Significance
The host of a TV science show the other night took apparent delight in pointing out that we humans reside on a rather small planet circling a medium-sized star in a galaxy of 100 billion stars that is only one of 100+ billion galaxies. His obvious point was that our home is physically tiny in comparison to the enormous Universe.
But then the guy went on to suggest that this comparison shows that we humans take our problems and worries and conflicts too seriously. He also seemed to be suggesting that we ordinary people who live and love and die on this “tiny” planet of Earth are actually insignificant specks in relation to that big old cosmos out there.
Well, I say slow down for a minute there, fella. I agree that cultivating a wider perspective on our reality can often be psychologically helpful and healthful as we deal with the problems and stresses in our daily lives. The thought that physically speaking, we are only a small part of the huge universe, can help provide that wider perspective. But to then insert the idea–even if it’s only a suggestion–that the comparison shows that we residents of Planet Earth are insignificant beings is to step right off a rash and irrational cliff.
The terms “significance” and “insignificant” are not scientific terms. They are evaluative terms that are always used to refer to a certain type of significance relative to a particular context. For instance, it is certainly the case that the material mass of a human body–or even the material mass of the Earth–is much, much less than the material mass of the Universe. So obviously, we can conclude that the mass of the human body is relatively insignificant compared to the material mass of the Universe. But nothing follows from that conclusion that is relevant to any other ways we might speak of human signficance.
If our TV guy isn’t convinced by this reasoning and thinks that human insignificance in regard to a person’s physical mass when compared to the mass of the Universe indicates that we are insignificant in some other way, we could ask him how much mass we would need if we wanted to be significant in this supposed other way. Would we be significant beings if we were as big as a planet? A galaxy? A billion galaxies? Of course not. Making us more significant in regard to mass would have no bearing whatsoever on our significance in any other respect. Actually, size or mass in itself are totally insignificant in many contexts. For instance, a massive boulder might be a useful and therefore a significant tool if we want to crush a car, but it won’t help if we want to pollinate a flower. A more significant tool for that job would be a bee.
The fact that when we talk about significance, we are always referring to a certain kind of significance within a particular context suggests that if we talk about significance in a thoroughly general way, without specifying the kind of signficance we are referring to, we are misusing the word. So, does that mean the very general question, “Do our lives have any significance?” is meaningless? Is Macbeth right when he says that life … “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?”
I say no. Macbeth is giving voice to the idea that the significance of life cannot be found out there in the Cosmos. And he may be right. But significance is a human-created concept, and we must look to humans for its meaning. People’s lives are significant, they have value, if people say they do.
