Earlier posts: Post 1; Post 2; Post 3; Post 4; Post 5; Post 6; Post 7; Post 8; Post 9; Post 10.
Chapter 12, To What End?
Wilson’s final chapter ponders options for humanity’s future, and comes down on the side of “existential conservatism.” And since it is about humanity’s future, the chapter has some things to say about the themes of science fiction.
Key points in this chapter:
- The big questions are: what we are, where do we come from, and how shall we decide where we go. Neither theology nor western philosophy has done well answering them.
- There are two risks in gaining this understanding. One: knowledge leads to increase in numbers, the diminishment of the natural world, and technology become a prosthesis. Two: it brings the prospect of altering the biological nature of the human species.
- Natural selection isn’t really still at work among humans. What is happening is a global homogenization.
- We face an age of ‘volitional’ evolution, in which with gene therapy we can both cure diseases and engineer improvements. What ‘improvements’ will people choose?
- The answer will reflect our environment ethic: do we think we are adapted to one specific environment? Or that we are outside the natural world and are able to overcome any limits?
- Wilson summarizes the current state of the environment [remember this is 1998]: global population rising, eating up the planet’s resources, nearing the limits of food and water supplies, changing the environment. Exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet.
- It’s too late to return to Paleolithic serenity; the goal must be sustainability. Economists, who preach endless growth and pretend the environment doesn’t exist, are part of the problem.
- Wilson pleads for preserving “Creation,” i.e. the environment, the biodiversity. Humanity is driving other species to extinction.
- “The legacy of the Enlightenment is the belief that entirely on our own we can know, and in knowing, understand, and in understanding, choose wisely.”
- What does it all mean? Considering our deepest roots, Wilson comes down on the side of existential conservatism. “This is what it all means. To the extent that we depend on prosthetic devices to keep ourselves and the biosphere alive, we will render everything fragile. To the extent that we banish the rest of life, we will impoverish our own species for all time. And if we should surrender our genetic nature to machine-aided ratiocination, and our ethics and art and our very meaning to a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress, imagining ourselves godlike and absolved from our ancient heritage, we will become nothing.”
Comments:
- His point about the environmental ethic reflects the common ethic of science fiction: that yes, humans can accomplish anything they want, overcome any obstacle. Except that some SF writers have begun to realize this may not be true, as in KSR’s Aurora, and perhaps the Mundane SF movement.
- Wilson has addressed some of the ideas here in later books, e.g. The Creation (2006) and Half-Earth (2016), the latter reviewed here.
- It’s a bit surprising to read Wilson saying, essentially, abandon progress lest we de-humanize ourselves, though given the existential threats to the planet and therefore ourselves, he makes a reasonable case. (Still, he mentions p277.3 that by “conservatism” he doesn’t mean “the pietistic and selfish libertarianism” characterizing modern American conservatives.)
- His summary of the arts here rationalizes fantasy; SF is his “all physically possible worlds” while fantasy is “all conceivable worlds innately interesting and congenial to the nervous system and thus, in the uniquely human sense, true.”
- Likely from reading this book the first time some 20 years ago, some of his ideas became distilled in my Provisional Conclusions, first written up in 2015. E.g., the growing homogeneity of the race (PvC #10), and most people’s concern for the mundane matter of daily living and not anything about the world at large (PvC #12).
*
Summary:
Wilson summarizes his argument that there is only one class of explanation for many phenomena. Consilience: a seamless web of cause and effect. It’s been done in the brain sciences and evolutionary biology, and there’s no reason it won’t extend into all the great branches of learning.
Author realizes that reductionism is not popular outside the natural sciences. But science isn’t so concerned by fundamental laws as they fear, but rather with synthesis, or ‘holism,’ in many areas. The frontiers of the human condition and the natural sciences are the same. They journey to fill all the gaps among the systems may be long, or it may be endless. And arts “which embrace not only all physically possible worlds but also all conceivable worlds innately interesting and congenial to the nervous system and thus, in the uniquely human sense, true.” 268.4 While the public respects science but is baffled by it, and prefers science fiction and fantasy and pseudoscience, 268.6. While what really matters to people are are sex, family, security, entertainment, etc.
This unification will lead to synthesis – making sense of all the information we’re drowned in. We need wisdom to answer the big questions: what are we, where do we come from, how shall we decide where to go? 269m. Theology has not kept up; it has done badly … western philosophy isn’t much better.
P270, Is there a whiff of Faust here? Marlowe and Goethe. We have moved beyond them. There are two such bargains now. First, the Ratchet of Progress: knowledge leads to increase in numbers, the diminishment of the natural world; technology becomes a prosthesis. Second, the coming prospect of altering the biological nature of the human species. Let’s consider these.
P271. On the second issue. Is natural selection still operating on humans? Yes and no. There doesn’t seem to be evidence of any genetic change. The one global change is the shift in racial traits. And a few local quirks. Such as hereditary diseases and other traits. The big story is homogenization, through immigration and interbreeding. This is irreversible. Eventually people all around the world will look the same. Unless conscious decisions to do otherwise. This idea of a species deciding its own heredity is a profound ethical matter. Already, sheep are cloned and DNA is being altered. Humanity will be in a position to alter its own fate. It will be the third period of human evolution, following historical evolution over ten thousand years, then with the advent of modern medicine and the ability to cure genetic diseases. This is the age of medical prosthesis. This age will not last long. The third is ‘volitional’ evolution. This involves gene therapy, again to address various diseases. Beyond that, should people be allowed to mutate themselves and their descendants? To, say, enhance mathematical ability, or athletic talent? Ensure heterosexuality? 276b. Increase longevity? This would have vast social consequences. At the same time the true meaning of conservatism will become apparent. (277.3) Author predicts future generations will be genetically conservative.
277.7 The ultimate question is, to what end, or ends, if any, should human genius direct itself? This is key to our environmental ethic. There are two opposing human self-images: one, that we are adapted to one specific environment, that we think of as beautiful. The other is that humans are exceptional and exists apart from the natural world and holds dominion over it; that we can overcome any limits to human expansion. We could say the latter view is that of a new species, Homo proteus, defined 278.8, including thoughts of colonizing space. Contrast definition of Homo sapiens, wise man, 278.9. The latter idea was tested with Biosphere in the early 1990s. Eight volunteers lasted two full years, but with difficulties.
Author summarizes current state of the environment, 280.5. Is he being an alarmist? But these conclusions are becoming conventional opinion. It is no longer controversial as media coverage suggests. Projections, p281. How many people can the world support? Depends on the quality of life. The current lifestyle of the middle classes cannot be sustained. The whole world will never get there. We don’t realize how badly off the poor around the world really are. Will technology solve the problem? But the resources of Earth are finite. The best arable land is already in use. 283m. There is limited water. Aquifers are being drained. The sea? No. Fisheries are collapsing. And then there’s climate change, 285t. Some disputes remain. But the consensus is 1 to 3.5 degrees C rise in average temps by 2100. Ice shelves will melt. Heat waves. And so on, p286. To summarize: we’ll run out of food and water before we run out of minerals and energy. To bet that we’ll figure something out is a gamble. We’re approaching an environmental bottleneck like those that may have brought about civilizational collapse before. (He cites Diamond here.) The idea is that of carrying capacity – the population an environment will support. Example of Rwanda—it wasn’t just about an ethnic rivalry, but a reaction to population growth. If we can achieve negative population growth, there may be hope. There may be technological fixed, 289t, but they carry risks.
It’s too late for those who dream of Paleolithic serenity. And the environmentalists and exemptionalists must get together. The goal is sustainability. A summit in 1992 made some progress. Two concepts are key: decarbonization, and dematerialization (the reduction in bulk of hardware). The biggest obstacle is the myopia of professional economists. They make recommendations as if there is no environment. Example quote p291. An example of indefinite economic growth. This may be advised for certain countries. Economists seldom do full-cost accounting.
Author also pleads for a powerful conservation ethic. We must preserve the Creation – maintain biodiversity. We are witnessing mass extinctions. Particular zones have been identified for attention. Current estimates of the rate of extinction are 100 to 1000 times faster than they were before Homo sapiens. There’s no one cause. The loss is the greatest since the end of the Mesozoic, 65m ya. People tend to respond to all this evidence in three ways. Why worry? Species have always been dying off. New ones take their place. But it takes 10 million years to recover from a mass extinction. Why do we need so many species? Biodiversity it what keeps the ecosystems going. Not to mention providing pharmaceuticals. Well, why now? But you can’t protect them in zoos. And the ecosystems would be gone. To save Creation, we must maintain it in natural ecosystems.
P297. “The legacy of the Enlightenment is the belief that entirely on our own we can know, and in knowing, understand, and in understanding, choose wisely.” Our future is up to us. To say it’s all too complex is the lazy modernist equivalent of the Will of God. Ultimate goals, like robot expeditions to the nearest stars, should wait until we have settled down and not wrecked the planet. Ethics is everywhere; human social existence is possible through the evolution of moral precepts and law. “We are not errant children who occasionally sin by disobeying instructions from outside our species. …” 298t. Consilience will unleash, not hinder, creativity. What does it all mean? “This is what it all means. To the extent that we depend on prosthetic devices to keep ourselves and the biosphere alive, we will render everything fragile. To the extent that we banish the rest of life, we will impoverish our own species for all time. And if we should surrender our genetic nature to machine-aided ratiocination, and our ethics and art and our very meaning to a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress, imagining ourselves godlike and absolved from our ancient heritage, we will become nothing.”
