The Fun Assumption

by Bernie DeKoven

Suppose you supposed that the only reason birds sing was the sheer fun of singing, of having songs and the ability to give them voice. Or the fun of discovering themselves suddenly landing on a moving branch in a swaying tree in perfect balance. Or the fun of knowing that whenever the wind or whim took them, they could take off, and fly.

Suppose you supposed that the only reason you laugh is because it’s fun to laugh. Not because of the endorphins or the health benefits. But only because of the fun. Only because it’s more fun than you can contain.

Suppose the same about squirrels scampering around and inside of trees, or bees buzzing or flowers flowering.

Then every bird you hear, every squirrel or bee or flower you saw would be an invitation to have fun, too. To share the fun. To celebrate the fun.

Suppose we just assume that it’s all for fun, all about fun.

Scientifically, the fun assumption could be shown for what it is. But assuming the birds sing to claim territory? What makes that assumption any more relevant or insightful or useful than the fun assumption? Assuming the squirrels are fighting over potential mates, the bees struggling to be first to sip the nectar, the flowers only purpose propagation? What makes those assumptions any more valid than the fun one?

Why not, really, why not fun?