Reading the OP led me to think of this....
The relevance of it, however, I'm not quite sure...
Human beings are animals, and like all living organisms, they exist as complex, dynamic active/energetic, i.e. "living", physical, relatively closed systems/domains, who act as part and parcel of their genes.
All living organisms serve either two or three primary functions, the first function as that of being protective, albeit expendable, storage vessels that house their genes. The second function as that of being efficient genetic replication factories designed to produce multiple copies of their genes (and for asexual species, the biological buck stops here, i.e. they exist as self replicating copies/organisms that live to self replicate...), and lastly and perhaps most importantly, (for sexually reproducing species), the third function is that of being effective vehicles, and agents of genetic transfer and transformation, where successful gametic donations that unite and fertilize, result in their producing potentially viable offspring, i.e. genetic investments for future colonies.
To quote Dawkins, more or less, all living things are in effect, "Gene machines". As such, they are concerned with securing their own survival so as to ensure/enhance their ability/access to potentially mate. They are motivated by finding a mate(s) and by mating, so as to enhance their chances to successfully procreate. And with mammals, and humans especially, if they successfully mate to produce offspring, they become concerned with protecting, defending, and nurturing their genetic offspring so as to enhance its survivability and therefore ultimately secure/enhance the potential proliferation of their genes amongst future populations.
*This is my belief/understanding of life as a function, and product of its simplest unit.
I do not entirely agree with this hypothesis, in fact I only kind of agree with it...