We navigate our lives, day by day, hour by hour, believing in the profound power of choice. We choose our careers, our partners, our meals, and the words we speak. Yet, sometimes, the outcomes seem preordained, a relentless march of destiny. A genetic predisposition, a sudden natural disaster, a global demographic shift – these forces appear to operate beyond our individual will, shaping our lives with an indifferent hand. But what if the truth is far more complex, a dance between agency and inevitability where the lines constantly blur? What if, when we think we have a choice, we may not, and conversely, when we think we don’t have a choice, the decision may very well be ours?
This paradox lies at the heart of human experience. Life itself is a progression, a continuous unfolding where our “will” – our conscious choices and responses – inevitably changes “what will happen,” whether we want it to or not. We may not choose the initial feeling, like a surge of anger, but we most certainly do choose our response. We have a right to not like what our sister did, but we do not have a right to hit her. As we shape the will of what we want to happen, we inevitably change the outcome of what will happen, whether we want it to or not. This exploration will delve into this unsettling dance, from the hidden blueprints of our biology to the grand trajectories of global populations and the final moments of life, demanding a deeper understanding of our agency and profound responsibility for the future of humanity and the Earth. This journey forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about the limits of choice in the face of inevitability, particularly in moments of profound tragedy.
The Unseen Blueprints: When Choices Seem Predetermined
Our very existence, it often appears, is a consequence of an unseen blueprint, a predetermined path laid out before us. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of human health and biology. We inherit genes, predispositions, and vulnerabilities that seem to dictate our fate, regardless of our conscious desires.
Consider the monumental undertaking of the UK Biobank, a government-backed effort that has meticulously compiled a vast database on the health and lifestyles of 500,000 participants. This ambitious study is designed to make “the invisible visible,” tracking genes, environment, and lifestyle to understand how diseases take hold, slowly and silently, years before symptoms appear. It reveals, with startling clarity, how our health destiny can seem “already written” by factors beyond our immediate control – our genetic makeup, the environment we grew up in, the habits formed unconsciously in our early lives.
For example, the Biobank’s data revealed measurable brain changes, including shrinkage in areas linked to smell, memory, and emotion, even in individuals who experienced only mild cases of COVID-19. It showed that Type 1 diabetes, once thought to affect only children, occurs at the same rate throughout life, leading to the realization that many older adults had been misclassified and given the wrong treatment. Even something as seemingly straightforward as Body Mass Index (BMI), long used as a rough proxy for health, is revealed as a “crude measure” by the Biobank’s imaging data, which shows that two people with the same BMI can carry fat in radically different ways, some raising the risk of diabetes and heart disease, others potentially offering protection. These examples paint a picture of outcomes determined by intricate biological processes and predispositions that operate beneath the surface of our awareness.
Yet, even within this seemingly deterministic biological lottery, a profound layer of human choice emerges. The very decision to participate in such a study, to willingly offer one’s most intimate biological data for the sake of collective knowledge, is an act of profound agency. The subsequent choice by researchers and medical institutions to analyze this data, to shift paradigms from merely treating disease after it strikes to understanding and interrupting its development, represents a powerful societal choice to influence seemingly predetermined outcomes. We may not choose our genes, but we can choose to understand them, and collectively, we can choose to alter their trajectory.
This interplay between predetermined forces and human agency is starkly and tragically illustrated by the unforgiving laws of physics. Consider the recent, horrifying incident at a New York hospital: a 61-year-old man, wearing a large chain necklace, walked into an MRI room while a scan was underway. The machine’s immensely powerful magnetic force, strong enough to “fling a wheelchair across the room,” instantly drew him in by his metallic necklace, resulting in a fatal medical episode.
In this moment, the absence of choice is absolute. The man did not choose the magnetic force, nor its interaction with metal. Once the choice to enter that room with a metallic object was made, the physical laws of the universe took over, leading to a deterministic and unavoidable consequence. This incident shatters the illusion of absolute control in environments governed by powerful, unforgiving physical laws. Some actions, made in ignorance or disregard of these laws, have immediate, predetermined consequences, regardless of intent or desire. It is a chilling reminder that while we may assert our will, the universe has its own, immutable rules.
Shifting Trajectories: When Collective Choices Redefine Destiny
Beyond the individual, our collective choices, often made unconsciously or through societal inertia, profoundly shape the grand trajectories of human civilization and even the planet itself. For decades, the dominant global fear was overpopulation – a Malthusian nightmare of too many mouths and too few resources. Indeed, the world’s population is still growing, expected to reach 10 billion in about 50 years. But a new, unexpected shift has become apparent: declining birth rates, not just in richer nations like Japan, South Korea, and the United States, but across the globe, from Mexico to India to Nigeria. Could we soon have too few people? Is Elroy Muskrat right when he claims that a “collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces”?
Political demographer Jennifer Sciubba, whose expertise has been sought by the Pentagon, challenges the alarmist framing. She argues that the issue is less about the numbers themselves and more about how people feel about them. The shift towards pervasive low fertility is not a predetermined catastrophe; it is largely a consequence of collective human choices. Women, across diverse cultures, are increasingly choosing how large their families will be, or if they will have children at all. This is a positive development, reflecting increased agency and changing preferences. The high cost of raising children also plays a significant role in these choices.
Sciubba asserts that the problem isn’t simply “numbers” but how societies respond to these demographic shifts. Our economic and societal assumptions were built on an era of continuous population growth. Now, we must choose to adapt our infrastructure, our welfare states, and even our understanding of “the good life” to an aging, shrinking world. The choice to prioritize “care” – readily available childcare, healthcare, and eldercare – over merely “having babies” can fundamentally reshape demographic outcomes and lead to a more sustainable, flourishing society, even with fewer people.
This demographic lens also offers critical insights into geopolitical dynamics. Sciubba’s work at the Pentagon revealed how demographic trends, like large cohorts of young people with limited job prospects or political access, can contribute to civil conflict and instability. The “desirability bias” that led some to perceive Russia’s shrinking population as a sign of a weaker adversary demonstrates a collective choice not to see the full context of power structures and leadership’s will. Our choices to intervene in other nations, to export democracy, often clash with these demographic realities, leading to unintended consequences. Our collective choices, or lack thereof, directly shape geopolitical outcomes.
Asserting Agency: The Ultimate Choice Over Our End
If our lives are a complex interplay of predetermined factors and choices, what about the ultimate inevitability: death? Here, too, a profound assertion of human agency is redefining destiny. Assisted dying, once almost universally unlawful, is now legal in jurisdictions affecting at least 300 million people. This remarkable shift embodies a growing “freedom over death” – the ability to shape the timing and circumstances of how we die.
Modern medicine, while extending life, has also introduced the “long pre-mortem decline” of chronic illness. This slowness of modern death paradoxically offers us more opportunities to choose: which treatments to receive, whether to seek cures or opt for comfort care, where and with whom death will take place. These are not choices about whether to die, but choices reflecting our growing freedom over death. The course of dying belongs less and less to nature or God than to us.
For many, the choice to seek assisted dying is about maintaining “integrity” – ensuring their final days reflect their values and character, rather than becoming an “alien imposition” of prolonged suffering. It’s a profound assertion of individual will against a seemingly predetermined outcome. The historical example of Socrates, who chose to ingest hemlock rather than exile, dying with his identity and values intact, contrasts sharply with the thousands of Civil War soldiers who died frightened and alone, their deaths lacking integrity because they did not reflect their values or choices.
Opponents often raise concerns about a “slippery slope” to “designer babies” or the potential for coercion. However, evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal for a quarter-century refutes many of these fears. It hasn’t undermined palliative care, nor has it disproportionately affected vulnerable populations. In fact, simply having the option available can offer immense peace of mind, even for those who ultimately choose not to exercise it. This is a powerful demonstration of human choice in the face of the ultimate inevitability, a choice to define one’s own end.
The Conscious Will in the Chain of Consequences – Confronting the Uncomfortable
Our lives are a constant, intricate dance where choices, both individual and collective, constantly influence and redefine seemingly predetermined paths. This interplay is evident in the mundane: it is inevitable that I am going to take a nap. It is a matter of choice as to whether I have a snack, and once again, a matter of inevitability if that snack upsets my digestive system and disturbs my nap. This constant interplay of inevitability and choice shapes every moment.
But this understanding also forces us to confront immensely uncomfortable questions, particularly in moments of profound tragedy. Consider the devastating flooding in the Texas Hill Country, where more than 100 people are still missing. Did they choose the flood? No, absolutely not. They didn’t see it coming until it was far too late. The catastrophe was unchosen. But could they have chosen not to die? This is an immensely uncomfortable question. We don’t want to blame children for contributing to their own deaths, and the truth is that, especially with the children, we don’t know, and likely won’t know, the degree to which their initial response might have impacted their demise. The question is not posed to assign blame, but to highlight the limits and complexities of agency in extreme, unforeseen circumstances.
Yet, even in the face of such overwhelming inevitability, our choices – individual and collective – matter. The choices we make about climate policy, disaster preparedness, and infrastructure before the flood can influence its impact. Every decision, from participating in a health study to influencing demographic trends, from designing technology to choosing how we face our end, contributes to the “chain of choices” that affects not just our own lives, but the entire Earth.
Until we fully grasp and embrace this profound agency, acknowledging that our shaping of “will” inevitably changes “what will happen,” we risk passively accepting outcomes that are, in fact, within our power to influence. The responsibility is immense, and the choices are ours to make. The future is not merely something that happens to us; it is something we, through our conscious will and collective choices, continuously create.
Discover more from Clight Morning Analysis
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
