This essay written in November of 2000.
Now as we flush the dregs of the twentieth century where it, at last, belongs, to stalk the feral truffles of a new millenium, it might be useful to try and understand (as Gauguin would say) “who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?”
From a century notable more for excess than success, more for inhuman atrocities than human advances, we find ourselves at the threshold of the most critical phase of our development. Never before have we been so much at risk, nor so nearly had the means to avert our self-destruction. Though it may already be too late.
A definitive characteristic of humans, as a species, is our common background of protean survivability. Thus far, at least, our species has managed to get by through generalization, as opposed to specialization; adaptability beyond adaptation. It could be said that, of all living species, the human ancestral journey has exploited more different biomes than any other, and expanded into further environments where no known species has evolved, in and of itself, to survive.
One need only take note of the achievements of athletes and astronauts to observe human diversity and complexity at work. While the products of human intellect have provided not only the most powerful agencies of destruction but the expanding awareness of genetic microevolution as well.
Likewise the lessons of history clearly show the heights–and depths–of which humans are capable. No other species comes close.
The Twentieth might well become known as the century during which Stalin was able to say “Kill a man and it’s murder; kill a million and it’s a statistic.”
And then prove it.
So much for who we are and where we came from.
Interesting work has recently been published regarding parasites, their relationships with their hosts, and their combined impact on their (ineluctably) shared habitat.
That parasites had traditionally been considered the lowest form of life is an example of pre-Darwin anthropocentrism. In fact, since most parasites have been co-evolved with their hosts, the question becomes one of those “which came first, the phenotype or the genotype?” sort of paradoxes. And inasmuch as some researchers speculate that mitochondrial DNA, for example, was originally an “alien” genome (xenome?) implanted into eukaryotic cells, it may well be a more intimate relationship than has hitherto become apparent.
One chain of evidence, at least, seems clear: that parasites profoundly affect their hosts’ biologies and behaviors, and in the process can shape entire habitats. In terms of human history and culture, for instance, the Anopheles-borne malaria pathogen Plasmodium has had a crucial longterm influence.
Malaria, as noted by the CDC, has been the single greatest scourge of humanity, for a length of time sufficient to genetically affect (via sickle-cell) the human genome. Malaria has also materially constrained the societal development and physical infrastructure of nations. Thus, in the days of the Raj, the British colonials in India established their dwelling places in the cooler, drier hills, safely apart from the disease-ridden lowlands. We see the same pattern among the Spanish colonies in the Americas.
The most successful parasites, of course, are those which can cooperatively participate in the life-cycle of the host. While minimizing impairment, the parasite insures the proliferation of its genes as well as the genes of its host. Thus the biotic potential of both can be enhanced. Those parasites which kill or disable their hosts are therefore the least successful: presumably time and adaptive co-evolution would serve to improve their odds.
Note here that the word parasite is from Greek parasitos, from para, (aside, beside, beyond) and sitos, (grain, food); and that the word parabiosis refers to “anatomical and physiological union of two organisms”. So: far from being the lowest form of life, parasites are really considerably closer to the top of the food chain.
Given that our analysis of roles and relationships seems valid, and that human behaviors can be conceptualized in a similar vein, it appears that, from the planet’s viewpoint, (per the Gaia hypothesis), humanity is a sort of metaparasite. We certainly fit the criteria presented above. And human activities have altered not only the earth, but a significant portion of the solar system as well.
Which brings us to where we are going. …
Starting from where we are right now, our prospects don’t look very good. The Four Horsemen are as busy as ever; from deliberate, organized genocide (going on even as this is being written, in Sudan); to the disease of the week, unstoppable and lethal; to mass extinction, starvation, and pollution; our current inventory of woes is nothing short of appalling. All due to human actions.
The continent of Africa, where our remote ancestors are thought to have emerged, is today a threat to our whole human species. Since Africa has also been the source of the most virulent diseases, not to mention recent outbreaks of mutating viruses, and since global transportation can spread plagues literally in a matter of hours, the risk of another pandemic, much worse than the last, is greater now than it has ever been.
Clearly the wealthier nations must take action to prevent such a tragedy – before it’s too late. The policies of quarantine and triage, (by which Africa and its peoples have been isolated, or simply written off), tacitly applied for the past century or so, will no longer be nearly enough. Public health initiatives, humanitarian aid, and medical supplies and expertise must be provided for African peoples; as soon and as quickly as possible.
Yet there’s good news, as well: it’s just barely possible there may still be cause for hope. Great strides are being made, in medicine, science, and technology.
As Einstein said: “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” That pretty much covers where we are, and where we need to get to. Not a bad description of a paradigm shift.
Newton said that if he saw farther than others had, it was because “I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” Uncharacteristically modest, for him. Still, it’s just about the same as what Einstein was talking about.
For Newton time and space were disparate and absolute. Such a mechanistic framework proved quite adequate to explain the action of gravity and the laws of force and motion. Note that Newton never defined gravity or forces, but simply labeled them as measurable quantities. No need for anything more, until Einstein came along, and sure enough, he could see farther by standing on Newton’s shoulders. …
Now, for Einstein, time and space became relative; vectors on a continuum. In his relativistic model, only energy and mass are constant. Again this system works fine, up to a point. But while we, from within the spacetime continuum, see photons’ velocity as constant, from the photon’s viewpoint spacetime doesn’t exist. HereNow is all there is.
While Einstein’s best-known works (Special and General Relativity) clearly engendered a paradigm shift, his Nobel was conferred for an altogether less conspicuous (though arguably equally important) contribution–his elucidation of the Photoelectric Effect. This phenomenon of Nature comprises a more subtle, but no less dynamic, interface between Energy and Matter. Without the Photoelectric Effect plants could not synthesize sugar from Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, our eyes could not see light, and the synapses of our neurons could not fire. The Photoelectric Effect, put simply, is the quantum foundation of life as we know it: when a photon hits an atom, an electron flies out of its orbit; when an electron runs into an atom a photon is emitted. We may note that this is one quantum event which we can directly experience.
The implications, for us, are profound.
Recent experiments with slow light, coherent matter, faster-than-light matter beams, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. seem to lead to a trans-relativistic postmodern physics. There has also been recent discussion of some “new” force which accelerates cosmic expansion (the Hubble gravespin factor?) Perhaps the model of relativity, with its radiational/gravitational constants, might turn out to be a special-case phenomenon. In that case, it’s Katie bar the door!
Such speculations have elicited parallel notions concerning human evolution, human culture, and the epistemological infrastructure of our understandings of such ideas. There are many approximations of the human/technology interface; we need a precise, definitive name to call it. At any rate, the evolutionary development of this aspect of culture has accessed successive phases of matter/energy: solid to liquid to gas to plasma to Bose-Einstein condensate.
Human culture has evidently also abstractly paralleled the phase transitions between states.
Along the way, the operational conditions of that peculiarly amorphous but metastable collective delusion we call human culture have developed through their own arcane stages; from local to zonal to modal to nodal. Consilience and convergence.
In the past, inertia, ignorance, and parochialism have kept a lid on much of the science being done by young turks and iconoclasts. Today, however, the Net makes it possible to spread new ideas and concepts globally, at an unprecedented rate. For the first time, a worldwide collaboration toward radical research is not only possible but inevitable. The result is plain to see; the rate of advance is visibly accelerating.
But it all comes down to human nature in the end.
Reposted from MetaPhysics Anonymous