The psychology of our biology is intriguing. Can we use our species to construct a cosmic science of psychology? If the physics and chemistry across all of cosmos is universal, can the psychology of life be universal as well?
Whats the most intrinsic philosophy or core principle of life as we know? It adapts to its surrounding habitat. It evolves over millions and billions of years. It grows and proliferates and expands. And, finally, it becomes self-aware. We are not sure if self-awareness culminates to self-annihilation at some point in future, but it's a fairly reasonable speculation.
What does the blueprint of psychological development look like for self-aware beings? The earliest humans were engaged in a constant battle for survival. They were in the hunter-predator mode, but their life was also about learning, exploring and understanding their environment and figuring out their place in the cosmos. Contemplation, curiosity and action laced with daredevil and ego began to simmer deep in the pot of terrestrial consciousness. The unknown had to be figured out, and hunger and thirst had to be satisfied - raw animal instincts, and intelligence took mankind further up the food chain than any other species. Slowly, but surely, the human brain started to develop further to become more efficient, and much more intellectually sophisticated.
However, as the most evolved conscious beings, we tread the path of progress, and annihilation, biological evolution, and psychological collapse in equal measures. So, is it reasonable to conclude that where there is life, there is struggle, fight, greed, bloodshed, violence, and all kinds of suffering - physical, mental and psychological - to be found in abundance? Is life a mad dash to outdo, and outgrow each other and everything else? Is it an indispensable and exquisite feature of life to be forever steeped in the philosophy of ying and yang?
Survive, thrive, and self-annihilate - is that the inevitable circle of life in that specific order? Sure, enough - thats a reasonable conclusion if we observe our existence and evolution. Once upon a time, we fought for our food, and we lived in jungles. Soon, most of us didn't had to fight for our food, and most of us didn't live in remote wilderness. Further into the future, some of us grew into gluttons and wasted food, and some of us lived in obnoxious mansions and palaces. And there are some, that scrape by and live off bare minimum. And some, that fall in the spectrum between the two extremes of comfortably pleasant and uncomfortably unpleasant. We were never divided in our initial stage of evolution - all of us were fighting for food, shelter and other basic needs. Now, some of us have embarked on the pursuit of pleasure and instant gratification, some of us are still fighting hard to fulfill daily needs, and others are striving to strike a balance between fulfilling daily needs, thriving and pursuing pleasure.
This means - further down the path of evolution - more psychological variables are introduced. Survival, strive and thrive, pleasure, insatiable greed and madness. The simple equation of consciousness becomes more convoluted and subtle as new psychological variables are introduced. We could conclude that there is a certain separation of the beings that did not exist in their most primitive form. Life starts out simple, and unified and over time - it becomes complicated, and it separates and mutates.
Does this mean that the final culmination of life everywhere is complexity, disparity, and self-annihilation?