Greetings, David and everyone, Gray's is only a statement. The question is whether there is any merit to it, and to sort that out a fairly thoughtful and deep discussion will be needed. Gray takes one position; I would take one almost diametrically opposite, but for one possibility: that humankind might, as Gray suggests, fail to raise to the challenge and the opportunity of managing our own evolution. True, this will be a major break from the past patterns of evolution. But that doesn't mean it can't or should not be done. It is to say that doing so would entail something radically new in the history of this planet. Many will say it can't be done; many will say it shouldn't be tried. And that is why the discussion I am hoping for is important to have.
I am thinking of planning such a discussion within the coming months -- face-to-face, a fairly small group of people who not only have relevant ideas (pro and con) but a deep curiosity about the ideas of others. Several days in an attractive location. Your point, David, is I think somewhat different from Gary's. As I understand what you are saying, tackling the challenges facing humanity issue by issue is more likely to be fruitful that looking at the whole enterprise of human management of human evolution per se. I don't diminish the importance of these individual challenges, but would suggest that understanding the activities and dynamics of our species as a whole (and in relationship to the rest of the planet) may actually have everything to do with whether we can be successful in addressing the individual challenges. We need, I feel, an overview, and sense of the overall capacities of our species, and a deepened sense of what it means to be a species. Without this, I think, people will be trying to solve problems with tools and concepts that are wholly inadequate to the task. I think that problems can only be solved at the level they are coded, and many of the problems we have identified as being critical are coded at the level of our species per se, rather than at the level of countries, or localities, or sub-portions of our population, or sub-endeavors and specializations of our species, e.g. education, transportation, health, etc. What do you think? Cheers, Lawry On Oct 3, 2010, at 3:59 PM, David Delaney wrote: > > On 2010-10-03, at 1:10 PM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: > > > This leads into a very important discussion: the extent to which mankind > > can and should become consciously and actively involved in guiding its > > evolutionary future. I have been working on this for the last three decades > > and believe there is no more vital a question before us than this one. > ------------------ > Well, first, there is nothing in this thread so far that would lead to such a > discussion except possibly a re-interpretation of the title of the NP article > that was its original subject. But this is a cavil. > > Second, and much more importantly, the question of guided human evolution is > essentially empty of useful content, except possibly to produce a cautionary > admonition against it. Discussions of guided human evolution have far less > likelihood of leading to positive consequential outcomes than, for example, > discussions of population control, or ending economic growth. I cannot do > better than to quote John Gray, from Straw Dogs: > > /Excerpt. From John Gray's "Straw Dogs", Granta Publications, 2002, pp. 5-6: > > THE MIRAGE OF CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION > > Humans are the most adventitious of creatures--a result of blind evolutionary > drift. Yet, with the power of genetic engineering, we need no longer be ruled > by chance. Humankind -- so we are told -- can shape its own future. According > to E.O. Wilson, conscious control of human evolution is not only possible but > inevitable: > > > ...[G]enetic evolution is about to become conscious and volitional, and > > usher in a new epoch in the history of life. ...The prospect of this > > 'volitional evolution' -- a species deciding what to do about its own > > heredity -- will present the most profound intellectual and ethical > > choices, humanity has ever faced. ...[H]umanity will be positioned godlike > > to take control of its own ultimate fate. It can, if it chooses, alter not > > just the anatomy and intelligence of the species but also the emotions and > > creative drive that compose the very core of human nature. > > > The author of this passage is the greatest contemporary Darwinian. He has > been attacked by biologists and social scientists who believe that the human > species is not governed by the same laws as other animals. In that war Wilson > is undoubtedly on the side of truth. Yet the prospect of conscious human > evolution he invokes is a mirage. The idea of humanity taking charge of its > destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the > species; but Darwin's discovery was that species are only currents in the > drift of genes. The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it > is exempt from this truth. > > It seems feasible that over the coming century human nature will be > scientifically remodelled. If so, it will be done haphazardly, as an upshot > of struggles in the murky realm where big business, organised crime, and the > hidden parts of government vie for control. If the human species is > re-engineered it will not be the result of humanity assuming a godlike > control of its destiny. It will be another twist in man's fate. > > /End excerpt > __._,_.___ > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > Messages in this topic (6) > RECENT ACTIVITY: > Visit Your Group > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > . > > __,_._,___
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
