Private Think Tanks Are NOT Ruining Policy-Making in South Korea

Yesterday, Emanuel Pastreich published a column/op-ed in Korea Exposé, which was titled “Tanks of Destruction: Private Think Tanks Are Ruining Policy-Making in South Korea.”

I don’t know if Pastreich came up with the title himself, or if it was created by the site’s editor and founder, Se-Woong Koo. Either way, it was a catchy title and it caught my attention. And not for the first time, I disagreed with yet another op-ed that was posted on that website.

Basically, Pastreich’s point was that a lot of think tanks in Korea, particularly the mainstream ones, are not worthy of the prestige they possess. The following are a summary of Pastreich’s main complaints regarding think tanks:

• Much of the content produced by think tanks are banal, dishonest, superficial and ritualistic.
• Think tanks are ranked according to the amount of funding received, but such funding means they are not independent as think tanks cannot risk upsetting their patrons.
• Think tanks are not accessible to the public and they represent the interests of a small group who fund the think tanks.
• Think tanks seek to privatize the work that should be carried out by a government official, a staff member of a government research institute or a professor at a university and set long-term national agenda. But think tanks’ purposes are short-terms gains.

Rubbish Thinking
Image Source

One could say that Pastreich may be throwing stones while living in a glass house. After all, he is the director of The Asia Institute, which is also a think tank. However, I must confess that I am not at all familiar with The Asia Institute or the work that it has produced. So that’s neither here nor there.

Regardless of that fact, however, the fact that he is the director of a different think tank and the other think tanks that he excoriated are basically his competitors is, I think, the weakest rebuttal that can be summoned against Pastreich’s points.

My first point of contention after reading Pastreich’s op-ed was that think tanks are supposed to be exclusive. They are supposed to represent the opinions, thoughts, and research by the elites who have spent a long time studying those subjects they pontificate on.

Back in early 2014, right about the time when Ahn Cheol-soo had just started to seriously begin his foray into politics, one of the first things he did was to establish his own think tank - the oddly-named Policy Network Tomorrow (정책네트워크 내일). I looked at his think tank’s mission statement and it sounded a lot like the kind of think tank that Pastreich is looking for (at least in think tanks that he is not a part of) - a think tank that is accessible to the public and one that doesn’t put too much focus on the “banal and dishonest” experts, but rather, in the words of Policy Network Tomorrow, on “the problems that the people face in their lives.”

I wrote about Ahn Cheol-soo’s think tank before and the unfortunate reality seems to be that if Pastreich’s suggestions regarding accessibility is given serious consideration, it would lead to think tanks that don’t do a lot of thinking.

Pastreich is not wrong when he argued that the opinions and research data that think tanks advocate can be (and often are) hijacked by people with vested interests. That is not in dispute. But the notion that think tanks are supposed to be open to the public or somehow responsive to what the public thinks is wrong. For one thing, all you need to do is speak to one of the unwashed masses who has never thought much about a given topic to know that you shouldn't pay attention to everyone. After all, the direct result of paying too much attention to the opinions of the masses is the rise of Donald Trump!

Besides, if we are looking for people who will better reflect the wishes of the public, those people already exist. They’re called elected officials. I won’t hold my breath waiting for people to shower them with glory and praise.

Obligatory mention of the fact that he also said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Image Source

Another point that I strongly disagreed with Pastreich was his opinion that massive corporate funding makes a think tank less trustworthy and reliable.

There was a think tank that I really liked. It was Freedom Factory, a libertarian think tank that advocated limited government and free market solutions to many of society’s ills.

(Disclaimer: I was never formally employed by Freedom Factory, but I did a number of freelance work for them - mostly Korean-to-English translation services. I also edited their English-language biweekly online news magazine, Freedom Voice.)

Did you notice the use of past tense? That’s because Freedom Factory went out of business a couple of months ago. I recognize that “capitalism” is often used as an epithet and there are even fewer fans of libertarianism. So I understand that some of you may disagree with what Freedom Factory stood for and argue til you’re blue in the face that it was evil or throw whatever epithets you can think of. I won’t argue; this post is not meant to serve as a defense of libertarianism.

(And in case any of you are wondering, no, I have never thought of myself as a libertarian. I think of myself as an ally to libertarians, but never one of them.)

However, no matter what kinds of clever curses you can throw at it, it doesn’t change the fact that Freedom Factory produced a good number of studies, surveys, op-ed pieces, translations, media appearances, and helped to spread awareness of the problems of over-regulating businesses and the history of the South Korean economy to the masses. It was a great think tank that saw a great vision for itself. But it went out of business because it couldn’t turn a profit.

Pastreich can argue that corporate funding makes think tanks less independent, but not having enough money means that you go out of business. I wish Freedom Factory had the luxury of worrying about a lack of independence. It never even got that chance.

Though I don’t know for certain, I imagine there are many think tanks of various political affiliations that have met and will continue to meet a similar fate.

Regardless of how much people think of the corrupting nature of money, it doesn’t change the fact that corporate funding helps think tanks to do their work. It may not be a perfect solution, but it’s the best there is. Why is it the best? It’s the best because, going back to my earlier point, the vast majority of the unwashed masses have never even heard of many of the subjects a lot of think tanks and their employees have dedicated themselves to studying; and they don’t care for them.

If you think money is the root of all evil, try not having enough of it.
Image Source

The last thing about Pastreich’s op-ed I disagreed with was his argument that think tanks undermine the work that is better done by government officials, government research institutes, and professors at universities. He says that unlike government institutions, think tanks seek short-term gains and this is particularly dangerous when we think about long-term problems such as North Korea.

It’s a wonderful thought that government leaders and bureaucrats are more dedicated to long-term goals than think tanks. Unfortunately, however, reality says otherwise. Case in point, South Korea’s policy toward North Korea has changed from administration to administration. Whereas Kim Dae-jung (and Roh Moo-hyun) sought engagement with the North via the Sunshine Policy, Lee Myung-bak immediately pursued a hawkish policy. Park Geun-hye wasn’t nearly as hawkish as Lee Myung-bak (at least initially) or as dovish as Kim Dae-jung as she was an advocate of “trustpolitik” during the early days of her administration and she only became hawkish after North Korea’s fifth nuclear test.

If you read any of my columns at NK News, it won’t take you long to know what I think is the proper way of dealing with North Korea. Again, however, this post is not meant to defend or attack one idea or another. The point is that the notion that government officials are somehow more dedicated to pursuing long-term goals than people in the private sector is utter nonsense. It is a praise that government officials and their research institutes clearly do not deserve.

(Whether this is a virtue or a vice of the democratic process is another matter entirely.)

In fact, the only things that the government has insisted on taking the long-term view, regardless of who has been in charge, are looking out for their own interests. Even the country’s progressive leaders never abolished the National Security Law or hesitated from using defamation laws to silence their critics in the media.

Also, is there anyone who can say with a straight face that professors are any more virtuous than those who work at think tanks? At the end of the day, to one degree or another, everyone is a whore. The only thing that’s different is whom he sells his soul to and for how much and how happily he does so.

One thing that Pastreich does get right is his comparison of think tanks to hagwons, though certainly not for the reasons he stated. The comparison is valid because, like the hagwon industry, the ideas that are espoused by many think tanks do not seem that different from each other and there does appear to be a strong herd mentality that is defined by an unhealthy dose of “follow the leader” mentality. There does need to be an infusion of new ideas (not that being new by itself is a virtue) and healthy debate among think tanks and universities and government research institutes. That is how we make sure that we do not fall victims to our own filth.

So, yes, there is a feeling of staleness when it comes to private think tanks in Korea. But are they ruining policy-making? That hardly seems to be the case. Although some of Pastreich’s criticisms may be valid, he does not seem to have really thought through on the subject of private think tanks as much as he seems to think he has.

What Going Cashless Could Mean

A few months ago, news broke that the Korean government plans to eliminate coins from its money supply by 2020. However, eliminating coins is not the end goal in and of itself. The ultimate goal is to eventually also phase out paper money. However, there is no set date for that yet.

At first glance, this makes sense. More and more people are using debit cards, credit cards, various smartphone apps such as Samsung Pay and Kakao Pay, as well as virtual cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (though Bitcoin does not seem to have become mainstream in Korea just yet) to make financial transactions. Considering the overall social trend that we are seeing in Korea unfold before our very eyes, it is understandable when the Korean government says that eliminating coins from the overall money supply would be able to help it reduce minting costs, which is about ₩60 billion (US$52.1 million) per year.

Although it is likely that the Korean government still has a positive seigniorage rate -- the profit made by a government by issuing currency, especially the difference between the face value of coins and their production costs -- in the long term, eliminating coins would be more profitable because of inflationary pressures that devalue money.

So going cashless certainly has benefits. An added bonus that comes with the elimination of cash is that it would severely inconvenience those engaged in criminal activity. As more and more people use cards, physical or virtual, to make and/or receive payments, it would become much harder for activities like tax evasion, gambling, money laundering, terrorism financing, human trafficking, and the drugs trade to go unnoticed by the government. And in Korea's case, it would help the government to better monitor the clandestine flow of money into North Korea, which is no small matter!

Image Source

However, there is another reason, a rather big reason, that the government prefers a cashless society; and it is one that is seldom talked about by those outside of groups that focus on cryptocurrencies or economics in general. The reason is that a cashless society would make it much easier for the central bank, in Korea's case that being the Bank of Korea, in tandem with the government, to potentially impose negative interest rates.


What are Negative Interest Rates?

Central banks all over the world are tasked with maintaining a certain level of stability in each country's financial system. Among the tools that central banks possess, nothing is as powerful as their ability to increase or decrease the discount rate, which is the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions for loans received from the central bank.

So, for example, if a central bank decreases the discount rate, which is what is typically being done around the world these days, it would make it cheaper for commercial banks to borrow money from the central bank. In turn, the commercial banks would be able to pass on those savings to their customers -- you and me -- in the form of lower interest rates charged on things like auto loans or mortgage loans.

This would compel individuals to borrow and spend more money. That way, a stagnant economy would get the boost that it needs and it might be able to stave off or perhaps even recover from a recession.

Similarly, if an economy is overheating -- witnessing dangerously high inflation rates -- the central bank will increase the discount rate, which would then have a domino effect of making it more costly for people to borrow money, which would then help to cool the economy.

At least that's the theory anyway. But what happens if the theory doesn't match reality?

Image Source

What happens if an economy doesn't experience growth despite the fact that interest rates are kept close to zero? For example, interest rates in Japan have been kept at nearly zero for more than 20 years, but it has not helped Japan to escape from its deflationary trap. When we consider the fact that much of Korea's economy was modeled after Japan's economy (see here and here for more wonkish comparison) and also take into account that, like Japan, Korea has an aging population, the possibility of falling into a decades-long deflationary trap is not an unfounded fear.

As a result, more and more governments are now flirting with an idea that was once panned as being ridiculous -- negative interest rates. Basically, it's taking the idea of imposing lower interest rates to stimulate economic growth and injecting it with steroids.

The idea is that the central bank will go all in and impose a discount rate below zero percent for commercial banks. The idea is that if a central bank imposes a discount rate of, say, -0.5%, commercial banks would be less willing to park their money in the central bank where they would be charged money for doing so. So, instead, commercial banks may prefer to lend money to each other. The theory is that when more and more money circulates among commercial banks, then banks would more willingly lend money to their customers, which would in turn help to stimulate economic growth.


Does this mean that the Average Joe/Jane will have to pay to keep money in a bank?

That is a popular argument that many have made in regards to the negative interest rate. However, I think it is unlikely that commercial banks would actually do that. People who make that argument often neglect to look deeper into the very different relationship between central banks and commercial banks and the relationship between commercial banks and their customers.

Whereas the relationship between KB Kookmin Bank and me is one that can be characterized as a business/customer relationship, the same cannot be said of the relationship between Kookmin (or insert other banks here) and the the Bank of Korea. That is because central banks act much like regulators over their respective financial industries. In other words, consent is practically non-existent in the relationship between central and commercial banks. For good or for ill, central banks make the rules and regulations and in order to stay in business, commercial banks have to obey those rules.

It goes without saying that banks hold a lot of leverage over their customers, but no matter how powerful commercial and investment banks may be, there is one power they do not possess over their customers. They have no control over their customers' choices. For example, if Bank A charges their depositors an annual fee to keep their money in their bank, those depositors will more than likely look for other banks to save their money in where they won't have to pay such a fee. And Banks B and C and D and others will only be too happy to oblige.

That is why it is unlikely that commercial banks will somehow end up cannibalizing their customer base. Especially during periods of economic slowdown, market expansion might be a more practical strategy for long-term survival than profit maximization.

However, it does not change the fact that commercial banks would still be losing money because of the negative interest rates. So, they may partially push those costs to their customers by other means such as higher overdraft fees or eliminating free account transfers. So there is a chance that regular bank depositors might end up having to pay additional hidden fees, but being directly charged for saving money in a bank account sounds like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

Image Source

What does this have to do with a cashless society?

The theory behind negative interest rates is almost sound. Incentives are important and when there is no incentive to save -- in fact, if there is every incentive to spend -- people will spend more money, which would help to stimulate economic growth. However, there is a problem with the theory. It depends entirely on the assumption that human beings think and act like Homo Economicus. The problem is that Homo Economicus does not exist.

Homo Economicus is all about maximizing one's economic utility and is aware of all publicly known information and responds accordingly. So for example, if the government taxes kale at 100% but taxes candy bars at only 10%, and assuming that they are the only two things that anyone can buy and depending on the utils that Homo Economicus derives from kale and candy bars, respectively, there is a very good chance that Homo Economicus would buy only candy bars. None of that describes a typical human being.

Human beings do not possess all publicly known information. Everyone suffers from asymmetric information from one degree to another, we are all biased, and we all tend to act emotionally. And one of the most powerful emotions that dictates how people think and act is fear.

Image Source

Theoretically, a negative interest rate will drive individuals to make the necessary cost-benefit analysis and decide that spending one's money would be more profitable than saving money at zero percent interest. However, the theory discounts humans' fear of the future. Though we do not possess all publicly known information, we are a species that is aware of our own frailty and mortality. Barring any unforeseen circumstances that could potentially snuff out our lives at any given moment, we will all some day grow old. Our bodies will become weak, our minds will become feeble, and we will all die. That is ultimately why we save our money and not spend every penny that comes our way (if you do spend your money like this, STOP IT!).

Negative interest rates could potentially wreak havoc on people's retirement plans. If the interest rate is above zero, we can save our money with the full knowledge that the balance that we end up with at the time of our retirement will be greater than the principal that we started out with (assuming that our savings are not canceled out by inflation). Unlike interest rates that can be changed at will, however, assuming there is no sudden medical breakthrough that will cure everything, the aging process does not change. So even if the interest rate is at zero percent, it will not change the fact that we still have to plan for retirement. But zero percent compounded for X years is still zero. That means that in order to reach our targeted savings goal for our retirement, we need to save more money than we would have to had the interest rate been above zero.

This is one of the possible reasons that might explain the ineffectiveness of keeping interest rates low.

So especially in aging societies like Korea and Japan, it is possible that imposing negative interest rates could lead to drastic unintended consequences (not to mention the fact that lower profit margins that negative interest rates would impose on banks in general could drive a lot of smaller banks out of business, thus inadvertently exacerbating the "too big to fail" phenomenon).

So imagine what you would do if you were planning for retirement but the bank is basically telling you that it will do nothing more than simply hold your money. What would you do? The more risk averse among us would still likely keep our money in our bank accounts despite the zero percent interest. After all, the money in the banks are insured by the government. But for those who are more prone to taking risks for whatever reason, it is likely that they will pull their money out of the bank and invest it in something that will give them a greater long-term yield. That is why so many people who can afford to do so buy property (though everyone should always keep an eye out for economic bubbles).

But if enough people pulled their money out of their banks to look for greener pastures, couldn't that lead to a bank run and wouldn't that be catastrophic? Yes, it would certainly be catastrophic. But what if there were no cash to withdraw from the banks to begin with? When there is no physical money that you can hold in your hands or literally stuff under your mattress, when the only money that you can use is all digital e-money and, unlike cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, it can all be tracked by the central bank, then you literally cannot flee from the banks. Or at least it would be really hard to do so.

Image Source

That is because it would become much easier for the government to "direct" people from deciding against "hoarding" their money upon the imposition of a negative interest rate after cash has been eliminated. To explain, in order to have better returns, individuals may desire to take their money out of their bank accounts and invest it in private asset markets such as property or what have you. However, unlike banks, other private asset markets are not guaranteed by the state, and thus not safe for investors. At least not as safe as banks. That way, there will be incentive for people who prefer safety and risk-free investments to keep their money invested in state-guaranteed banknotes, even if all of those banknotes are purely digital.

In other words, a cashless society transfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank. Combine that with negative interest rates and the central banks have the perfect mix of ingredients necessary to incentivize spending, disincentivize savings, AND prevent bank runs that could offset the stimulative goals of the negative interest rate. Theoretically, assuming everything goes according to plan, the macroeconomic outlook will become less dire and might be a winning strategy to overcome negative economic growth. But what will that do to individuals' savings? How will this effect retirement plans?



So why not go cashless from the get go?

Like the case in Germany, though many people prefer to use other methods of payment, cash still has a special place in everyone's hearts for various reasons (see here, here, here, here, and here).

So, a sudden abandonment of cash would be met with great resistance. It would make a lot more sense to gradually acclimate the public to going cashless.

The government has stated that people will be issued special cards for them to store their e-change. For example, if someone buys ₩9,500 worth of goods and handed over a ₩10,000 note to the cashier, instead of receiving a ₩500 coin as is done right now, the cashier would digitally wire that ₩500 worth of change to the card that the customer carries. This is perfect in many ways. That is because eventually, all the change that gets digitally wired to individuals' cards will begin to accumulate over time and once that happens, that accumulated money in people's cards will be used for transactions side by side with paper money (for as long as paper money is still circulated).

This means that the continued use of e-money could be further incentivized. Doing so would just be a matter of imagination. For example, the government could provide a favorable rate environment for e-money, or by an enticing exchange rate for swapping out of paper money for e-money via credit or point systems or special offers in partnership with Korean conglomerates.

Combine that with a a steady campaign to stigmatize the use of paper money -- as has already been done throughout Europe -- and the Korean government would be able to gradually shift toward a cashless society while facing minimal resistance. It's actually quite brilliant.


What it would mean to live in a cashless society

As I mentioned earlier, a cashless society could wreak havoc on people's retirement plans. And this is no small matter especially when we take into account how much debt the average Korean household has. 

There are other possible outcomes that could arise from going cashless. For one thing, a cashless society would certainly reduce privacy for the average person as our money could easily be tracked, thus making it incredibly difficult to hide our money from the Tax Man. However, it is not just the government that people will have to worry about. Once e-money is "printed" by the government and administered to the general public by private financial institutes, it could become much easier for our spending habits and history to be tracked by others such as insurance companies and marketers.

As usual, the rich will still be able to benefit. They can buy anonymity via shell companies or charities. However, for average people, anonymity would be a thing of the past. However, those who would be hit most are those who currently do not have bank accounts because of poor credit scores. Once cash becomes a thing of the past and they are still barred from banks because of their poor credit scores, their lives could become much more difficult. It would not be a stretch to conclude that this could potentially exacerbate the wealth gap.

If you're rich
Image Source

Further, it could also make life miserable for those who are deemed immoral by societal standards. Take the porn industry for example. In 2014, it was reported that Chase Bank had shut down a number of bank accounts that were discovered to have been used by porn actors. Porn is already illegal in Korea and those who are apprehended are usually prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Pornographers may be difficult to defend, particularly if they might also peddle revenge porn. However, other possible victims of the morality police are sex workers who already face a lot of discrimination in their lives as they might get locked out of banks, too.

Also depending on how well the relevant laws are enforced, it could also make it impossible for businesses to pay people anything lower than the minimum wage. Many people might think that this is a good thing. However, it could potentially make life much harder for marginal workers as it is possible that people might not even bother to hire them at all.

However, all of those problems pale in comparison to the much bigger issue -- what if going cashless and imposing negative interest rates on top of that still do not help to spur economic growth? What happens then? That is what people should be pondering.

Paying for North Korean Cheerleaders?

With the 2014 Asian Games set to begin in Incheon in September, the North Koreans initially proposed to send up to 150 cheerleaders to the games. At the time, the total cost of hosting the cheerleaders and the North Korean athletes were estimated to be around ₩1.5 billion (US$1.45 million).

Since then, however, the North Koreans have declared that they would send up to 350 athletes and 350 cheerleaders. Of course, this does not count the bodyguards and the political minders that the North Koreans will most likely send to ensure that none of their athletes or cheerleaders gets any ideas about defecting.

If South Korea ends up paying for the North Korean delegation as it has in the past during the days of the so-called Sunshine Policy, then I have a feeling that it would cost more than the aforementioned ₩1.5 billion.

Image Source

During the negotiations about how many delegates the North Korean government was planning to send (Does it strike anyone else that it is ludicrous for the meeting to have taken place at all?), the South Korean government, which seems to have grown something that resembles a backbone, did not play the game that the North Koreans wanted. A South Korean government official reportedly said:

At past international sporting events, it was customary to provide all accommodation free of charge for the North Koreans, but we decided to adhere to international practice this time. And under Olympic Council of Asia regulations, each country is responsible for the expenses incurred by its athletes and cheering squads, although accommodation subsidies are provided for underdeveloped countries that are sending a small group of athletes.

On top of that, South Korean government officials told the North Koreans that their flags that they wanted to bring were too big and could become a safety issue.

When the North Koreans were told that they were not going to get a free lunch and that their flags were going to be the same size as everyone else, as per their typical behavior, the North Koreans huffed and they puffed and said something about how South Korea displayed an “improper attitude” to the talks.

Image Source

The fact that the North Koreans even brought up these ridiculous demands should not come as a surprise to anyone.

North Korea is a nation of thugs – a country that was founded on the principle of taking everything from everyone and giving it to the Supreme Leader. What is money to the North Koreans? To everyone else who lives in capitalist(ish) economies, money is a tool of exchange – it is what people use to trade with others.

And we have to keep in mind that unless forced to do so, no one in the world trades down. People always trade up. What that means is before I decide to pay for a product, I will always make sure that the product will be of higher value to me than the money that I would give up in exchange for the product. When we accept money in payment for our effort, we do so only on the conviction that we will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. In other words, people trade value for value. That is what money is used for.

And where does our effort, the goods that we produce, come from? They don't magically appear out of thin air. We have to use our minds to create something that is worth selling. If we didn't use our minds, we wouldn't be able to create a single thing.

In sum, money is the tool that we use to exchange with each other the efforts of our minds.

That is why money is sacred. That is why we hate those who steal and commit fraud. Thieves, through no merit of their own with the exception of thuggery and skulduggery, take from the rest of us what we have rightfully earned by the sweat of our brow. That is why in a civilized society, thieves are shamed and punished (or at least ought to be).

Image Source

What do North Korean officials know about money? They certainly know that it is something that they need to buy luxury cars, French cognac, Uzbek caviar, and Danish pork. But what do they know about earning money? Why go through the trouble of earning money when they can just get easy riches by printing counterfeit money or producing crystal meth or selling women as sex slaves?

They have no rational minds to speak of – only power lust and the desire for unearned greatness. They wouldn't even know how to begin to think of something as being sacred. They are unthinking brutes, and the only good thing that they could ever possibly do for themselves and the rest of the world is to commit mass suicide.

However, now that I think about it, I think I may have been far too charitable to people who live south of the DMZ when I said that everyone who lives in capitalist(ish) economies knows that money is a tool of exchange. There are clearly some people who not only lack that knowledge, but also lack anything that resembles a brain altogether.

Case in point, The Korea Times published an editorial about how Seoul should have been the one to initiate this unbelievable fiasco by having invited North Korea to participate in a regional sports festival in South Korea and offering to pay the cost. The editorial goes on to say that Seoul needs to be more magnanimous and tolerant, no longer citing “international standards” or “popular sentiment.”

Never mind that the North Korean government is responsible for numerous crimes against humanity as well as against South Korean sailors, marines, soldiers, civilians, and diplomats. As far as The Korea Times' editorial staff is concerned, Seoul ought to be more magnanimous and tolerant toward these thugs who have threatened to attack us AND actually attacked us on numerous occasions.

When faced with such incredible stupidity, I suppose there really is only one thing that can be said.

Image Source

The Meaning of Life

A few days ago, a reader sent me an email and asked, “as a fellow atheist, I've been struggling with a super cheesy but important question: what is the meaning of life?”

This is possibly one of the most difficult questions that has been posed by humanity since we have been capable of thought; and people are still seeking answers to this question. By tackling this question, I am in no way saying that I have the definitive answer to that question that will end the debate once and for all. My answer is mine alone.

However, before I begin, I have to state that I am, indeed, an atheist. Therefore, the answer that I am about to give will not deal with the supernatural or anything else that cannot be scientifically verified.

Source

As such, I am not entirely sure if the question itself is appropriately phrased. Concepts, the basic ideas that people carry in our minds, can have meaning precisely because we give them meaning. The fact of the matter is that existence exists. What that means is that even if humans were to become extinct some day, and there was no more sentient/teleological/intelligent beings left on the planet, it will not change the fact that existence will still continue to exist. Matter, though changeable, is indestructible; but life, and subsequently thought, is fragile and always caught on the precipice between existence and non-existence.

Whereas concepts can have meanings, I do not think that it is possible for non-concepts, such as life, to possibly have any objective meaning. For instance, can a rock have any meaning? A rock is a rock. True, people can mold a rock into something useful but that is a different thing entirely. To change a rock into a tool or an ornament that people value is the process of our minds being able to conceptualize and taking the necessary actions that are needed in order to transform the rock into something else that is useful to us. However, that does not change the fact that until an intelligent being comes along to change a rock into something else of value to the intelligent being, a rock is nothing more than just a rock.

Therefore, the only answer that I have to the question, “what is the meaning of life,” is this – “Life can have no meaning. It simply is.”

Source

Of course, I am being very literal with the word “meaning.” I have to be. As I said, I am an atheist. I do not believe that some kind of supernatural being invented life. If it could be objectively proven that life were an invention that was created by some kind of mystical entity, then I could apply the word “meaning” in a more non-literal way and say, “The meaning of life is love” or some such nonsense. However, I cannot and will not do that.

So, I never liked the way the question is phrased. Logically, there can be no answer; at least none that is satisfying. Therefore, in order to have a meatier answer than “it just is,” it is necessary to change the question. I prefer to ask “What is the purpose of life?”

Once asked that way, then the question can be answered with a bit more thought. And my answer to that question is this: “The purpose of life is simply to live.”

However, that answer breeds more questions. Firstly, what then does “to live” mean? Secondly, what is the point of it all? After all, the fact of the matter is that all living organisms inevitably die. It is the ultimate change in condition. To live is complex. There are innumerable things that a person has to do in order to maintain and improve one’s life. Death, on the other hand, is that permanent state of being where one simply ceases to live. With that ultimate goal hanging over all of our heads, what then is the point of it all?

Source

Wondering what the point of life is when we will all inevitably die, however, lies the assumption that, like death, life is a condition – a state of being. Though it is certainly true that life is, indeed, a state of being, it is an answer that has never satisfied me. That is because life is more than just a state of being. Life is also a process; a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action.

The important word here is “process.”

Life is not merely a state of being people achieve (by pure accident) and simply maintain until the day we meet the proverbial Boatman, but the process of reaching it. Life is action. It’s the things we do. It’s the process of accomplishing goals, not just the end results of the goals. It is the things that we do and accomplish.

For example, everyone needs money. However, none of us, with perhaps the exception of the genuine miser, makes money simply for the sake of making money. We make money in order to be able to better afford the things that we need and want to live comfortably. And living comfortably may be the end goal, but it’s the process of producing goods and services that we wish to buy and sell, the act of loving and being loved, that I would call life. Life is not simply the ends. Contrary to what Machiavellians might think, the means matter.

So, for example, if we are talking about money, it matters a great deal how we make the money we made. Did we earn it? Or did we steal it? Or did we come across it simply by sheer dumb luck? In other words, values matter because the values that we cognitively decide upon as being good are there not just to maintain life, but also to improve our ability to live our lives.

Bernie Madoff
Source

So what values must we pursue? Life is the end in itself. As such, the values that we must pursue are the values that help to maintain our lives. What is considered good and evil must therefore be measured by how it affects our lives. The most basic way to understand what is good and evil is Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian principles, which recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, and equates good with pleasure and evil with pain. However, utilitarianism alone is insufficient.

That is because utilitarianism fails to define what “the good” is. When taken to its logical extreme, utilitarianism eventually boils down to majority rule whereby the majority can do whatever it damn well pleases at the expense of the minority. Furthermore, it fails to take into consideration how people reach the conclusion about what is good. Do they use reason, or do they resort to base epicurean whim? Although Bentham’s succesor, John Stuart Mill, later on built upon Bentham’s foundation by dividing pleasure into “higher” and “lower” forms of pleasure, utilitarianism still says nothing about reason.

Beyond pleasure and pain, we also have to take reason into consideration.

A good example of this is farming and storing food. Hunger is certainly painful and the best way to alleviate hunger is, of course, by eating. But how do we get the food?

“Why can’t we simply steal the food?” a utilitarian might ask. “After all, as long as our goal is to live, isn’t the willful decision to steal food – the choice made to end pain and promote pleasure – a result of us using our reason?”

No, it is not. Firstly, we must separate reason from logic. When I was in middle school and I first learned about computer programming, a phrase that I came to learn was GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out. If our reasoning is faulty, we can still take our faulty reasons to their logical conclusions. That does not change, however, no matter how logical, that the reason (and the most likely outcome) is bad. Secondly, that is because we have to remember that before anything can be stolen, it must first be produced. Furthermore, we have to remember that human action does not take place in a vacuum. For every human action, there tends to be a direct and opposite overreaction. If we resort to violence to steal food (or anything for that matter), there is a very good chance that our actions will come back to haunt us in a myriad of ways.

Source

After we have reaped and sowed our crops, what then? Do we then eat everything that we produce? It will certainly end hunger. But then what happens next year? If we eat everything now, including the seed stock that is needed for planting next year, yes, we will be full now. But we will not stay full for long.

However, before all that, does anyone imagine that it would even be possible to farm without using reason? If we tried to grow a crop without the necessary knowledge that is required for farming, we would not be able to grow anything. This applies to the production of anything else. That is because our minds are the root of all production and therefore, the root of our survival.

It bears repeating that our minds, our reason, are the root of our survival. As the purpose of life is simply to live and our survival depends on our ability to use our reason, the barometer that is used to gauge our values is measured by how those values, which are defined by reason, help us to live. Values by themselves are not axiomatic. They must be of use to our lives in order to be considered virtuous or vicious.

From here on out, then we must weigh the options that are in front of us in regards to which values that we keep or toss. What are the values necessary to be respected and loved? Which are the ones necessary to become wealthy? Which are the ones needed to be happy? It is only through a process of reason and rational decision making that we can achieve those values that are good so that we may enjoy our lives.

In order to enjoy our lives, then what we need to pursue are the things that make us happy. So what makes us happy? I personally do not like to pose the question that way. That is because when the question is posed that way, it takes us away from the position that life is a process. For example, people assume that if we have a lot of money or if we find someone who will love us it would make us happy. However, my position is that that is not the way to look at it. The better way to look at happiness is to ask ourselves a series of questions such as “Am I excited about my future? Do I love the people in my life? Am I proud of who I am, and what I have done?”

Source

Essentially, happiness is an emotional response to a rational evaluation of my own life. Friendships and love are not mere ornaments that we collect. They are meant to be enjoyed.

“However, seeing how death is inevitable, then what is the point of it all?” some may (and do) ask.

I have often thought that this was a ridiculous way to look at life. Life is “meaningful” precisely because we will all die some day. We have to go back to how we define values.

Our values are the things that we uphold in order for us to live. However, let us assume for the sake of argument that we are immortal; like some kind of omnipotent and omniscient god, we are immune from disease or pain or death. Only then would we be able to honestly say that we have nothing to lose or gain. Any action that we take or thought that we entertain will be meaningless. There would be no need to have values. There would be no need to be reasonable or unreasonable. There simply would be no reason to be. An eternity (itself a terrifying concept if any serious thought is given to it) of meaningless existence is far too evil to wish upon our worst enemies.

None of us can ever achieve immortality and despite Ray Kurzweil’s passionate arguments in defense of immortality in the form of the Singularity, I am disinclined to believe in its supposed merits. However, we can be immortal until the day we die. What I mean here is that we can remain true to our values; to ourselves. With every passing day, people die just a little bit. Try meeting that piss-and-vinegar filled idealist friend whom you had in college after not having met him for ten years. I can guarantee that he/she will not be the same person that you met last.

I don’t mean a change in tastes or the way we look or even the way we think. I mean the way people compromise, deny, and contradict their values – because it is supposedly the adult thing to do – until one day, they can no longer recognize themselves. That is something that we can avoid. That is how we achieve immortality. Not by avoiding death but by remaining true to our values, which are intended for us to enjoy our lives. And that is what the point of it all is – to last forever now.

One of my favorite plays that I have ever read is Goethe’s Faust and at the end of the play, the eponymous character recognizes at the “highest moment” that “the last word of wisdom” is:

          No man deserves his freedom or his life
          Who does not daily win them anew.
Once we understand that, then we can begin to understand what our purpose in life is and, perhaps, find meaning, too.

Source

Of course, if this was too long for you to read and you want something funnier, then I suppose you could always just watch Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.