From David Reich’s Who We Are and How We Got Here:
We scientists are conditioned by the system of research funding to justify what we do in terms of practical application to health or technology. But shouldn’t intrinsic curiosity be valued for itself? Shouldn’t fundamental inquiry into who we are be the pinnacle of what we as a species hope to achieve? Isn’t an attribute of an enlightened society that it values intellectual activity that may not have immediate economic or other practical impact? The study of the human past—as of art, music, literature, or cosmology—is vital because it makes us aware of aspects of our common condition that are profoundly important and that we heretofore never imagined.
I think Reich’s comment isn’t just applicable to how we, as a society, choose what research to fund — but also to what we, as individuals, choose to spend our time learning.
Yes, there are many things we should learn for their practical applications. Things that will improve our decision-making or unlock new opportunities in our lives. But other things are worthwhile in and of themselves. No extra justification needed.
To repurpose a previously featured Sapolsky quote, the purpose of learning shouldn’t just be to solve problems, but to experience them.