Humanity has problems, of course, because humanity is a collection of barely evolved apes, in the possession, nonetheless, of incredible technology. The only enduring solution to this problem is for humanity to evolve, both culturally and biologically. But just as the invention of technology has not been a haphazard affair, neither must be the further evolution of humanity.
In fact, given present geo-political dynamics, it is far from clear that humanity could evolve without a very conscious attempt to adapt. Normally evolution requires a large number of relatively distinct, cohesive actors competing and, at times, cooperating, over a long period of time. Given the diffuse nature of cultural beliefs, practice and enforcement, it is quite unclear who or what are the independent actors among humanity. One might argue that each of the nations represents one, but there are only a couple hundred of these, and even these are hardly distinct, due to human migration and the complex dynamics of international and economic relations. Moreover, since most individuals survive the "death" of a nation, the interests of the individuals are not really aligned with that of each nation (as they are in the case of the individual cells that make up an organism, for example). Therefore, individual humans are in fact likely to slowly evolve separately from culture, becoming, most likely, more selfish and culturally less conscious: i.e. more apelike and less human.
Perhaps most significantly, there is little time. even in the best circumstances, evolution requires hundreds of generations. when an environment changes radically over a short period of time, it is far more likely to cause mass extinction than mass adaptation. Therefore it seems foolhardy to cling to the hope that humanity will sort out its present mess without a careful, rational, and strategic effort. If the problem of culture and humanity is left to sort itself out, it will likely do so by extinguishing itself.
What I propose, in short, is the erection of a new social and biological science, similar to what is already going on in those sciences already, but focused on a producing a foundation to enable a "technology" of cultural engineering. This technology would allow the rational creation of new cultures, including even the altering of human instincts, with an aim to evolving humanity past its current degenerative and self-destruction condition. Most likely, this science would suggest it is important to have a lot more distinct groups, and thus it would probably aim at finding ways to allow people to organize themselves into distinct groups of less than, say, 100 thousand, possibly much less.
Of course the idea of creating culture and value rationally and synthetically is bound to be controversial, as it seems like an unprecedented and dangerous activity. indeed, large-scale attempts have been made at this sort of thing, and some have shown just how awful the outcome can be (communism and national socialism). One positive example of this kind of synthetic approach, however, is the founding of the government of united states, the core culture of which is enshrined in its constitution and other founding documents. Ultimately, the united states may be corrupt and degenerative in its own way, but its relative success shows what is possible with a careful, rational approach.
This is a very rough introduction to the intellectual agenda I am advocating, and a lot of questions remain. Why should we be concerned with the evolution, adaptation, and survival of humanity in the first place? And what do we mean by evolution, survival, and adaptation (or, more properly put, what should we mean)? Is it appropriate to "play god" by synthetically producing cultures? To what extent should culture be produced scientifically, and to what extent should it be an artistic affair? Is a social science like that suggested really possible? What might it look like? How will people be convinced to adopt the values of new cultures it eventually produces? How will the necessary resources, especially intellectual resources, be obtained and coordinated in order to found such a science? I will address these questions in later posts.
4 comments:
A philosopher might publish a book and get many followers, and thus found a cult or culture, but it's sketchy when it's a scientific institution. Institutionalizing values is scary - it reminds me of corrupted religions. Institutions have power over individuals. What if your gourmet restaurant turns into a fast food chain?
As you say, it's a dangerous undertaking, and whether it's worth it I'm not sure. Things might sort themselves out, after all, through serendipity - Which is really the greater risk?
first off, i never said that values would come from or be enforced by a scientific institution. the purpose of science in all of this is just to explore and understand the likely ramifications of a given set of values on a set of people who might adopt them. it is out of place for science to be creating the values themselves.
what i imagine is one or more people inventing a value system, knowing scientifically that it will help anyone following it survive, and trying to establish groups that follow those rules. i would imagine this would normally be a voluntary affair: if you don't like the group/rules, then you leave. so it is similar to a the establishment of a religion, but more rational. in fact, it is more like the social contract of which rosseua and locke speak of, except, actually explicit.
it is also important to stress the probable small group nature of the whole thing. i think it would be far to dangerous to try and establish such social novelties over huge numbers of people. but with thousands of small groups with their own rules, i think things would work out.
as for things sorting themselves out, i think we would at least need to understand by what means things will just "sort themselves out". otherwise, this is like remaining complacent while your house is on fire, or like praying to god to save you from a disease, instead of checking in with a hospital.
as a quick aside, if you're ever looking for some light reading, 'the diamond age' by neal stephenson explores some of what might happen when modern people start to re-discover the technology of engineered culture. pretty cool geek book in any case.
as a non-aside, i'd be interested in hearing some hypothetical implementations of your idea. what would be distinct about them from those social orders that have already formed? the scientific as opposed to religious aspect?
sounds very interesting, i'll check it out.
it's hard to say, a priori, before the science exists, what the societies might look like. but i can guess, based on intuition.
one society might, for example, try to resemble a cell: it would have a hard "shell" of some sort to protect it from nuclear blasts and other dangers, a means of acquiring raw resources and producing energy, a planned life cycle for the entire society (growth, reproduction, and death), an organization and set of rules for all its members, and a clear system of justice to enforce those rules. the types of societies that may emerge could differ greatly from modern civilization, since they would form after having brought into question all its commonly taken for granted morality, from basic moral rules like "thou shalt not kill" and standards of behavior like monogamy to ideals like equality and freedom. that doesn't necessarily mean these rules wouldn't exist in other societies (we can't know until the values are properly questioned), but whatever rules and ideals did exist would be on a far sounder footing and would be enforced a fair system of justice.
moreover, it is basically inevitable, as science and technology further advances, people will integrate more technology into themselves (neuro-chips) and greatly modify their dna sequences. unless this process is controlled in some manner, the results will be disastrous. as far as i can tell, the only way to properly guide this transformation is to form rational societies that can agree on basic rules and enforce them properly, otherwise it will quickly devolve into a free-for-all, as people modify themselves to become so powerful and different that the traditional mores and laws of society simply begun irrelevant.
Post a Comment