Well, you will find that just the question is flawed in itself. What purpose, why should there be a purpose? Water just flows, the cycle of water is a result of the physical laws governing it.³⁾ And I get it, calling the global ecosystem of water a “living” thing may be a stretch, but why does it have to be living? Just because a thing is alive means it must have a purpose? The question “what is the meaning of life?” assumes that there is a meaning. Simple rules can let complex mechanisms emerge, this is true for the cycle of water, this is true for those cool, hexagon-shaped basalt columns⁴⁾ and this is ultimately true for human life as well⁵⁾. If we agree that all those oxygen molecules don't have an intrinsic meaning and “just exist”, then we have no meaning either. We just are and even just the idea of groups of atoms (like those making up your body right now) having “meaning” is absurd.

History has a long and rich tradition⁶⁾ of humans thinking of themselves as special, until they realized that they are not the center of their own star system, that even their own star system isn't the center of the universe and the realization that each and every - individual - human being has to make… That we are not the center of the universe either. It's hard to accept and I am still disappointed as well and probably in denial, but we all have to get there. I, the individual, me specifically will live and die in vain just like billions of people did before me, all of which I don't know or care about just as much as the people in 200 years will not know or care about me. We are but one droplet in a river of droplets, slowly carving a path and shaping the course we take - governed by the rules of physics⁷⁾.

Well, what is your purpose? “Purpose” and “meaning” are social constructs. Meaning is perhaps a spiritual construct, purpose is a result of goal-oriented planning. A purpose is a thought in someone's head. Someone might say that a chair has the purpose to be sat on, but someone else might use it for fuel in a fire. That's the purpose of that chair, and even if you say that this wasn't the intended purpose of the chair, that's still just the thought of someone's brain, not a physical truth.

There are some religions that believe in a higher power, and that those higher powers have imparted a meaning onto us: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”. But why stop there? What's the meaning of the Lord? What's the meaning of Lord's meaning? If the Lord has a meaning imparted on him by someone or something else, and that meaning is to create living things (like you and me) and tell them to colonize their planet, then what's the meaning of our Lord being given that meaning, ie. what is our meaning beyond that which the Lord has given us? Why does the thing above the Lord want us to exist? Plus, I have yet to see compelling evidence that a Lord exists, so what do I care what this book proclaims it thought was true about the world? Did the writer of that book do any experiments to validate or falsify his assertions? Is it possible to do it with things of this nature in the first place?⁸⁾ So why do people take this and assign any perceived truth value to its claims? Because they want to believe it, not because they actually have anything to back it up.

See the main article on this topic: Singularity
See the main article on this topic: Darwinism

Life and evolution is one huge battle of races. Lifeforms emerge, fight for domination and expand or exterminate based on fitness, and that's the cycle of life. So, what's your meaning? Obviously, your target is to expand your kind, your personal DNA as much as you can! You see, life is a fight! You, personally, are competing with every other strain of DNA, so you must find the best, most fertile, most fruitful partner that you can get, because if you don't then you go extinct, and that's disgraceful. Without your genes passed on, you are worthless. You LOSE⁹⁾, against everyone else who successfully passes on their DNA.

All those other humans around you, your friends and foes? They're all RIVALS, whenever something good happens to them it is BAD to YOU because it reduces your chances of MATING. Life is a zero sum game! You can't have friends. Unless you help each other improve your odds of mating, of course. If it's about reproduction and DNA then rape would be A-OK. Obviously, rape is NOT ok. This right here used to have a funny joke but people didn't like the joke, so fuck you! :>

Even proponents of the “life is a competition (of genes)” idea will most likely not believe that rape is OK (even though they really should if they believe in life being about reproduction). Ultimately - Yes, you can look at life through the lens of survival of the fittest, and you will find that many things will suddenly make a lot of sense, but 1) many other things will not and 2) this doesn't mean life is survival of the fittest. For contrast, you can look at life through the lens of class struggle. The fight of the burgeoisie to suppress us, the worker proletariats. Or through the lens of empathy. Or through the lens of races, black versus white. Many things will make sense when you look at life from that perfective, but many things will not, and it definitely doesn't mean that any of this is the meaning of life.

The point is, looking at life through the lense of, say, survival of the fittest, has no prescriptive power. It has descriptive power, as I said it's a very useful perspective from which to look at life. It has some predictive power as well, for sure, it's certainly a useful model for analyzation and making predictions about the future; however, it is missing prescriptive power - none of any of this is proof enough to go from “in our observation, survival of the fittest served as a useful model for describing animal and even some human behavior” to “survival of the fittest is the absolute meaning of life”.

So, when we ask the question of “What is the meaning of life”, then that question has a very specific, philosophical meaning. This is not about what you think is good or what makes you feel good and content with yourself. When we ask for a meaning of life, then the answer to that is absolute. It's the meaning of life, not the meaning for an individual piece of life, nor its opinion on that. When life has a meaning, that meaning must be derived from something above life and applies to all of life. The things mentioned in this list are, say, personal objectives or objectives individuals may feel compelled to achieve alone or as humanity as a whole, but they are not a meaning that is applied authoratively across all life. For that to happen, there must be an authority above life that can declare such a meaning (and even that gets difficult to defend). As it stands, things don't do much more beyond existing. Followers of the religions think that there is a funny man in the sky solving all their philosophical problems for them, but the factual basis gives no reason to believe in any of it. Until it does, the best assumption is “atoms are a thing, and life emerges dynamically from there” followed by “and that's about it, this is why we exist and what life is” concluding in “what the hell is a 'meaning' supposed to be?”. It's a spook. You can say “waves of water are meant to become calm again” and it sounds smart because most waves usually do that, but that's not a meaning, it's a prediction of what is going to happen based on empirical evidence and the laws governing the movement of fluids. When a wave swamps an entire village and kills hundreds of people, that wave wasn't “meant” to ruin human lifes. There are billions of waves on earth right now, they aren't all “meant” to rise up and fall down again, they just do. We, as humans, are not any more special as waves of water. We rise up, we do our thing along with the other molecules of water, sometimes drowning villages, sometimes bringing water into drought-ridden places where water was desperately needed, and then we fall down again. An individual molecule of water never does a thing on its own, much like individual humans never do succeed or do things on their own, and then we evaporate into factual nonexistence as the wave dissolves. An individual water molecule could say “our meaning is to create a wave as high as possible” and it would just be the statement of an individual water molecule. Even if every water molecule on earth agreed to form a wave as high as possible, this would not change the factual reality that waves just happen. The same goes for the universe - billions of stars just for us? Impossible! No, actually, until we know better we have to assume that it's all just physical realities. The stars are out there, alright, but this doesn't “mean” anything.