Bedside Reading 2
We are unique
from “This Will Make You Smarter” edited by John Brockman
Marcelo Gleiser Appleton Professor of Natural Philosophy and Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College
Gleiser’s response to the Edge question of 2011 ‘ What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit?”
“This concept must affect the way we perceive who we are and why we are here. It should redefine the way we live our lives and plan for our collective future. This concept must make clear that we matter”
“…. the notion that we humans on a rare planet are unique and uniquely important.”
“I will argue that modern science, traditionally considered guilty of reducing our existence to a pointless accident in an indifferent universe, is actually saying the opposite. Whereas it does say we are an accident in an indifferent universe, it also says that we are a rare accident and thus not pointless.”
A counter view is that we are finding more and more exoplanets, and the laws of physics and chemistry are the same across the universe so there are many possibilities for life to be common. But this does not presume intelligent life.
“… the existence of single-celled organisms doesn’t necessarily lead to that of multicellular ones much less than to that of intelligent multicellular ones.”
“As we look at planet earth and the factors that enable us to be here, we quickly realise that our planet is special. Here’s a short list
- the long-term existence of a protective and oxygen-rich atmosphere
- the ozone layer
- the magnetic field protecting from lethal cosmic radiation
- Earth’s axial tilt stabilized by a single large moon
- plate tectonics which regulates the levels of carbon dioxide and keeps the global temperature stable
- Our sun as a smallish fairly stable star.
consequently its rather naive to expect life – at the complexity level that exists here – to be ubiquitous across the universe.”
Nothing to disagree with here. Despite our insignificance on the cosmic scale it is not hubris to consider ourselves unique within our own back-yard as intelligent life and more so whilst we wait confirmation [if any is possible] about our own solar system and stellar neighbourhood. So whilst accepting a Copernican viewpoint on all matters regarding space, as a life form, we should have an attitude towards our continued existence and evolution that whilst not teleological should act as if it is a precious but random gift.
This essay goes hand in hand with the earlier one by Martin Rees.
Deep Time and the Far Future
Dr Martin Rees President Emeritus, The Royal Society; Professor of cosmology & astrophysics; master Trinity College, University of Cambridge and author
Essay From “This will make you smarter” edited John Brockman
Rees’ response to the Edge question of 2011 ‘ What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit?”
Starts with the following proposition and related facts before making some speculations about our future.
- “We need to extend our time horizons. Especially, we need deeper and wider awareness that far more time lies ahead than has elapsed up to now.
- “Our present biosphere is the outcome of about 4 billion years of evolution, and we can trace cosmic history right back to a Big Bang that happened about 13.7 billion years ago.
- “.. the immense time horizons that stretch ahead – though familiar to every astronomer – haven’t permeated our culture to the same extent.
“our sun is less than half way through its life. It formed 4.5 billion years ago, but it’s got 6 billion more years before the fuel runs out.
- …”most people – and not only those for those whose views are enshrined in religious beliefs – envisage humans as in some sense the culmination of evolution”
- There is abundant time for post human evolution, here on earth, or far beyond, organic or inorganic, to give rise to far more diversity and even greater qualitative changes than those that have lead from single celled organisms to humans.”
- Future evolution will see the millennia slow rate of Darwinian selection overtaken by an accelerated rate of genetic modification and rise of machine intelligence… “and forced by the drastic environmental pressures that would confront any humans who were to construct habitats beyond the Earth.”
- “Humans surely are not the terminal branch of an evolutionary tree but a species that emerged early in cosmic history, with special promise for diverse evolution.
“We humans are entitled to feel uniquely important, as the the first known species with the power to mould its evolutionary legacy.”
I find nothing to criticise. His main point about Time is true and we have a very small perspective on time. We plan and act within our individual life spans although the consequences of our acts span generations. Perhaps most our personal concerns stretch towards is the life of our grand children. From a collective societal or cultural perspective even that view I suggest gets diluted.
Maybe in our past, we had a tribal affiliation that went beyond or was more extensive than pure blood line. Maybe we were better at acting in the now in a way that we considered would be better for our tribes future. Individual over the collective. Whatever, it’s something we struggle with. Consider current dilemma over Global Warming. We don’t seem to be hard wired to think rationally, dispassionately and globally.
Can we learn to? Can we develop morals, values, and ethos that takes into account both humanity and its environment?
I think it is necessary for our survival that we do. I fear we don’t have many generations left to us. In terms of Rees’ Deep Time and the Future survival is a constant achievement. Perhaps we could stagnate and survive. Keep the Earths population to say 2 or 3 billion people at most and ration our resources to eke them out over a longer time span.
Could be idyllic, happy if we changed some parts of our nature. But would not likely stretch far into the time frame Rees presents to us.
Of course, such a future would mean we survive one of natures bottle- necks such as devastating global warming. As I’ve suggested above I don’t see any of us volunteering to get off our small little raft to save those who remain.
We could seize control from Nature of our own selection. Would we, do we have the maturity, the moral values, and ethos that would allow us and guide us to do so beneficially for ourselves and our environment. Our control of the Nuclear Gene is temperamental and fragile and does not bode well so far for the challenge genetic manipulation and the next probable great advance of artificial/machine intelligence must present. I say must because I don’t think we can or should hold back crossing these thresholds. They are emerging powers that could affect our survival for good or ill not because of any inherent quality in and of themselves but by the way we choose to interact with and use them.
For myself, I think we need to use our new tools/knowledge to expand our domain off the planet. We could have [eventually] a 2 billion Earth with an ecology we husband to enhance diversity and sustainability. The rest of world. Yes we would have to re design ourselves and the environments we live in and it would take time but as Rees points out we do have that.
Does need the vision desire and a global unity to carry it off. Can’t see a single nation or a group like the Pilgrims achieving it but applaud Elon Musk’s pursuit of the vision with Space X and colonisation of Mars, as the vision and the technology needed must be kept alive to at least give future generations the option.
Just posted a reference to Habits. One of which is to read more. I think I have this one well established though I hassle myself about reading more, I have a gluttonous approach to books. But a habit I could develop, which I don’t currently practice, would be to read before I fall asleep. Once my body stretches onto the mattress and my head sinks into the pillow I have little difficulty in slipping into sleep. Reading may require more of my conscious attention than I am able to give it.
Nevertheless, I can identify small but complete readings, essays, poetry, short stories, which I predict I can fit in. The first book of essays I have picked for this habit-forming is “This will make you smarter” edited by John Brockman, a collection of essays on responses to the question “What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit?”. [A very close second was “Arguably” by Christopher Hitchens which I may go on to if I am successful.]
The structure leads nicely to a sort of meditation on the world which, I think, will stimulate me into responding.