On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:37 AM, Robert Howard wrote:
“I think we will outlive every other species on the planet, even if
we have to escape it, leaving a burnt-out cinder behind. “
The meek shall inherit the Earth. The strong will leave.
The strong will leave?
While I realize that the Star Trek movie opens on May 8th, I think
we're a long way from Gerard O'Neill's fantasies of mass emigration
into space, which if you recall were being *seriously* debated in the
1970's. IMHO, the idea of extraterrestrial emigration also presumes a
level of cultural, political, economic, and social stability that may
not be present as humanity pushes the limits of increasing population
and diminishing resources (while we try to develop the technology
necessary to move into space). What we have are the ingredients of a
recipe for conflict and not interstellar travel, unless I'm mistaken
(I hope I am!). We might evolve a material culture stable enough to
achieve such technologies (terraforming, intergalactic travel), we
might not. Time will tell. The way things are going now, it seems
pretty far fetched to me, but perhaps I'm mistaken in having an equal
belief in homo sapiens capacity for self-deception and human
creativity. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/02/29/segments/92437
Taking another perspective, I personally think I (we) ought to learn
to live reasonably on this planet prior to exporting my dysfunction
elsewhere. Do we abandon Earth like a bad marriage after
contaminating it (Wall-E) or face and resolve our problems before
moving out into the galaxy and beyond? One stratagem implies growth
and potential maturity (personal/plural) to me, the other does not.
For me the question is not so much merely "what can we achieve?, where
can we go?" but "what do we become in the process?" Just because we
*can* clone organisms doesn't mean we should. We act, think, and make
decisions that affect all life on this planet, yet the danger of human
solipsistic thinking is that I/we overlook our relationships to the
rest of the planetary biology as we transform habitats and cause
extinctions (Dodo, Thylacine, etc.). Agreeing with some points
outlined in David Abram's book "Spell of the Sensuous", our self-
concept is in part defined by perception, in no small part through
relation to others (human and non-human). It seems to me that to
ignore this might not constitute positive development for the
individual/collective.
The idea of restricting science doesn't appeal to me any more than
censorship, book-burning, fascism, nor totalitarianism.....but then
neither does a world of genetic caste system due to designer babies http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/designer.babies/index.html
or a world run by people who seem to elevate curiosity above moral
and intellectual sensibility, empathy, and common sense. What I mean
by this is that I fall more in the Jaron Lanier and Bill Joy camp in
terms of us risking a future dystopia (e.g. Joy's article "Why the
Future Doesn't Need Us"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_future_doesn't_need_us)
than believing that the likes of Ray Kurzweil and Hugo de Garis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Garis
) ought to run the world. I have met many people far smarter than
I'll ever be at SFI and elsewhere, but some individuals lack a
corresponding empathy, ethical sensibility, and moral compass to
accompany their intellectual brilliance.
A problem we face is the ability of modern technologies (genomics,
engineered crops, nanotechnology, etc.) to affect entire populations
while such cascading decisions are left to the increasingly few. I'm
not sure this is a healthy thing as we move forward. I'm not clever
enough to claim to have a working model of what sensible regulation of
human technologies would look like, but it's clear to me that there
are some very bright people in the world who I fear don't possess the
ethical makeup to make responsible decisions that are affecting all of
us (Life...not just people).
One of my daily rituals is to silently hope I'm wrong...and that our
future will be a bright one in which technology is applied in healthy,
appropriate ways and we see a reduction in harm and increase in
benefit for the biology of the planet. I hold the picture of a green
world in which success is measured in the health of people,
ecosystems, and the amount of laughter heard in communities (rather
than success being measured in dollars). I would rather not escape
leaving a burned-out cinder behind because the way I see it, if I am
part of that future I may very well lose myself in the process. What
interests me is that we live in a nation which nearly deifies
individualism. I'm all for self-expression that doesn't harm others,
but I also wonder what role self-restraint plays in growth and human
development? There are more materially primitive societies on Earth
where people seem healthier (Ikaria) and happier to me. For 19 years
my professional identity has been that of a technologist, but I'm
highly skeptical of the notions of science and technology as
panaceas. I have often wondered if Bill Mollison's suggestion that we
simply apply our existing knowledge wouldn't yield better results than
our current obsession with marching behind more technology and
convincing ourselves that it represents progress. What is progress?
I return to my hope that the new definition of success will include
biodiversity and a laughter meter in each community, with more
footpaths and bicycles and fewer automobiles and smog.
Lastly, as someone who is well-acquainted with self-doubt...I often
find myself reading threads in this forum with great interest, yet not
responding for fear of the reaction; but I think these are important
questions....and as much questions of individual/collective human
development as intergalactic travel, and I'm interested to know what
more of you think about these issues?
-Nick
----------------------------------------
Nicholas S. Frost
7 Avenida Vista Grande #325
Santa Fe, NM 87508
ni...@nickorama.com
----------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
