On Human Survival: By Means of Reason and Common Sense

By Mark Byrne

From our earliest existence to our most advanced stages, we have survived.

On Human Survival does not debate the reasons why this is the case, but focuses on the means by which we will continue to survive as a species. This can only be done by our use of reason, common sense, and logic.

Threats to our survival are everywhere, yet we all make the common mistake of misinterpreting when those threats actually threaten us. By using logic, we can better understand the actual threats to our survival, such as an outbreak of disease, and the perceived threats, such as terrorism. Only when we can distinguish between the two can we dramatically impact our chances of long-term survival.

Common sense tells us that if we wish to see something, we must first look. There are many complex challenges we face as a species. Our ignorance of reason should not be one of them. While it may not provide us with all of the solutions, most of the answers can be found if we merely open our eyes.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Jan 7, 2009
• ISBN: 9780595625772

Mark Byrne

In addition to On Human Survival, Mark Byrne is the author of a novel and several short stories. He and his wife reside in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Book preview

Copyright © 2008 Mark Byrne. All rights reserved.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

ISBN: 978-0-595-52524-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-0-595-62577-2 (ebook)

iUniverse rev. date: 12/30/2008

Contents

OPENING REMARKS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER THREE

CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

CLOSING REMARKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES

For peace. Without Erin, I would not have found it, myself.

Opening Remarks

As a way to support the arguments and theories that are introduced within the covers of this work, I will refer to some scientific and philosophical principles. The work itself should not be categorized as scientific since the examination seeks to outline and to some degree measure theoretical concepts and philosophical suppositions.

My formal scientific and philosophical experience is limited. My informal study is more substantial. While I have taken few courses at the university level, I have devoted my time, since graduating ten years ago, to informally studying a broad range of topics, many of which are explored in this examination. Such informal study is undertaken in the form of my reading books on the subject, listening to lectures, contemplating works developed for film and television, and simple reflections on the world in which we live.

I understand that an interest in a subject does not qualify one to label his or her self an expert on that topic. I do not aim to do so with this work. I recognize that some will deem me as categorically incompetent and unable to effectively discuss topics such as evolution, logic, philosophy, religion, and public policy. I encourage those individuals to read this work despite their reservations. My hope is that they may find another’s perspective intriguing. I likewise hope that by acknowledging my inexperience in advance, one may choose to criticize this work based on the merit of my arguments and not upon my lack of expertise.

I do not wish to sound foolish in my writing or worse, present the reader with mistaken scientific principles. Therefore, my use of such evidence in the work is limited and carefully chosen. My hope is for the reader to understand this ahead of time, so as to view the scope of this work broadly.

In order for a constructive civil discourse to be held on any subject, opinions of both the experts and the public must be permitted. In order for one man to relay his opinions and concerns to others, I do so in the writing that follows.

Introduction

If one were a toy maker, or a carpenter, or a short-order cook, it is safe to assume one’s toy would be safe and fun for children, one’s bookcase would store books without collapsing, and one’s hamburger would have an appealing taste. Logic and common sense suggest one usually will not choose an endeavor with the knowledge that he or she will fail. A toy maker will not create a toy car made of rusty nails with one wheel. A carpenter will not build a bookcase with warped wood. A short-order cook will not fry a hamburger made of rotten meat.

This seems relatively straightforward. It is illogical and irrational for one to act in a way that will result in a negative outcome from that action. It would be contrary to logic if I were to play a game of chance with the likelihood of my losing being absolute. Likewise, it is illogical for one to take actions which result in one’s physically or emotionally harming his or her self. If I prefer sight as opposed to blindness, there is no logical reason for me to cut my eyes out.

It can be argued and should be noted, if I wish to remove my eyes because I desire to give them to my wife as a way of expressing devotion, then the cutting out of my eyes is not only rational, but is also a justifiable means to reaching the end which is, my expressing devotion. This action, while certainly not one a sane person would employ, is nevertheless logically valid since the end result justifies the means of attaining it.

An argument being logically valid does not imply its rationality, reasonability, or truth. This fact seems lost on humankind. It is a logically valid argument for me to say the following: All cats breathe air, but I am not a cat; therefore, I am not breathing air. This is obviously a falsehood since reality observes my intake of air. This is not the first time such an observation in logic has been made. Aristotle warned in both Prior and Posterior Analytics¹ that there is the possibility of correctly reasoning and developing a logically valid statement, with a logically valid conclusion, from false premises. The omission from the above statement, that cats are not the sole breathers of air, constitutes such a false premise, which ultimately leads to a false conclusion, and an overall false claim that I am not breathing air. Reality confirms this conclusion is not true, despite it being logically valid. The reasoning is sound and one does reach a logically valid conclusion, but the premises one uses to reach that conclusion are false.

Humankind, while aware of this innate and unchangeable flaw in reasoning, is often prone to believing false claims. There is no remedy other than applying common sense and rationality to determine what is and is not true. Unfortunately, both common sense and our sense of rationality can be easily manipulated. Such manipulations pollute what we may have previously understood to be true, and further distort the conclusions we may draw from those truths. While common sense and rational thought can be manipulated, there is one basic component of our existence that cannot, and it is this component that will offer humankind its best chance for reaching true conclusions based on true premises.

In all aspects of daily life, human beings render decisions using their natural inclination to survive. Some of these are subtle; our taking one breath and then the next, for example. Others are more obvious; our eating food for nourishment. Others are blatant; our not throwing ourselves off of steep cliffs.

From our earliest existence to our most advanced stages, we have survived. This is an obvious statement, considering the reader has survived to the point of being able to read these words. However, I choose to make this statement since it is this notion of human survival—as defined by our continued physical existence on Earth—that prompted me to organize these thoughts into the form in which they are now being read. As it will be discovered in the pages that follow, our survival is fundamentally dependent upon our ability to recognize that which is obvious, by utilizing the most basic and natural instinct we have, the instinct to survive.

In many ways, this idea follows a simple circular model (Figure 1), as outlined below:

Figure 1

CircularModel1.jpg

This subsequently leads to the next logical series of contemplations, which are as follows: I have survived after not performing action A; I recognize my performing action B will increase my likelihood of surviving; I choose to perform action B. And so on.

Part one of the above model, I have survived, states a fact since I cannot attest to my survival unless I have actually survived. The second part of the model, I recognize my choosing to perform action A will decrease my likelihood of surviving, is also a fact. I recognize through rational thought and the deductive process that my performing action A, whatever action A may be in this case, will decrease my likelihood of surviving. Part three then, I choose to not perform action A, is a logically valid conclusion for me to reach based upon my fundamental instinct to survive. Moreover, this is the most reasonable and true conclusion I will reach since the statements I used to reach this conclusion are also fundamentally true.

One arrives at the valid and true conclusion outlined above, because the supporting statements used in the analysis are true, as well. Simple mathematical principles teach us this concept. +2 x +2 will always equal +4, never -4. One will not arrive at a false conclusion when true statements are used in the analysis much the same as one will not arrive at a negative product from two positive multipliers. One will always reach a logically valid and rationally true and reasonable conclusion when one has true supporting statements to use in one’s reasoning. For example, the commonly used all men are mortal x I am a man