Survival of the Fittest - a Counterintuitive Example and Evolution of Man

Charles Darwin (click) had put forth the theory of natural selection (click), which has been defined by Wikipedia as follows:

Natural selection is the process by which certain heritable traits - those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce - become more common in a population over successive generations.

Natural selection is frequently referred to as "survival of the fittest" for sake of simplicity.

Let me give a hypothetical example. There are two varieties of moths in a population - A and B. A flies faster and has a better sense of smell; B is slower and cannot smell as well. The moths feed on flower nectar for survival. Also, they are equally likely to successfully reproduce. These two varieties live in an area where there is a scarcity of flowers. Let this flower be called the O variety. Common sense would suggest that A should be able to get to flowers faster - both because of better sense of smell and faster flying. Thus, fewer of the B variety would be able to survive, and gradually their numbers would decrease. There would come a time when the ratio of both the varieties in the population would stabilize in the region. This because, despite A's ability to reach the flowers faster, pure chance would allow the B variety to also feed on few flowers. Moreover, B-moth has to mate only once to pass down its genes even if it dies of starvation.

Now imagine, someone introduces a new plant (N variety) in the region such that its flower produces a very strong fragrance. The problem with this plant is, it is insectivorous (click), i.e., its flower traps and digests (kills) insects to fulfill its protein requirements. Now obviously, A-moths would reach the N-flowers faster and die. Gradually, the ratio of A:B moths would decrease. Whether B-moths outnumber the A-moths would depend on the relative strengths of fragrances of the O- and N-flowers. If the N-flower has stronger fragrance, then most of the A-moths would get attracted to it and die without reproducing. The situation for B-moths would be more complex. Whether their absolute numbers decrease significantly or not would depend on the number of N-flowers available. Meaning, if N-flowers are themselves not very successful in surviving, then they would only be able to decrease the number of A-moths, which would leave B-moths free to feed on O-flowers and mate gaily (with moth of the opposite sex, of course!). But if N-flowers increase significantly in number, the entire moth population might get eliminated from the region.

The important thing I wanted to illustrate was when talking of fittest in the sense of survival, the said traits need not be what we ordinarily think of as good (e.g., better sense of smell and faster speed of flying). Those traits must help the individual organisms survive and reproduce as well. So as part of evolution, species on the whole do not 'improve', but become better suited for the environment.

Human species has come a long way from having to struggle for basic survival. 'Success' in many societies is not even linked to ability to reproduce. Ability to attract a suitable mate does not necessarily transform into passing down of genes, thanks to contraception and family planning. Many inheritable diseases may manifest after the affected individual reproduces. With possibility of cloning in the future, even those unable to reproduce conventionally may be able to pass on their genes.

All these factors have made a few people concerned that the 'quality' of human beings would worsen. But there is inherent paradox in this idea. 'Quality' of human beings has nothing to do with human conceptions of desirable or undesirable traits. From perspective of natural selection, fit v/s unfit had always been about ability to pass on ones genes.

So will the human species stop evolving?

This question cannot be answered in simplistic terms. Unfortunately, because of being exposed to pictures that show evolution of species in a linear fashion with various stages (e.g. tree-dwelling lemurs getting transformed into upright walking humans), we have come to believe that evolution is all about gross physical changes. But then many changes could be subtle and not manifest physically. What allows new traits to emerge in a population are gene mutations (click), i.e., an inheritable change in an existing trait or appearance of a new one. So in case of humans, though new mutations would keep on emerging, they are unlikely to displace people of pre-existing traits, because, they will not necessarily make them reproduce at faster rate.

Surging ahead in time, when societal pressures to reproduce to continue the family would diminish, factors like inherent attraction to children and nurturing behavior, both of which are enhanced by a hormone called oxytocin (click) could become important. Thus in future, not necessarily physically stronger or better looking or more intelligent people, but those with higher oxytocin levels and desire to rear children would be evolutionarily more "successful"! Of course, all this is merely my conjecture.

Free will

I am republishing this post, as a form or blog-recycling - an idea I caught on from Wise Donkey's blog (click). Coincidentally, tomorrow happens to also be the anniversary of my blog, and the time this post was published for the first time. I have edited the post a bit. This was the first post I had actually published on this blog. :)

Following is a blog I had originally posted at yahoo 360:

I was replying to one of the offbeat queries on rxpgonline.com, and the reply turned out so long that I thought, better I convert it into a blog. But again, I am surprised that this world has been a crucible of such great minds at work (thinking being the work of a mind), that ultimately, however much I try, it is not possible to think a thought that has not been thought before! So, many of the opinions that I had developed on my own, I learned, are already established schools in philosophy!

I will not post the query because of reasons related to copyright issues, but the gist of it was "if we decide anything really on our own volition, or are we predetermined to make those decisions".

Here's my response:

-------------

Let me refine what you have called thoughts and emotions. Fortunately, we as medicos are in better positions to understand that both thoughts and emotions arise out of neurotransmission across synapses through very complex neural networks. What is important here, though is not the complexity of networks, but that the process that gives rise to thoughts and emotions is as simplistic  and physical as action potential giving rise to or inhibiting action potential elsewhere (synaptic inhibition or facilitation).

The feeling we get while we make a choice is that it is "I" who is deciding to do a particular thing, and not opt an alternative choice, and had I wanted, I "could" have made the other choice. The question is: do we really make choices that were not determined by past events? To make this question clear, I would have to give an example:

Think of someone breaking a frame in a game of pool. There are 10 balls that are struck with the cue ball, and immediately at the moment of impact all of them scatter away. To the untrained human eye, this is quite a chaotic event, but everyone would agree that with our modern technology, if the force, spin and direction of the cue ball, the masses of other balls, the properties of the reflecting walls, and the properties of the surface of the pool table would be known, we can definitely predict with amazing degree of accuracy where each ball on the table would end up after a finite amount of time. So in that sense the fate of each ball was predetermined by their mutual positions, the speed and direction with which the cue ball would impact them (force), the properties of the various surfaces and the time of impact. So, if the pool table were a closed system (where no external force could act), we would be the best astrologers! We could foretell everything that the pool balls would ever want to "know" about their future! And, add to it the fact that it is you who would be hitting at those cue balls. So in that sense, you are the one who is determining the fates of those balls. But, the way you are determining their fate is very "physical". If I were to tell you that try to change the course of the balls only by power of your mind (without actually touching them or using a physical force), and you would know that it would be impossible, unless  and of course you are a firm believer of psychokinesis (click).

Now let us shift the same pool table to within our brain, and think of all the vesicles holding neurotransmitter molecules as those balls. Our emotions, thoughts, memories, all are a result of which neurons "fire" at what time. So, if real free will were to exist, we should be able to "control" (unknowingly) the particular neurons so as to make them release a particular neurotransmitter at a particular point in time in a particular quantity. The issue is can we really do all that with our "will", which is nothing, but again, a result of activity of the same neurons containing the said neurotransmitters? Well, I am not sure of the answer. Though, going by the physics of it, the answer seems like "no". No, we cannot make the molecules of neurotransmitters behave the way we want them to. So, each time you are deciding between a yellow dress or a white one, and even if you decide after full five minutes of pondering that you want the yellow one, it could be only because the neuron that was to trigger your decision fired at that moment (after five minutes), because of pre-set conditions, and not because of your thought-processes. So, this sounds very gloomy, indeed, that everything we do is predetermined, and more importantly, out of our control. But, when I gave the example of pool balls, I was talking of classical physics, which holds true only at a very gross level. If somehow, instead of 10 pool balls, 10 neutrons (and not neurons) were to be placed in a frame, and then hit with a "cue neutron", we will not be able to predict the trajectories of any of the neutrons, forget all the ten neutrons together. There are too many issues. Firstly, quantum physics does not allow any particle to be absolutely still - it has to oscillate with what is called a finite amount of "zero point energy" (the minimum energy that a particle has to possess, which equals hv/2, h=Planck's constant, and v is the frequency of oscillation of the particle). Secondly, the the Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, does not allow precise knowledge of positions of the particles and their momentum at the same time. But, what happens in real life is that the "amount of uncertainty" remains constant even with a large assembly of particles, but since the assemblies these particles become are so large that any uncertainty gets buffered by the practical and acceptable approximations of their momentum and position. So, the uncertainty principle somehow does not apply to the day-to-day "bulky" objects and situations. Hence our neurotransmitter molecules, and even more so, the vesicles that hold them, are on the borderline of being big and small enough to obey the uncertainty principle. Their courses and positions are somewhat predictable and yet, somehow unpredictable.

But, what is the implication of this knowledge of uncertainty principle to our discussion? What it implies is that at least the course of the neurotransmitter vesicles in our brains cannot be determined with complete accuracy, and hence, cannot be predicted. And, so the decisions that a person makes are not completely predictable. But, the issue of being "able" to alter the course of or effect the emptying of a particular vesicle in a particular neuron at a given time without a physical force though, remains as it is.

Of course, I know it is very difficult to even digest the possibility: that the emotions that we feel to be so real, or the feeling of "choosing", which is another name for freedom/liberty, could all be illusory. One of the possibilities of why we feel this illusion could be a specialized center in the brain that "witnesses" all the activities in the neurons. And these activities get registered as thoughts. We witness a live broadcast of our own thoughts (which are not exactly out of volition, but determined by the pre-set conditions), and we get a feeling that we are somehow effecting those thoughts, possibly because the time lag between the moment when a thought "arises" and it is "registered" could be very short.

So, I would recommend that one try while buying a dress, bargaining the price pointing out:

“It’s not me who wants to buy the dress, it’s just the neurons; I’m compelled by their preset conditions,. I cannot help it. So could you please give me a discount, at least if not give it away for free?” 

But, I would warn here that the shopkeeper’s response need not be that philosophical!!!

PS: A very pertinent discussion had also occurred at my other blog, here (click). Also, I request the reader to go through all the comments as they had been quite illuminating.

Do I deserve pink chaddis?

*Chaddi is a word used interchangeably for "shorts" or "briefs/panties".

This is a post I've been planning to do since long, because it was after a long time some event had made me introspect and analyze things with utmost depth possible, and yet leave me, possibly, without answer. Also, this post is going to be very, very frank. Everyone tends to push the innermost workings of their minds under the carpet. But quite the opposite of that, I'm going to reveal it as explicitly and plainly as possible. So, in certain ways this post is going to be EXPLICIT. So, the reader's forbearance is requested. Also, I'll try my best to set the sequence of my thoughts in an algorithm-like structure. So, it'd be easier to dissect it, and discuss the same.


First, I'll have to tell something about myself to establish a proper context. As of now, I am preparing for postgraduate (PG) medical entrance exams, for which I've joined a particular coaching institute in a city different than the one indicated in my profile. I stay in a hostel, which consists mainly of other PG-aspirants just like me. We have a mess, where we have our meals, and at other times, it serves as the reading room.


Before I describe the very trivial incident, let me make it amply clear that the fact that I'm blogging about it, only implies that I've thought a lot over it. And I urge the reader to be patient, and specifically ask me where something that I try to explain remains unclear. This disclaimer is necessitated because I suspect apppreciable number of readers, if they read this post would be tempted to send me pink chaddis! But, I'm not giving my postal address! :P


There is this girl in the ladies' hostel (just next to the hostel where I stay), owned by the same owner as my hostel, who attends the same coaching institute as me, but in a different batch and schedule. My interaction with her has been nil. And she uses the same reading room and the mess. This girl, as far as I've seen, interacts only with boys from her alma mater, which is in a different city from where I've been staying. And, I hadn't taken any special notice of that fact, though it had registered in my mind. I wouldn't think much about such issues, for simple reason--they don't affect me, and moreover, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with that. Just that the event I'm about to describe made me think also about all this. As to what's her opinion about other fellow female hosteliites to be not interacting with them at all, or conversely what do other female inmates think about her.


The incident was this: I had gone to the mess to have my lunch (I don't study at that particular study room, but do so in my own hostel room), and I was at the table where the food is laid for us to help ourselves, the girl was ahead of me in a sort of short queue that was formed, and my gaze fell on her flank. And I felt such an intense revulsion that I turned away my gaze with disgust. What I saw was her exposed flank because of a triangular 'side-cut' in her shirt. The area exposed was more than 50 centimeter sqaured, with part of her innerwear's elastic band visible. Now for those wondering how did I reach the magical figure of 50 cm², just think of a square of 10 cm sides (100 cm²), and cut it half at the diagonal.


Actually, for someone with perfectly normally working hormones like me, I should've stared on. My female readers might be disgusted by this suggestion. But then, I believe, I'm going to do full justice to all the moral considerations involved in this particular event, which is prototypical of what one gets to see day-in-and-day out. All this got over in a less than a second, and nor must have I turned away my head in a violent motion to draw anyone's attention. Basically, no one around noticed what had happened.


But this got me thinking as to why did I feel disgusted, as afterall what she wears is entirely her prerogative.


I'll make a few clarifications here, right at the outset:
1. I did not gossip about it with others.
2. I did not give her a 'look'.
3. I would never think of harming her in anyway on account of what she chooses to wear.
4. If I were to ever interact with her, I'd do so with utmost courtesy that I would reserve for anyone I'd be talking to for the first time.


Of course, to clarify, her dress was in deed out of the ordinary for what other girls wear at this place, especially when coming to study or eat. Moreover, she herself had worn that dress for the first time, and to the extent I remember, she never had repeated it.


I drew this conclusion--'she wanted to expose her flank and elastic band to draw attention to herself'. Of course, I'll first try to address the concern as to why did I draw the above conclusion. I had an argument in my head in attempt to make maximum possible allowance for that girl.


Allowance 1: She must have not realized that the dress was revealing.

Answer: She has always been meticulously dressed even on other days, when she used to wear Salwar-Kameez. Most of the people when the buy their clothes, try them. This girl used to wear relatively costly dresses, and it was unlikely that she must have bought it from some street-side hawker and didn't get and an opportunity to try it. Dressing is a skill, and she had been good at it, so it's unlikely that even if in an unlikelier event that she did buy the said shirt from a roadside hawker, she wouldn't know that the dress would be at least 7 to 8 cm short of the trouser's waist.

Allowance 2: She must have dressed in a hurry.

Answer: Didn't look like that. Her dress was well-ironed. Her hair wasn't disheveled or anything, and she was taking her food quite leisurely, and also eating it equally leisurely.


Allowance 3: She must have been comfortable with that sort of dressing.

Answer: Possibly, yes. But that had got me thinking as to why we choose the kinds of dresses that we choose? We buy clothes such that they cover those parts of our bodies that we don't want others to see, especially strangers. I wear a shirt/T-shirt whenever I move out or my room, for simple reason I'd feel embarrassed to allow others to see my bare chest and back, etc. Likewise, I wear trousers that cover my groin area completely! Sorry, couldn't help it. Had to bring in the last example to clarify. So, I reached this conclusion that she did not mind revealing her flank and the elastic band of her innerwear.


Allowance 4: So what? What if she's comfortable with revealing her flank and the elastic band? That does not establish intent to reveal.

Answer: When she must have bought that particular shirt, she must have had the option of buying one that did not reveal her flanks. It must have not been very difficult to buy a shirt that would be just 8 to 10 cm lower, and jeans that would be an inch or two higher. Afterall, all other days she had been wearing clothes that were not revealing in the same way. But yes, there is indeed a subtle difference between 'not minding' revealing and 'wanting' to reveal. How do I know it was the latter and not the former? I concede, this is difficult to answer. But, I'll give an example. If at a tea stall, you order Pepsi, and the waiter comes and tells you they don't have it, and offers you to have Coke instead, if you say, "Okay, alright!", then, that's what is 'not minding', but if you ask for Pepsi in the first place, then you 'want' Pepsi, and does not amount to 'not minding' it. So, I believe, this adequately establishes the intent to expose, so to say.


Allowance 5: Okays, so what if she wanted to reveal? How does it make me conclude that she wanted to draw attention?

Answer: This is most difficult to explain, but if I've to assume that she did not want to draw attention, how do I explain someone carefully choosing clothes that precisely are going to reveal one's flanks and the elastic band? I could attribute random behavior to, maybe, a small child doing things on whim, like wanting to stand on a table and not wanting to climb down, or children of 2 to 3 years not willing to eat their food, but how do I do that for someone in their twenties? It's either random impulse or it's well planned attempt to draw attention. And considering her age, it was much likely to be the latter.


Allowance 6: Okay, so what if she chooses to wear revealing clothes? What's my problem?

Answer: Nothing! Honestly, I have no problems with what she wears. What all I thought about the issue till that point, and for a few minutes beyond did not affect me in any way!


Now, I'll point out a few things that people do. Do ask yourself if you find them disgusting or not:
1. Picking of nose in public
2. Scratching of groin (in public)
3. People making lousy noises while eating, or licking their fingers passionately while eating

Do you find all or any of the about disgusting?

Yes? What's your problem?


But they disgusted you, right? Isn't it precisely their prerogative to likewise to use their fingers, nose, mouth and other orifices the way they want to?


No, but honestly, what I saw about that girl disgusted me beyond reasons involved in above three examples.


Now I will try to explain, why.


The other three examples I gave--what do they tell us about the people concerned? That they are coarse, possibly unhygienic, inconsiderate of others' attention, and lack a sense of aesthetics.


But why did I feel more disgusted at that girl?

Because that attitude is representative of things fundamentally so wrong with any human being. Picture this:

You're talking with someone. Possibly, the person is talking something grave, and a part of you wants that person to be distracted by you if of the opposite gender, or if the same gender, to be envious of you! This is hypocrisy of highest kind. Not being truthful to oneself, as well as to one's present. Also, such a person is living their life on others' terms, wanting their approval. And approval from any random person, not specifically the people they themselves value.


I have to make many more clarifications. I'll feel the same kind of disgust if I see someone trying to show off their knowledge out of context, or status or wealth. Or those saying "yes" all the time to please others. Or considering themselves as much worthy as gauged by just about anyone. All these things have one thing common to them--lack of truthfulness to oneself, a lack of certain kind of straightforwardness. Honestly, I wouldn't have disrespect for someone plainly going and asking someone--"Do you think I'm attractive enough?" What I don't like is the subliminal influencing through any means. At a much larger scale, it's the same kind of hypocrisy that makes our politicians do things subversive to the interests of the country in name of benefit to one 'community' or the other. Also, how little or high is the chance that persons not averse to wearing revealing clothes to attract attention of just about anyone, wouldn't do so at the workplace to get promotions, or colleges to get extra marks (something I've myself noticed happening)? Is this honorable? Of course, the one giving into such distractions and extending undue favors would be deserving of same blame of indulging in immorality (click).


But, what had really agitated me was that once there was a spat between one of the coordinators of our coaching institute and the owner of the hostel regarding quality of the food served, and coincidentally, when the aforementioned girl was present their, she had been labeled as "characterless" by the hostel owner, because she had been going out alone with guys at night on walk. I was really disgusted by the owner. Afterall, he had no right to interfere with her personal life, who she moved out with, what all she did, and I too had made all the right noises as to how, the girl is a mature, grown up adult, and it was very, very mannerless of the owner to have said that. But a part of me was wondering, did I not also conclude the same thing a month back (then)? That was my hypocrisy. To have something with utmost verbal strength, but just half strength of actual conviction behind those words. And quite obviously, the girl left the hostel to live elsewhere in some days.


Some more clarifications:

1. I never felt even once that owning to her dressing, she deserved to be badmouthed, or eve teased, or molested.

2. I think a saree can be much more revealing than what she was wearing, if so intended by the one wearing.

3. I'm no fan of idea of "preservation of culture", something I might discuss in one of my coming posts. I've not even mentioned the Indian culture perspective above.

4. What all I've analyzed for the above girl applies to males, as well as to all other spheres of life.

5. I'd try my best to not be judgmental about the girl, if were to have any interaction with her. But, my above conclusions will definitely weigh heavily on me. If I find her a nice, upright person otherwise, I'd really be forced to do a rethink on my criteria for judging people. Maybe, I'd try to know her better, and understand, why would she like to wear those kind of clothes, which would make people notice only the superficial aspects of her personality, and maybe, not value her emotions, thoughts, words, deeds, or innovative ideas? But on the whole, in my life, whenever I've tried too hard to make allowances for others' acts that I would find objectionable, I've ended up on the wrong side of judgment, meaning, those people have indeed turned out to be unreliable and opportunistic.


The crux of this post is, if someone has right to wear whatever they want, or behave however they like, I have equal right to draw conclusions about them. Of course, I don't have any right to impose my beliefs on them. And such conclusions are bound to have bearing on how generous would I be with them, or how sympathetic I'd feel if they're troubled. And most important, how much would I respect them as fellow humans.

A very good summary of theist v/s atheist arguments

Atheism: Encyclopedia entry is the recent blog post by Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Sacramento. I'm posting this link here only because this is the most succinct summary of theism v/s atheism arguments I've found up till now. Reading it takes more than an hour. But, for those who're not professional philosophers, this post will greatly enhance their knowledge in classification of various kinds of beliefs and nonbeliefs with regard to existence of God, and also the various philosophical approaches on this issue.

But most importantly, reading this post will be nothing less than a mental workout, which I hope would be enticing for all those visiting my blog (excuse the vanity!), except for of course, if they're seasoned philosophers or logicians themselves.

Hope you enjoy the post!

Futuristic!

A few months back I was watching a documentary based on the book The Elegant Universe, and in one of the sections, the concept of a wormhole, which would basically enable one to move from one point in space time to another through connecting tunnels was being discussed. The simplest consequence of presence of such wormholes for the lesser humans who are not physicists would be the ability to travel from the two connected points without spending any time! This, if ever is to be a reality, would take very long, say at least two hundred years from now. The presenter of the program, Brian Greene, was apparently very excited about this possibility as he would be able to travel from his residence to his workplace (both in New York) in "no time" (quite literally!). Excited, yes he ought to be at such possibility. But two hundred years from now (at the earliest)? Not sure.

Though, the program was excellent in its analogies and gripping for how it dealt with widely disparate schools of physics, from classical, through, quantum physics and general relativistic physics to the theory that has been receiving mixed reactions at the possibility of being a "the Theory of Everything"-- the Strings Theory, which attempts to basically combine quantum physics (which deals with the forces acting at relatively short distances, i.e., subatomic level, viz., electric, magnetic and strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces) and general relativistic physics (which gives a very accurate description of the only force acting at long distances--the force of gravity).

Well those details are not the purpose of this post. What that fantasy of traveling in no time made me think was how in taking a futuristic view of the world around us, we tend to take a very limited view of the spheres in which the human life would change due to the development of new technologies. I feel, quite obviously, that it's not just technology based on physics and engineering would evolve radically. The human race would also have benefit of advances in medical sciences, neurology, nutrition, human psychology, communications, etc. All these technological advances cannot occur in isolation; they are bound to have some (at least) implications on the very essence our lives would hold for us. Issues like what purpose does life hold for us, what/who is admirable, the need for human intelligence, the extent of communication between humans, human aspirations, average lifespan, the type of prevalent medical disorders, the nature of day-to-day problems and conflicts would all have changed beyond recognition by that time.

The first question that came to my mind when Brian Greene made that statement about traveling through wormholes, was would we need to travel? Then, would we need to work? What would be the nature of that work? How many of us would really need to work?

Picture this: you get up in the morning, and pop a pill that has all the nutrients that you'd require for the day. You're seated in a chair, and an apparatus (let's call it Experience Simulator or Expulator) aims light beams at your brain that make you experience whatever you want to. This is the 126^th year of your life, and if the Expulator detects that you don't have adequate desire to live on, it will aim beam at some specific neurons that would fill your brain with the desire to live. It might also consult with some database to confirm if you're really required by the human race in any capacity in which you could contribute, or if in terms of cost-benefit ratio, if you'd still be desirable any longer to the human race! Or if your contract to live had expired! (More about this later, though)

All the infectious agents would have been eliminated, ageing would have been stalled or retarded to such a rate that there would be a real possibility for the majority of people to "get bored" of their lives. And needless to say, there would be no medical disorders.

No experience would require you to leave your chair--be it of playing in the ground, having your favorite food, some violent outlet just for the kicks of it, or one of those kinky fantasies. Nothing would be out of bounds. No doubt, everyone would be happy and content or whatever they'd want to feel at any given moment. One could also not argue that these "experiences" would be artificial as they'd be produced through the same mechanism by which we experience "reality" as we know it today(!), i.e., stimulation at the appropriate synapses.

One could question, would the Expulator be available to all?

I believe, any technology becomes widely accessible (in terms of both rate of production and the purchasing power owing to its affordable cost) a long time after its advent. This itself would ensure universal accessibility.

Okay, returning to the original question, would you require to travel? No, of course not! Think of all the reasons to travel:

1. To do work. With such advanced technology, you certainly won't require separate workplace to work at.
2. To meet someone. You could always switch on the Expulator, and meet that someone just sitting in the chair.
3. To visit a place. Now don't make me count what all your Expulator could do!

But I think I've left out so many significant issues. The human race could know by that time, what it means to be perfect. Perfect brains and perfect bodies would be order of the day or the century. Any aberration would simply be a manufacturing defect! Would we really require to work? What would be the incentive to work? Remember: though difficult it is to imagine it without having your very own Expulator, it could make you feel and experience any and everything that you'd like to experience. It would make you feel tired, sleepy; it could give you the same pleasure as discovering a new galaxy! Basically, it could make you feel that you work! My guess, is the incentive to work would be actually knowing something more. Developing better Expulators, synthesizing more and more experiences to enrich Expulator's database, continued fight against infectious agents, protecting the human race from real dangers, like comets, asteroids, aliens(!). But why would someone work, if the Expulator could simply make the right neurons of the reward center in your brain fire at will? Out of sense of duty? Would it become incumbent on a few to do some compulsory thinking as decided by some lottery system?

But the most important question that arises is what would be the incentive to live? I'm not sure, how horrifying it sounds to the reader--this piece of my fantasy is from a very sterile point of view. I, though, find the picture quite complete save the minor details like how electricity would be produced; how that nutritious pill would be produced; how ageing would be stalled; how the infectious agents would be eliminated (believe me, this is the most likely spoiler in my fantasy of a "perfect" future!), what would happen to other species? Would everyone have equal status in the human race as all would be perfect, and by extension, effectively identical? What would be the effect of knowing that all the experiences are simulated at will? That there's no external (to one's most personal aspirations for one's life) purpose to life, other than the continuation of the human race, which in turn would have or may not have any purpose depending upon how one views the role of human race in the affairs of the Universe, and if one feels that the Universe is "supposed" to be some way or the other.

Is there something missing in this picture that's rendering it incomplete? God, may I propose? The purpose of life could be known to God. What if God had a purpose that we don't know of? What if I/we end our lives, and it turns out to be one horrible mistake? So, why take chances and just not live on? As it is what's the harm of living, more so with the Expulator around?

The person who smokes knows that the "kick" they get out of smoking is nothing but nicotine doing its wonders. Does that make them quit? Ditto for cocaine, alcohol, or morphine. Does this sound similar to our Expulator? May be. I really don't know. Life, as I always say, indeed, is addictive.

It would be amusing to know what it would be like to "live" in such a world. And it also amuses me to realize I won't exist to verify it for myself!

PS: Surprisingly, I didn't require an Expulator for this piece of armchair philosophical fantasizing!