There is absolutely no point to any of it. You're here because your parents had sex.

Worse you're here to protect a molecule. If Dawkins is to be believed.

Are you asking what is the meaning of having a (subjective) meaning, if understood in terms of its instrumental value?

@richard you are talking of the meaning, not its meaning :)

@w128 I think so

It's nothingness all the way down I'm afraid.

@Richard you're not even distinguishing objective and subjective meaning. Your comments are irrelevant considering what is being asked.

I realise you think you're asking a technical question which requires a technical answer..

@Richard, your comments just say there is no meaning of life. Question asks what is the meaning of thinking of meaning of life, what people actually do.

There's no meaning. To life or anything one does with it. There is no meaning, to anything.. recursively.

If the question is what the meaning of life is then it has multiple duplicates viewable by clicking on the meaning of life tag. If it is about the quoted infinite regress then Wittgenstein himself gives a solution to it:"there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which is exhibited in what we call „obeying the rule‟ and „going against it‟ in actual cases". To apply it here, thinking of the "meaning of life" as an item is a mistake of taking the surface grammar at face value (taking a noun as standing for a thing), it is instead to be lived "in actual cases".

Possible duplicate of Can a life have a trivial meaning if it's all there is?

It would/might help here to be a lot more explicit about what you’re after in an answer; what does a great answer to this question look like? What exactly would the “right” answer explain correctly? (It is important structurally for SE that questions have a ‘true’ answer, and that there be no mystery: you have to spell out exactly the features of the theoretical construction you are analyzing, and which step you need specific help with footing, etc...)

@Richard: Dawkins is provably talking rubbish in that case (to protect a molecule).

Not in fact. Read 'The Selfish Gene'. I'm not a fan of Dawkins per se.. but the core concept of that book is monumental on a Darwinian scale.

@Richard: Genes can't be selfish; they're molecules and have no intentions as such; Dawkins is playing rhetorically on the meaning of selfishness, which in Darwins theory is a technical term. Whereas Wallace was known as Darwins Bulldog, I suppose we can call Dawkins, Darwins Rottweiller - except that Darwin would have disowned both men; there's a reason why Darwin delayed publication of his book, it was mainly because he thought it would misunderstood and misapplied - and history had shown him to be correct on both with the invention of eugenics and social Darwinism.

@richard: The reason why I don't much care for Dawkins by the way had nothing to do with his athiesm, but everything to do with his rigid, mindless intolerance.

This is not "logic" nor "phil-of-language"; in this context "meaning" is aim, purpose, τέλος and not the semantical meaning.

@Conifold, read my comment-response to Richard. Why do people thing meaning is the same as meaning of meaning? It's like non-belief of non-belief.

@MoziburUllah, I agree the name "Selfish gene" was not fortunate. But the idea is interesting, though it does not describe why do atoms form genes.

@rus9384: His idea is entertaining in a shallow kind of way - which helps when you want to sell a shed-load of books - but it's scientifically and philosophically uninteresting.

Most people are not miserable or suicidal. Learn from them. Find out what drives them. Is it love, beauty, inner peace, justice or truth? Or something else?