Today's New York Times carries an oped "The Riddle of the Human Species<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/the-riddle-of-the-human-species/>" by E. O. Wilson in which he goes outlines the thesis of his book "The Social Conquest of Earth" regarding the evolution of eusociality in humans. As expected from his religious dogma, he refuses a frontal confrontation with the conflict between human eusociality's ecological dominance and the rest of the biosphere -- exemplified by his closing paragraph:
We will also, I believe, take a more serious look at our place in nature. Exalted we are indeed, risen to be the mind of the biosphere without a doubt, our spirits capable of awe and ever more breathtaking leaps of imagination. But we are still part of earth’s fauna and flora. We are bound to it by emotion, physiology, and not least, deep history. It is dangerous to think of this planet as a way station to a better world, or continue to convert it into a literal, human-engineered spaceship. Contrary to general opinion, demons and gods do not vie for our allegiance. We are self-made, independent, alone and fragile. Self-understanding is what counts for long-term survival, both for individuals and for the species. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the event that anyone is interested in the opinion of what many believe > to be the world's foremost living naturalist, E. O. Wilson, it is worth > getting his latest book "The Social Conquest of Earth" wherein he describes > the phenomenon of eusociality -- whether in animals or humans -- as a > driver of ecological dominance. In particular, human eusociality as > exhibited by the extremes of specialization of technological civilization, > does represent a potential threat to all life on the planet including > itself. > > In my taxonomy, "institutional incompetence" is a symptom of technological > civilization viewed as a multicellular organism, the primary "cells" of > which are erstwhile human beings. I say "erstwhile" in the sense that we > really can't think of the beings who have sacrificed their individual > integrity on behalf of nascent institutional integrity as separable > organisms anymore -- which is why so many "humans" behave in such > incomprehensible ways: they aren't humans -- they are parts. > > The problem is that unlike the billions of years leading up to the > evolution of meiotic reproduction via haploid gametes (sex) as the ultimate > expression of multicellular "eusociality", we have had only a blink of the > eye to evolve institutional integrity. > > E. O. Wilson ends his book on a "hopeful" note that seems to me to be more > an expression of religious dogma than anything resembling even true > religiousity. We have to grow up and we have to do so fast. > > My answer is to sort proponents of political theories into governments > that test them: Sortocracy <http://sortocracy.org>. This has the added > "side" benefit of enforcing strict consent of the *individual* against > group preferences -- group preferences as expressed in, say, liberal > democracy among a wide array of other eusocial semi-organisms. > > A feature of sortocracy is that individuals who refuse to fit into any > body politic can be relegated to nature with the recognition that human > eusociality must be vigorously suppressed in human societies that are to > coexist with nature. This can be thought of as "using" nature as a > substitute for prisons while also using nature to evolve humans more > predisposed toward individual integrity that will co-exist with nature > without subjecting nature to the social conquest nature. > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite >> view as you normally do? >> >> My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to destroy >> all life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The only question >> is whether these means will be used. That is where the nature of the mind >> and its irrational features become important. Will the leaders be able to >> control insanity in the population effectively or will these leaders be >> insane themselves? People in the US are now trying to find ways to control >> the insanity that occurs on a small but growing scale, which shows itself >> most vividly when schools are shot up. How do we control the insanity that >> the suicide bomber exhibits by exploding car bombs in the heart of a city? >> Where does the insanity of leaders in North Korea end? Now, as you note, >> drones may give everyone a tool to gum up the works. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will >>> continue to do so into the future. >> >> >> I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived >> countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? >> >> In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much >> difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were >> wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face >> of artillery and poison gas. >> >> Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, >> for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot >> killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very >> cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I >> mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without >> leaving a trace of evidence. Think about *that* if you want a case of >> the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political >> leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and >> film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for >> one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . >> >> I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I >> left out some, too. >> >> I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear >> bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. >> I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin >> Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal >> with the problem. There may not be any good way! >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >
