- How small-town America hasn’t been good for democracy;
- How conflicts like Palestine/Israel might be resolved through evolutionary concept of “competitive exclusion”;
- Quick takes about that flat Earth debate based on scripture; how different Christians claim diametrically opposite things; and Slate’s “Totally Normal Quote of the Day.”
Catching up on items from the past couple weeks. These are items I saved the links to, since they sounded interesting, but didn’t read at the time. Now I’m reading them.
AlterNet, The Conversation, 24 Nov 2023: Small-town America’s never-ending struggle to maintain its values hasn’t always been good for democracy
Really? Why would this be true? Some part of the conservative/liberal divide?
The article begins by recounting the attention given that Jason Aldean song “Try That in a Small Town,” and the placement in its video of a courthouse in Columbia, Tennessee, where the lynching of a Black teenager took place in 1927. And the racial overtones of the song, which “boldly smack of modern-day, big-city crime against old-fashioned, small-city values.” And then reviews the history of white supremacy in the South, and so on.
So: this is a decent piece that gathers several historical events not likely to be told in Southern textbooks… but otherwise there’s nothing new here.
\\
AlterNet, Bobby Azarian, 25 Nov 2023: Opinion | Evolution offers a solution for Palestine and Israel: neuroscientist
Azarian published a book earlier this year, The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity, which I haven’t read yet. (But its deep concept appeals to me.)
So what kind of solution would evolution offer? Is his idea deep or superficial? The article is about 13 screens long.
He opens discussing Israel and the Palestinians, Russia and Ukraine, and lesser tensions around the world.
Our fate, however, is hardly set in stone, thanks to our intelligence and ability to engage in reflective thinking. To prevent this nightmarish outcome, we must understand the biological, psychological and sociological forces at play, and we must use this knowledge to discover a solution. If we can see where we are headed as a world system of nations and cultures, then in theory we should be able to use our collective agency to steer civilization toward a more peaceful outcome.
Let’s begin our ambitious task by getting an understanding of why such conflicts emerge in the first place, from an evolutionary perspective.
Good so far. Then he introduces a principle called “competitive exclusion,” a term I had not heard of, but which is implied by Darwin’s evolution and which has its own Wikipedia page.
The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is a well-established concept in ecology which says that two distinct species occupying the same niche and competing for the same resources cannot stably coexist. The ongoing conflict will eventually lead to one group’s extinction or removal from the niche.
This principle is an expression of the harsh reality of natural selection, and if the agents involved in such a conflict don’t have the ability to understand this dynamic, they will not be able to avoid falling into it.
The Principle of Competitive Exclusion can also be applied to hominids, the family of primates that includes modern humans, our ancestors and other human species, such as Neanderthals. Evidence from paleoanthropology suggests that this dynamic played a significant role in our own evolutionary history; the competition for niches is believed to have been a contributing factor to the extinction of other hominid species as Homo sapiens became more dominant.
(Again, for people who don’t “believe” in evolution: all it takes is a natural ecology where competing species exist for this to happen. It’s inevitable.)
And how the Israel/Palestine conflict is a perfect example, albeit among members of the same species. Then the writer becomes optimistic:
Fortunately, humanity’s unique cognitive abilities offer a pathway beyond the seemingly inevitable conclusion of competitive exclusion. Humans possess a profound capacity for reflection, for conscious deliberation and for transcendence beyond instinctual reactions. This higher level of consciousness, a product of a more developed prefrontal cortex, allows us to recognize the artificial nature of these pseudospecies barriers and the shared lineage that unites us. It is this cognitive trait that offers a path beyond the zero-sum game of competitive exclusion, because it gives us the ability to alter our worldview when it becomes clear that it needs updating.
And so his solution is…
A unifying worldview: human civilization as a ‘superorganism’
To move forward as a single species, the relevant science suggests that we must consciously embrace a new universal worldview.
This worldview, inspired by evolutionary theory and an approach to problem solving called “systems thinking,” would recognize the interconnectedness of all human beings, not merely as a moral ideal, but as a practical reality. It would be rooted in the understanding that we are all part of an emerging global superorganism, an integrated network of lives and destinies that are inextricably linked.
My reaction: well, yes, of course, this is what progressives (and science fiction folks) have always foreseen. A global ethos, he goes on. It’s inevitable in the long run, or our species will not survive. But how, in the near-term, do we get warring parties, and conservatives, on board with this? You have to think about individual people, with vested interests in their culture and family, often with deep grievances against their enemies, and even the government. How does a global ethos come about?
He returns to the Middle East. How does this perspective apply?
First, it instantly eliminates solutions that would involve a competitive exclusion-style outcome, where one ethnic group pushes the other out of the region entirely.
…
A “two-state solution” is the most widely supported international framework, and it envisions an independent State of Israel and an independent State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security.…
Even more integrative would be a “one-state solution” that doesn’t entail the dark consequences of the Competitive Exclusion Principle. This resolution would create a single state that includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, where all inhabitants have equal rights. It could be a “bi-national state,” a single democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal representation and protections under the law, maintaining their distinct national identities. Or, it could be a one-state solution where the state is secular, with no official religion or national identity, ensuring equal rights for all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion.
Like what the United States was intended to be. This hasn’t stopped partisan and religious factions from trying to take over, as we are currently seeing in the US.
In conclusion, while the Principle of Competitive Exclusion explains much of the biological world and our ancestral history, it need not dictate our future. By recognizing our shared identity and common goals, we can override the primitive instincts that drive us apart. We can choose to foster a world where cultural and ideological diversity enriches rather than divides, where cooperation and mutual understanding prevail. It is through this enlightened approach that humanity can move past the archaic boundaries of pseudospecies and toward a unified, peaceful coexistence.
\\\
Closing for tonight with some quick takes. The first is a follow-up to an item I mentioned a week ago, here, about a Biblical debate about whether the Earth is round or flat.
Joe.My.God, 9 Dec 2023: Hate Pastors’ “Flat Earth Debate” Ends In “Profanities, Weed Smoking, Rammed Cars, And Police Involvement”
This doesn’t surprise me, considering how these debates have no basis in evidence or fact. (Only scripture, with its multitude of contradictions.)
\\
Similarly:
LGBTQNation, 9 Dec 2023: Liberal Christian minister says Mike Johnson is evil & is being controlled by the devil, subtitled “Nathaniel Manderson wrote that the most evil among us tend to be those who ‘loudly claim to be pure and good.'”
How is one to know which religious leader is right, since they seem to claim so many diametrically opposite things? Based on what? This is how religion, and politics works. Unlike…
\\
Worth bookmarking. Are they being fair? There are two items in to the top 20 about Biden or a Democrat.
Slate, Totally Normal Quote of the Day.
