I am a registered democrat, but I'm really neither democrat or republican, I am apolitical. I don't view the world through the lens of politics, I view the world through the lens of nature, and the unique phenomenon of biology that has occurred on only one planet that we know of, Earth. I find it useful to stop and think about that from time to time - what a stunning thing to think about how amazingly rare the phenomenon of biology is in the known universe.
Added to that are other amazing phenomena of principle interest: humans, evolution, and technology. It is thought biology first emerged on Earth more than 3.7 billion years ago. But early humans, to the best of our knowledge, first appeared on earth "only" about 4 million years ago. And then anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago.
That means if a human infant from 100,000 years ago could somehow be raised in a family today we would not be able to tell the difference between that person and one born today.
Those who study evolution think significant evolutionary anatomical changes take approximately 100,000 years to occur. Let's contrast that with another amazing phenomenon, technology.
Humans developed early tools about 2 million years ago, and remembering anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago, agriculture began to develop about 8,000 years ago, and early civilizations about 5000 years ago.
The Industrial revolution began only about 200 years ago.
The first successful oil well was drilled in 1859, 162 years ago. This was terribly significant because it gave humans "infinite" energy for the first time, in other words the energy "return" was significantly greater than what was spent in extraction and conversion to usable fuel. This is the acceleration point for a lot of things, but primarily a human population explosion, the development of technologies, and the destruction of the biosphere.
Can humans, a biological entity, adapt evolutionarily (biologically) to non-biological (technological) conditions? Will we begin being born without knees because reasonably good artificial knees exist? Born with smaller brains because chips can be inserted into the cortex? OK I'm stretching it to make the point that biology is very likely only capable of adapting to biological conditions. But we don't "know" that yet, which might take another 100,000 years.
Science and technology prove over and over again to be a double edged sword. The first thing to do if we are to survive as a species is to accept that and figure out how to manage it, something we have a lousy record of doing to this point. Freud explains the instinct vs reason problem pretty well, or at least he is given credit for explaining it first, and that was about 100 years ago.
Instinct and technology combined may be driving us over the proverbial cliff, but we don't want to get rid of either of them. As a species we need to do better. But how? Instinct continues to override reason, with no real sign of change.
I'm 70 years old. One of my two wonderful grandmothers used to say "I went from covered wagons to a man on the moon". (Yes, we are Okies:)
I am bringing all of this up to make a specific point - we unconsciously conflate evolution with progress. They are not the same thing, one is biological, the other technological.
I also view the world through the lens of technology, my two primary career paths have been in the technological "arts" of photography and audio. Photography, the recording of vision, uses the lens, the artificial eye, and audio, the recording of hearing, uses the microphone, the artificial ear. Lenses and microphones are "artificial organs" because these are not the biological creations of nature and evolution.
We modern humans conflate evolution and progress in myriad ways, with, in many cases, catastrophic consequences. We can actually have a hard time thinking of the two as completely separate phenomena. If we want to "do better" we will have to stop doing that. So what are the obstacles?
The primary one is we want to think they are the same thing. I frequently hear smart people say "humans have evolved rapidly" when they mean technology has progressed rapidly.
Why do we want to think they are the same thing? Because we want to think nothing is beyond our control. We modern technological humans are the hubristic species.
On one level hubristic narcissism is a manifestation of life force energy. On another level it's the inability to see limits where they are appropriate.
Take GMOs for example. Cross species procreation is not possible. Who wants to see a cross of a human and a lamb? Can you imagine? Nature can't, and we should leave it at that. Is it even possible that nature is somehow smarter than us? Genetic modification enables the potential for instant evolution, skipping over the constraints of nature and biology by 10's of thousands of years.
We think we can do anything because we are technocrats, meanwhile we destroy our biological home with industrial technologies. The one planet we are aware of that is lush with the gorgeousness that is biology.
It boils down to this: we as a species are, um, less than intelligent in ways we don't want to take responsibility for. We need no further proof of this than the destruction we wreak on the planet with technology. But we think more and better technology will be the answer. Is that more of the same hubris? I believe it is.
We have a god complex, and have lost "the fear of god" (which is simply nature). We have replaced the love of nature with the love of technology, and in the process have made science the new religion.
Don't get me wrong, I love technology as much as the next human. I love moving through space faster than my biology will take me...bicycles, motorcycles, cars, helicopters, airplanes. Technology can be exhilarating.
But I was very lucky to have spent a few months in primeval wilderness when I was 30. That was exhilarating also, but in a very different and profoundly quiet way, and it forever changed the way I see "where we are". In cities and towns we are barely aware that we exist within (and ultimately at the mercy of) "The Great Biosphere". Are we missing an important part of our "education" when we don't spend significant time on the primeval planet?
I am fond of saying science is the best marketing tool of our time. Why? Because "science" is almost infinitely pliable, but billed as irrefutable, which many of us "buy" because it is the new religion. How is it even possible that science is pliable? Oh, in so many ways. Here's one: a "model under test" conceived from the outset to produce a desired conclusion. Desired by who? Those who stand to profit from said conclusion.
There are those who get into the forensic weeds on this "little problem" (among others) with science. If you'd like a quick purview of this have a look at a previous post The Huge Problem of Fraudulent Medical Research.
No comments:
Post a Comment