Interesting! Some of Nikola Tesla's thoughts published on a PBS site:
Tesla: "Movement implies a body which is being moved and a force which propels it against resistance."
How recently is it that we began to understand the amazingly rare phenomena of biology is only made possible through a confluence of innumerable exact conditions occurring simultaneously? What are the odds? Apparently, thru the lens of current astronomy anyway, pretty damn small. It seems for example we did not appreciate the significance of the exact gravity of earth being a critical element in "the cause of biology" until we began shooting biological life forms into space. In the context of the 200,000 years or so since big brain humans appeared, this understanding is pretty damn recent. What other things about biology do we not yet understand?
I'm not seeing on this PBS page that Tesla imagined bio-tech. Have we arrived at the point of sufficient knowledge to begin re-engineering biology (including ours) without the law of unintended consequences creating opposite and equal reactions? How likely is it we will be able to re-engineer "drive instinct" to the point we stop overconsuming that which sustains us?
Let's say we genetically modify our species to reduce aggression: ever wonder how many genocides have been committed in human history? According to one theory discussed in the fascinating book "Sapiens: A brief History of Humankind", there were 6 to 8 other species of humans when BigBrain arrived...what happened to them? BigBrain won the competition for resources war? I'm currently reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", the history of the genocide of indigenous North Americans, and I've come to realize that genocide is not an aberration in human history, it is far too common for that to be true. And current brain science is confirming Freud's message to humanity: instinct not reason drives behavior.
What are the implications of that? Marx came before Freud. If Marx had been after Freud we may never have had the economic theory of communism. Altruism is not universally endemic in biology (including ours), and it can't be forced. However we could conceivably genetically modify a significant percent of the human population to reduce aggression. Is that time upon us? Is it now an imperative? Due to globally interconnected communications tech we have, for the first time in history, the specter of a global revolution, and the natives appear to have become particularly restless of late...because of what? Something as "insignificant" as the biggest wealth disparity in modern history? Mandatory jabs anyone? Oh...but we couldn't let that thing called "the population" know this was on the schedule...imagine the backlash. If humans are driven by biological instinct the implication is we may not be as smart as we think we are. But that doesn't mean we are completely stupid either. Genetic modification? Good luck with that one.
Tesla: "Hitherto all devices that could be used for defense could also be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the value of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was fortunate enough to evolve a new idea and to perfect means which can be used chiefly for defense. If it is adopted, it will revolutionize the relations between nations. It will make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes, and other means for attack. My invention requires a large plant, but once it is established it will be possible to destroy anything, men or machines, approaching within a radius of 200 miles. It will, so to speak, provide a wall of power offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective aggression. If no country can be attacked successfully, there can be no purpose in war. My discovery ends the menace of airplanes or submarines, but it ensures the supremacy of the battleship, because battleships may be provided with some of the required equipment. There might still be war at sea, but no warship could successfully attack the shore line, as the coastal equipment will be superior to the armament of any battleship.
Um...bio-weapons? Cyber war?
Oligarchs are concerned, and for good reason. If the parabolic growth curve has reached the point of effective neutral gravity (it takes resistance to growth for growth to occur), global chaos may ensue. So yeah, let's do eugenics, good plan.
Tesla: "I underestimated man's combative instinct, which will take more than a century to breed out."
Humm. Tesla underestimated man's combative instinct. Are there other instances of scientific genius underestimating man's combative instinct? In fact it might be said Einstein made the same mistake. We can read his letter to Freud asking his opinion on the prospect war could be stopped:
And Freud's response:
Tesla: "Mechanistic conception is not antagonistic to an ethical conception of life".
Couldn't agree more, perhaps not however in the way Tesla apparently meant it. Freud also proposes the death instinct. How do we conceive of such a thing? Apoptosis on a "whole organism" level?
Tesla: "I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no longer in vogue...the abolition of stimulants will not come about forcibly. It will simply no longer be fashionable to poison the system with harmful ingredients...Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food based upon natural products, the food which is served today in his penny restaurants will be the basis of epicurean meals in the smartest banquet halls of the twenty-first century."
Ha! Tesla foresaw the millennial generation:) Back in his day that POV was called "natural hygiene". These days it's called SOS free WFPB. Could universal adoption "save us from ourselves"? Perhaps, if we also replaced monoculture with permaculture and the abolition of the universal use of the "cides" in the soil and on the crops. Buuut chemical companies (including BigP) run the world. I wonder if Tesla made "The Marx Mistake" (ascribing to us greater altruism than biology allows for). If so, perhaps the basic mistake made by Tesla was an underappreciation of the role biological "instinct" plays. Yes, even in humans.
In fact I think we could say this is the biggest mistake we humans make. It's the basic form hubris takes that forces biological instinct to continue running the show. It's what allows us to continue to place growth and progress above all else (in particular technological progress, an exponential parabola running parallel to that of human population).
It's interesting Tesla should talk about religion so much, since science and technology has become the new god.
We don't need a new god, the old one (the laws and constraints of nature) is still just fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment