Does what get easier? Living? That's a biological question. As far as I can tell "living" gets harder (organ failures and such). That's obviously not what the question meant.

And for that matter, what do you mean by "easier?"

I've recently found myself in an existential thought loop. It's depressing, and I haven't quite found the answer yet.

My problem goes something like this: We work day in and day out asking "does it get easier?" But what are we working for exactly? Money? Living? We all will die in the end, and there's no way to prevent that. Unless we break the laws of physics. Dying isn't a solution, as consciousness is simply another "law". Past, current, and future consciousness are all different. As are other people's. Or rather, they are the same. Just different instances. Just like gravity. So dying isn't a solution, and living has no goal.

So does what get easier? What are we quantifying exactly? And how do we determine whether it's easy or hard?

I suppose "easy" is using the definition of "quickly going to your goal state". And "hard" is "slowly going to your goal state". But we still have the problems of "going" and "goal".

Going implies we are actively working toward something. And goal is some end accomplishment that we set out to achieve.

By that definition most people aren't in the definition of "easy" or "hard". Or perhaps their "goal" is just something different?

There's no goal, no direction. And evolution instills in us the goal of "use less energy, and stay alive". That's the "goal". But how does one work toward that? Being lazy, procrastination, eating a lot, gaining weight.

We also instill in children the goal of "social compliancy". We want them to follow the herd. Because that's what naturally helps toward goal #1.

This is the source of John's problems. As is the source of my own.

But objectively looking at these goals, what is the point? What makes these goals desirable? Besides the cruel hand of natural selection, there really isn't any desirable traits. Nature just says "fuck you, I don't care if you feel satisfied or happy! You are alive! that's what my goal is!"

But in the end, nature fucks you over and kills you anyway. It's all futile and pointless. And the more you try to ignore nature, the bigger you get fucked over. That's the problem. This prevents people from setting their own goals (which are all meaningless anyway).

So really, "does it get easier" is a non-question. You, by default, already are accelerating towards nature's goals just fine. That shit's easy. And that's why everyone does it. You pretty much do it automatically. And if you don't, you die. And nature doesn't care. Nature has billions of others to replace you.

So what's the point? Do you set your own goal and say "fuck nature"? I know plenty of people who do that. Who'd rather die than chase nature's goal. Then there are others who want to get to nature's goal faster.

So what do you do? Die and let nature fuck you (and consciousness) until the end of time? Break the laws of physics and rewrite your own? (ha!) Define your own arbitrary meaningless goal?

This is where I get stuck. I guess "easier" in the end, is really how easily you follow nature's goal. Which is really nothing in particular except fucking you over. Which is why we feel shitty. We work towards pointless goals, which is "hard". Or we work towards nature's goals, which is "easy" but unfulfilling. We apply our own "goals" and rules on top of it which make even obtaining nature's goal "difficult".

So really, all you can do is define an arbitrary goal for yourself, and set out to obtain it. For no reason in particular. Just to say fuck you back to nature.

So "does it get easier?" Depends. But is "easier" really any better?