Hi, David and everyone, I'm afraid it will not be possible to have the discussion that is needed, here or in this format -- emails. Unfortunately, deeper face-to-face and working relationships are needed to carry this truly further. At least, this is my experience.
But I will try to respond to a couple of things you are suggesting. 1. I am NOT thinking, when I say evolution, of solely or even necessarily biological evolution. Rather I am thinking of cultural, political, economic, linguistic evolution. This does not preclude biological evolution, but this may not be a prerequisite. I would include the possibility of geographic evolution. These shifts in the human condition will, I think, be akin in magnitude to the transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculture, the emergence of cities, nation-states, international systems, etc. 2. I do not see this a Utopian/blueprint driven. If it were, it would face the unproductiveness you posit. Rather I see this as something decentralized, bottom up, people voting with their feet. The discussion that I want to have soon will focus more on the infrastructural needs that human management of human evolution will need. The communications, supportive institutionalization, educational, cognitive, infrastructure. 3. In fact, there have been several such discussions over the last years, and they have been quite productive, and, I would say, more productive than similar discussions I have had that are coded terms of our more difficult challenges, e.g. climate warming, terrorism, etc. So we don't have to speculate that such discussions can or can't be productive: we know from experiences stretching back, for me, into the late 70s, that indeed they can be and usually are highly productive. Nor is it a matter of forming an agreement or a consensus before anything is done; if this were the case, I would immediately agree with you that the inquiry would be unproductive. Rather it is a matter of many people taking the initiative, with a reality that then emerges from the collection of actions (including some that are mutually incompatible) over time. 4. Methods of whole systems analysis are emerging that are a great help in understanding complex systems, and even chaotic ones. These methods, together with linguistic meta-tools suggest to me that we humans are learning to think and analyze things in new ways. Combined with the growing awareness of the growing planetary nature of our systems suggest to me that the possibilities may be greater than you are crediting. 5. Fate! Well, I have the fortune to have avoided fates that others have predicted for me, so I guess I have more reason for positive expectations and aspirations. I like tackling big questions and have had decent success on several of them (and failures, to be sure, on others!) Human Management of human evolution is certainly the biggest of the questions. I have been working on it since the late 70s and am pleased with the progress we have made to date. Many others are working on this too. 6. certainly, human activities have the ability to harm the human condition. On the whole, there is little doubt in mind that our chances of things well are improved if we think about them and act thoughtfully, rather than leaving things up to vested interests to dominate. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding. Cheers, Lawry On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:02 PM, David Delaney wrote: > > On 2010-10-04, at 4:30 PM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: > > > Gray's is only a statement. > > DD: Well, yes, but it's informed by a deep consideration of the issues -- > consideration that is encoded in the statement, consideration that I will > unpack for you. > > > 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. > > DD: Pause for a moment to think of the implications of a project to change > human nature by intentional evolution. Would it be more or less contentious > than climate change? Population control? Would the Pope and the Mullahs be > for or against? The American evangelicals? Who would designate the human > proclivities to be eliminated or enhanced? If, after the sort of scientific > characterization that you'd think ought to precede such a project had taken > place, it were confirmed, as many suspect, that at least some of the attitude > differences between "progressives" and "conservatives" were due to genetic > variation, or to developmentally triggered differential expression of > different genetic programs for attitude, what effect would that have on the > objectives for and control of such a project? > > DD: Evolution proceeds /only/ with selection. Genetic variation is necessary > for evolution. Many sources of variation are possible, including artificial > genetic manipulation. But evolution has not happened until new or infrequent > variations have become predominant in the whole genome of the species. They > can only become predominant if they confer reproductive advantage. How will > that reproductive advantage be achieved for "new humans" in anything we would > recognize as civilization? The project would instantly, and accurately, be > called the "new eugenics". > > DD: A recent novel sequence by Margaret Atwood accurately captures the > realities of creating "new humans". (They're a good read too.) See Oryx and > Crake, and The Year of the Flood. Atwood thoroughly understands the issues, > although this fact is only implicit in the novels. They are far from didactic. > > > 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. > > DD: I'm saying, with John Gray, something quite other than the alternatives > you give: that a conception of the goals of such a project that has adequate > detail and comprehensibility for execution could not be shared by any group > bigger than a few individuals. This seems certainly true for the kind of > Utopian objectives that seem implicit in your admiration of the idea, which > means that only a totalitarian world would provide the resources necessary to > implement Utopian objectives for behavioral enhancement. The only exception > to this line of argument would seem to be goals for genetic resistance to > micro-organisms and other parasites. It seems certain, as Gray admits, that > there will be projects to produce "useful" strains of humans having > "enhanced" behaviorial proclivities, but also, as Gray says, that such > projects will be far from Utopian in their objectives, and would produce > permanent changes to the whole genome of the species (evolution) only in the > very long term, incidentally, even accidentally, and with unforeseen > consequences. > > > > > 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. > > DD: I believe such conversations could not be anything but radically > unproductive. > > > > > Your point, David, is I think somewhat different from Gray'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. > > DD: No. Not different. Identical, I like to think, even if expressed in > different words. My criticism is based not on an argued superior comparative > worth of other projects in terms of the likely payoff for work and enthusiasm > expended, but rather on the absolute unfeasibility of defining this one both > comprehensibly and acceptably, let alone getting the resources to implement > it. > > > 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. > > DD: Well, yes. But a consensus view of those matters is impossible. > > > Without this, I think, people will be trying to solve problems with tools > > and concepts that are wholly inadequate to the task. > > DD: That is our fate. > > > > 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. > > DD: Yep. > > > > > What do you think? > > > DD: Some important problems are unsolvable. > > > > 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 (10) > 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
