to the evolving of human's form of continuation. This mechanism will continue to work in the form of competition between countries.

it seems useless when most people don't want to listen and don't care about anything but themselves, they are probably the ones who will get to decide the fate of humanity through their sheer number. — leo

This really is a problem that need to be dealt with. Although the competition mechanism above helps to deal with this problem, education is also very important. After all, memes (not the internet thing) is also a very important component of human's form of continuation.