Angela Giron: The Hardest Working Senator in Colorado

The past few years have been really rough in Colorado. Fortunately, it looks like Colorado has turned a corner and is finally getting back on track. Though a lot of people deserve credit for engineering this epic turnaround, for Southern Colorado, one person's contributions stand out above all the rest, Senator Angela Giron.

From the very moment that Senator Angela Giron arrived in Denver, she began working tirelessly--and very successfully!--on behalf of the people she represents. Thanks to Angela, every politician in Denver is much better acquainted with Southern Colorado's unique challenges, as well as the best path to create the brightest future for all Coloradans. Also, due to Angela's unparalleled grit and determination, Denver politicians have an entirely new appreciation for the work ethic that Southern Colorado instills in its leather-tough residents and representatives.

Nobody in Denver works harder than Angela Giron. No one carries more legislation, pounds the pavement harder, knocks on more doors, or racks up more legislative victories than Angela Giron. Of course, many of Angela's legislative successes have been designed to improve the health, safety and success of all Coloradans. Thanks to Angela, our kids will be better protected from rampant gun violence. Thanks to Angela, Coloradans will have better-funded schools in their neighborhoods, and more access to higher education. Thanks to Angela, when our kids complete their educations they are going to find more and better jobs waiting for them in an energized economy.

The list goes on and on. Thanks to Angela, universities in Southern Colorado have been awarded their fair share of newly-available state funds for construction and deferred maintenance. This means tens of millions of dollars that will not only build much-needed new classroom buildings at CSU-Pueblo and Adams State, but this also means that Angela has helped to pump millions of dollars into the Southern Colorado economy that would otherwise, no doubt, have been snatched up by our neighbors to the north.

Extraordinary as Angela Giron's achievements have been, Angela has not allowed all of that success to swell her head, or divert her from her primary goal: to better serve the people and communities of Southern Colorado. For all of the good work that she has done and, believe it or not, for all of the even better work that Angela still plans to do, Southern Coloradans owe Senator Angela Giron a huge debt of appreciation.

Three cheers for Angela Giron, the hardest working senator in Colorado.

Keep up the good work!

Tim McGettigan is a professor of sociology at CSU_Pueblo

Racism and Hypocrisy: Celebrating Diversity--Just Not Among Humans

As Darwin pointed out in the The Origin of Species (1859), species often exhibit enormous variation. Darwin was a pigeon breeder and described at length the astounding variation that, with the help of artificial selection, pigeon breeders had succeeded in cultivating in an otherwise humdrum bird species. Similar forces operate on Canis familiaris and, if anything, have produced an even more remarkable range of variation. Simply on the dimension of weight, dogs exhibit a scale of variation that beggars belief: the smallest dog on record is the ultra-petite Tiny Dancer, a toy Chihuahua that as a full-grown adult weighed in at a mere eighteen ounces. At the other end of the scale, the heaviest dog on record, Zorba, is an English mastiff that tipped the scales at 343 pounds. Thus, these two very different members of Canis familiaris have adult body weights that are separated by a factor of more than three hundred. By contrast, physiological differences among Homo sapiens all but disappear.   

In 2008, anthropologists on the Island of Flores were astounded to discover fossil evidence of previously-unknown human inhabitants, Homo floresiensis. The most striking feature of Homo floresiensis is that, as adults, the extinct denizens of Flores stood little more than half the height (~1.06 m, or 3ft, 6in) of their more geographically-dispersed cousins, Homo sapiens. It appears as though Homo floresiensis underwent a physiological transformation similar to island-specific transmutations that Darwin noted on the Galapagos and on other geographically-isolated island chains around the world. Due to the new evolution pressures that species encounter upon migrating to isolated islands, Homo floresiensis underwent a dramatic and relatively fast (in evolutionary terms) selection process. Whereas island tortoises on the Galapagos, underwent a selection process that favored larger-sized tortoises, on Flores, the selection pressures for its human inhabitants favored a diminution in size.

The Flores finding is particularly striking because, in practically every other corner of the planet, humans exhibit only marginal variations in body size and weight. For example, African pygmies are the shortest of living human groups and, on average, pygmy women reach a height of just 1.33 m (4 ft) while men grow to a height of 1.45 m (4.34 ft). By contrast, the tallest living humans include members of various Sudanese tribes in which females reach an average height of 1.8 m (6 ft), while men grow to 1.9 m (6 ft, 4in). Based upon our expectations of human height ranges, the 30% differences in average height between pygmies and residents of the Sudan are astounding. If a group of pygmies were to stand back-to-back to a group of Sudanese, most human observers would goggle at such height disparities. This is primarily due to the fact that we are conditioned to expect far less deviation from the mean for global average heights among adult women (~5ft, 6in) and men (~5ft, 10in).

Consequently, if we make a direct comparison between one meter tall Homo floresiensis and the ~1.65 meter tall Homo sapiens, we tend to be amazed. Generally speaking, such substantial height disparities among healthy, adult human groups only tend to occur in fantasies and fiction (e.g., hobbits, elves, dwarves, etc.).

On the other hand, if we contrast variation among human groups with that of mammal species that are near and dear to humans, such as Canus familiaris, we find that even the most extreme differences among humans pale in comparison to variation exhibited among man's best friend: According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the world's tallest dog is a "Harlequin" Great Dane, named Gibson, who has a shoulder height of 42.6 in (107 cm) when standing on all four. In turn, the world's smallest dog, as recorded by the Guinness Book, was a dwarf Yorkshire terrier, just 2.8 inches (7 cm) tall. Compared to Canis familiaris, Homo sapiens--in all of our glorious but minuscule diversity--look like cookie cutter copies of each other.

Yet, in spite of Canis familiaris' mind-boggling diversity, one cannot overlook the fact that Great Danes, dwarf Yorkshire terriers, and every shape, color and variety of dog in between are all--biologically-speaking--the same animals: they are all part of one big, diverse species: dogs. It is curious that as intolerant as people can be regarding diversity in among humans, those selfsame racially-uptight humans celebrate diversity in other species with uncommon zeal. Common as it has been for humans to segregate their societies on the basis of barely perceptible racial and ethnic distinctions, has there ever been a dog park that discriminated on the basis of fur color? EX: No black dogs allowed!?

Judging from the human infatuation with canines of every size, shape and color--not to mention zoos, conservatories, and pet stores stocked with every imaginable critter--it is safe to conclude that humans are perhaps the world's most enthusiastic supporters of, with one caveat, genetic diversity. Of course, that one caveat is highly consequential. Remarkable as the human enthusiasm for diversity may be among non-human species, among our own species, humans tend to deplore diversity. That is, to put it mildly, a rich irony. 

Boycott the Boy Scouts: Quit Teaching Kids to Celebrate Prejudice and Ignorance*

(*I am re-posting this article in objection to the Boy Scouts reaffirmation on February 6, 2013 of their poisonously prejuduced ban on gays.)

   

Scout Oath (or Promise)*

 

On my honor I will do my best

 

To do my duty to God and my country

 

and to obey the Scout Law;

 

To help other people at all times;

 

To keep myself physically strong,

 

mentally awake, and morally straight.

Morally straight. Wow. In other words, queers need not apply. You’ve got to be kidding me. What century are we living in?

On July 18, 2012, the Boy Scouts of America announced the results of a confidential, two-year review of its policy that explicitly excludes gays. The Boy Scouts’ national spokesman, Deron Smith, stated that a special eleven-member committee came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy ‘‘is absolutely the best policy’’ for the 102-year-old organization.

Since when is unvarnished prejudice against a historically-maligned minority a good thing? Isn’t it somewhat hypocritical for an organization that requires its members “to help other people at all times” to gleefully endorse discrimination against gays? In what sense is perpetuating age-old, irrational prejudices “helpful” to gays?

In case this might be news to the Boy Scouts, on September 20, 2011, the United States military officially terminated its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. In doing so, the US military officially accorded non-heterosexuals the same civil rights as heterosexuals, while also affirming the enlightened notion that it was no longer “morally straight” to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. That historic policy shift by the US military represents a resounding endorsement of fundamental democratic freedoms.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Morality is a tricky concept to define. Generally speaking, morality is relative and it is contingent upon the norms and values that are embraced by a majority of the population at a particular moment in history. As times and people change, so does morality. For example, the ancient Romans used to consider feeding Christians to hungry lions a pleasurable pastime. Also, following its inception, the moral climate in the US had no compunctions against treating Africans like slaves, women like property, indigenous peoples like vermin, and gays (or, members of the GLBT community) as deranged criminals.

America’s democratic principles assert that, all people being created equal, everyone should enjoy the same unalienable rights: freedom, fairness, justice and equality. In practice, however, US democracy has all-too-often rolled out the red carpet to some (i.e., wealthy, European, male, property-owning, heterosexual, Christians) while dehumanizing, subjugating and abusing “Others.” Though it took more than a century of aggressive social activism on the part of marginalized minorities, Americans gradually came to realize that there was a vast and inappropriate gulf between the USA’s democratic principles and its practices. Thus, slowly and grudgingly, American morality has transitioned from celebrating the abuse of marginalized minorities to castigating such malignant indiscretions. In other words--although more than a few Americans lament the passage of “the good old days”--it is no longer considered “morally acceptable” to treat Africans like slaves, women like property, indigenous people like vermin, and members of the GLBT community as deranged criminals.

Three cheers for the (long, slow, reluctant) march of democratic progress! Wahoo.

The Boy Scouts have decided that, in spite of the march of progress, they are going to dig in their heels in a futile effort to preserve their anachronistic, undemocratic, and poisonously prejudiced version of morality. For the Boy Scouts, gays may not necessarily be deranged criminals, but gays still fall into the category of undesirable “others.”

As a private club, the US courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts are welcome to take this last, lonely, loathing stand against civil rights. For an organization that has existed for 102 years and that congratulates itself for upholding the highest moral principles, it is sad that the Boy Scouts would flaunt such an appalling ignorance of history, morality, common decency and democracy. 

In closing, I call upon all fair-minded Americans to Boycott the Boy Scouts until the Scouts quit foisting antiquated prejudice and ignorance on a new generation of kids.

*From the Boy Scouts page at http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts.aspx

**The image of the Boy Scout Stamp is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.  

Prove it! Scientific Prediction vs. Teleology

Teleology is a form of reasoning which asserts that mysterious forces--be they religious, supernatural, metaphysical, etc.--purposefully steer the course of events toward a particular predetermined outcome.

In the 17th-19th centuries, while seeking evidence of “God’s perfection in nature” many theologically-minded early scientists -- including Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Cuvier, Darwin, and many others -- often grudgingly uncovered evidence of natural laws that operated independently of divine will. What’s more, such natural laws equipped careful observers with the ability to make stunningly reliable predictions about formerly enigmatic natural phenomena. Where once solar eclipses had been perceived as dark and terrifying metaphysical omens, Newton and Kepler demystified such phenomena and drew them under the impassive control of rational science. No longer was there need to fear that which the rational mind could systematically comprehend. Thanks to science, the heavens were no longer the supernatural realm of the gods. Instead, the cosmos became a proving ground to dispel antiquated mythologies and to advance increasingly complex and rigorous scientific cosmologies: from heliocentrism to the accelerating universe and far...Far beyond.  

The predictive power of science has made it possible for humans to exert unprecedented control over the natural universe. In the days before science, the winds of human fate were largely blown about at the mercy of the elements. The natural world was a vast, impenetrable mystery that in some cases delivered abundance and prosperity, while in other cases it visited catastrophe: drought, disease, pestilence and destruction. But science changed all that.

Science has provided a key with which to unlock nature’s deepest mysteries. For one, geology revealed the mind-blowing extremities of deep time. Christian Church doctrine once insisted that the faithful must believe that the earth was but a few thousand years old. However, geological science has repudiated such beliefs as groundless superstitions. The evidence reveals otherwise. The earth is literally millions of times older than the authors of Genesis ever suspected. Thus, the tale of earth’s antiquity is not evidenced in the pages of pre-modern folklore, but it is inscribed in layer upon layer of profoundly ancient rocks.  The rocks, the evidence, reveal a much deeper truth.

What’s more, scientific understanding of the earth as an integrated geological system has made it possible to make reliable predictions about the future of that system. Although it is not yet possible to predict the precise hour and minute when earthquakes will unleash hell upon the earth, geological science has systematically revealed where and why major geological calamities are most likely to occur. Further, geologists have improved techniques for anticipating geological crises, and that predictive power has enhanced the safety of millions of people who reside in earthquake, volcano and tsunami danger zones.

As as additional example, geological science has also succeeded in developing highly reliable predictive measures of subterranean geological features. This has become an increasingly sought-after divination tool as resource-hungry humans scour the earth to meet the resource and energy needs of a fast-exploding population.

In general, scientific theory progresses on the basis of developing and testing specific knowledge claims about disciplinary subject matter. The more that geologists learn about plate tectonics, the better they become at making accurate predictions about the manner in which the earth’s surface will change--and the potential peril that earth dwellers might face from inhabiting earthquake-prone regions of the earth’s crust. All this is meant to illustrate that science is capable of making predictions by making hypothetical statements and correlating those knowledge claims to observable facts.

The problem with employing teleology as a means of explaining the course of events is that such a perspective operates on the basis of deductive dogmatism rather than inductive falsifiability. Teleological determinists explain everything that occurs in the universe as an outcome of an infallible master narrative: if an apple falls from a tree, or a star explodes in the Andromeda Galaxy, then determinists will insist that those events transpired precisely how and when they did because an insuperable chain of causality preordained each outcome. The magic of this type of deductive thinking--which, once again, is predicated on a dogmatic allegiance to an “infallible” master narrative--is that it can be used to explain anything and everything. However, as Karl Popper articulated so convincingly, deductive theories that purport to explain everything in fact succeed in explaining nothing scientifically. How much more do we understand about the universe, if we answer questions about its beginning, evolution, and eventual conclusion with the statement: “Whatever happens during the long life of the universe does so because it was meant to be”? Answers of this nature offer no new insights, rather they only succeed in propagating deduction-based ignorance.

Karl Popper and Positive Piffle

Karl Popper went to great lengths to illustrate that all scientific knowledge is provisional. In other words, there is no way to positively prove any statement. Take for example, the relatively straightforward issue of white swans. If one were to try to positively verify the statement, “all swans are white,” one would literally need to examine every living swan on the planet. In addition, one would also need to find some way to examine swans throughout the entire expanse of time. No matter how many white swans one might be able to observe in the past and present, there is simply no guarantee that at some point in the future a more colorful swan might arrive on the scene. Since we can never know for sure if, (1) we have succeeded in examining literally every swan from the past and present (i.e., no accurate census information exists for swans), and (2) and there is no guarantee that a red, brown, or black swan might evolve in the future, it is not possible to positively verify the statement that all swans are white. One contrary example will effectively invalidate the entire theory.

Given the difficulties involved in demonstrating the absolute truthfulness of even the simplest knowledge claims, gross overgeneralizations are utterly out of bounds for good scientists. It is simply not feasible for scientists to verify the claim that every phenomena and event--no matter how large or small--in the past, present, and future are all predetermined by an unbreakable chain of causality. To those arch-determinists who confidently claim that the universe is entirely deterministic, Karl Popper would say only this, “Prove it!”

Thanks to Wikimedia Commons for the image:

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wright_of_Derby,_The_Orrery.jpg

Feynman's Cosmic Onion

Feynman's Cosmic Onion

Albert Einstein believed that the universe was created by a rational god; a god who would never presume to play dice with his precious creation. Einstein's belief in a rational, knowable universe was rooted in a “clockwork” scientific philosophy that comprised the very bedrock of Enlightenment science. This perspective was most famously summed up by Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827):

An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as of the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes (Quoted in Weinert, 2004, p. 197).

Laplace was convinced that, so long as he and his intellectual heirs remained committed to the cause of rational scientific inquiry, their endeavors would ultimately yield a complete and thorough knowledge of the universe. All that had been hidden, would inexorably become “present to the eyes” of rational science. Yet, if scientists have learned anything over the past century it is that the universe is anything but rational: the chief claim of quantum mechanics, perhaps the most extraordinary set of insights ever revealed by modern science, is that it is impossible to know everything about anything. Though Einstein refused to accept this unsettling truth, quantum physicists have demonstrated time and time again that it is impossible to specify the exact properties of even a single quantum particle.

Still, in spite of the epistemological limitations of quantum reality, some scientists still cling to the notion that the universe is knowable and deterministic in a Laplacian sense:

Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past...The scientific determinism that Laplace formulated is...the basis of all modern science, and a principle that is important throughout this book...Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well.

Though we feel we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 30-32).

Influential as Hawking may be, there are other equally eminent scientists who take a very different view of the implications of quantum mechanics:

In classical physics it would have been legitimate to specify exactly both the position and the momentum of a given particle at the same time, but in quantum mechanics that is forbidden, as is well known, by the uncertainty, or indeterminacy, principle. The position of a particle can be specified exactly, but its momentum will then be completely undetermined (Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 139, emphasis added).

Another most interesting change in the ideas and philosophy of science brought about by quantum physics is this: it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance...nature, as we understand it today, behaves in such a way that it is fundamentally impossible to make a precise prediction of exactly what will happen in a given experiment (Feynman, et al., 1963, p. 35, emphasis in original)

So where does this leave us? As scientists have expanded the frontiers of knowledge, they have gradually come to realize that the universe is chock full of mysteries that may forever elude even the cleverest and most persistent of truth-seekers:

People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No, I’m not, I’m just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it. That would be very nice to discover.

If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is, but whatever way it comes out it’s nature is there and she is going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re trying to do except to try to find out more about it (Feynman and Robbins, 1999, p. 23).

Thus, science is nothing if not an intellectual adventure. Will we ever arrive at the final, absolute Laplacian truth? I hope not. Throughout history, the most dangerous and ignorant people have always been those who were convinced that they knew everything. In contrast, real geniuses are never the folks who think they have all the answers. Instead, true geniuses are the people who, by hook or crook, figure out how to ask the right questions.

Sure, there are truths to be revealed. The real beauty of science is that, every time we think we might be getting close to knowing everything, a few nagging “dark” matters succeed in emphasizing how little we truly know.

If it is impossible to know everything about about any individual quantum particle, will humans ever know everything about everything? I won't even bother to answer such a self-evident and pointless question question. By searching for the ultimate answer to everything, science does nothing but shoot itself in the foot.

One of the ways of stopping science would be only to do experiments in the region where you know the law. But experimenters search most diligently, and with the greatest effort, in exactly those places where it seems most likely that we can prove our theories wrong. In other words, we are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress (Feynman, 1965, p. 151).

Scientists do their best work when the humbly own up to to their own ignorance. In spite of Laplace's insistence to the contrary, no human either can or ever will know everything. Further, any scientist with an ounce of sense would never claim otherwise. Science is an enterprise that succeeds in revealing new truths by taking one plodding step forward—or, as Feynman suggests, by peeling back one layer of a cosmic onion—at a time.

Finally, a word to the wise: if there is a god, he does play dice with the universe. Scientists who don't wish to crap out would be well advised to wise up to the rules of his game.

References

Feynman, R. P., R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands. The Feynman Lectures on Physics: Quantum Mechanics: Volume III. Reading: n.p., 1963.

Feynman, Richard P. The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge: M.I.T., 1965.

Feynman, Richard P., and Jeffrey Robbins. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1999.

Gell-Mann, Murray. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1994.

Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books, 2010.

McGettigan, Timothy. God's Loaded Dice. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2013.

Weinert, Friedel. The Scientist as Philosopher: Philosophical Consequences of Great Scientific Discoveries. Berlin: Springer, 2004.

Evolution 2.0: Lamarck, Culture and Human Ingenuity

Almost as an afterthought, Stephen Jay Gould (1987, p. 70) acknowledged the profound distinction between biological evolution and human cultural evolution.

Biologists believe that genetic change is primarily Darwinian--that is, it occurs via natural selection operating upon undirected variation. Human cultural evolution is Lamarckian--the useful discoveries of one generation are passed directly to offspring by writing, teaching and so forth.

In human cultural evolution...transmission and anastomosis are rampant. Five minutes with a wheel, a snowshoe, a bobbin or a bow and arrow may allow an artisan of one culture to capture a major achievement of another. Fruitful analogies may be drawn between biological and cultural evolution, but they remain analogies. The processes are different, even though human culture has a biological base. Cultural evolution needs laws of its own. This statement is neither a council of despair nor a dashing of hopes for intellectual coherence. It is merely an acknowledgment of the world’s hierarchical structure and, I hope, an intellectual challenge in its own right (Gould, 1987, p. 70).

Thus, Gould asserts that Darwinian evolution is biological and operates at the level of genetics. Since all life is biological in origin, Gould concedes that Homo sapiens emerged as a result of a long-term Darwinian evolution process. However, following the emergence of human cognition and cultural development, Gould argues that evolution among humans has become Lamarckian rather than Darwinian. By this, Gould means that human cognition has enabled an entirely new type of adaptation via a process of “acquired characteristics.” In other words, Homo sapiens has succeeded in “fast-tracking” the evolution and adaptation process by cognitively carrying out end-runs around Darwinian evolution. Although Gould blithely breezes over this profound evolutionary transformation, I believe it is evidence of an entirely new chapter in the history of evolution.

Importantly. other observers have also noted that humans have been liberated from the strict constraints of biological, or Darwinian evolution. For example, in Wired for Culture, Pagel (2012) argues that humans have been able to subvert the biological evolutionary process due to their unique capacity for cognition and cultural adaptation. Strangely, Pagel asserts that cultural adaptation is necessarily deterministic. For his part, Gould draws a very different conclusion about the indeterministic nature of cognitively-mediated human events. In short, Gould believes that cognitive innovation leaves open the possibility that the influences of agency add a significant element of “improbability” to the course of human events and, thus, if history were to be replayed, Gould believes that slight, individual-level modifications could lead to enormous alterations in the course of human history.

In his Foreword to Gould’s (2003) Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville, David Halberstam states,

Steve Gould believed in what might be called the contingency of history theory--that is, history is not a simple unbroken, almost predictable line of progress with certain almost guaranteed givens and thus assured outcomes. Rather, it is filled with pitfalls and ambushes and there are land mines everywhere; occasionally it is almost whimsical in the course it chooses. If you rewind certain sections of history and try to replay them, he believed, things might come out very differently: the Confederacy, say (these are my examples not his), might triumph at Gettysburg, Rommel might defeat Montgomery in North Africa, and Mickey Owen might hold on to the third strike from Hugh Casey (Halberstam in Gould, 2003, p. 16).

To reiterate, the essential distinction between agents and non-agents is that the fate of non-agents is determined by their environments: cold kills heat-loving plants. On the other hand, agents are capable of modifying their environments in order to suit their own interests: transforming the parched Las Vegas desert into an oasis for carefree thrill-seekers.

References

Gould, Stephen Jay. An Urchin in the Storm: Essays About Books and Ideas. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987. 

Gould, Stephen Jay. Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville: A Lifelong Passion for Baseball. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.

Pagel, Mark. Wired for Culture: Origins of the Human Social Mind. New York: W. W. Norton, 2012. 

Sapient Apes Ascendant: The Costs and Benefits of Human Agency

If the messages that are embedded in folklore mean anything, then until very recently humans were terrified of the natural environment (Grimm, et. al., 1915). In many cases, the scariest part of folk tales involves foolish individuals--often kids, in order to emphasize the cautionary nature of the tales--who fall prey to one of the many terrors that lurk in the wild. Almost everywhere that they are mentioned, wolves are characterized as merciless people-eaters who lie in wait for anyone foolish enough to wander from well-trodden paths. The message is clear, nature is something to be feared--even dreaded--and civilization (i.e., the well-trodden path) represents a lifeline to safety and security.

Although parents still read Grimm’s fairy tales to their kids at bedtime, we no longer read the tales in quite the same spirit. Over the past few hundred years, humans have fundamentally redefined their relationship to nature. Where once the arbitrary whims of nature wielded extraordinary power over the fate of humanity, ever since the dawn of the industrial era, super-adaptable agents have succeeded in asserting newfound dominance over nature. In the age of machines, rather than meekly accepting whatever beneficence nature arbitrarily yields up, super-adaptable agents have turned the tables. In the modern world, humans aggressively demand resources from nature. And where nature fails to meet those exacting demands, humans impose a harsh new discipline on their former master: damming rivers, clearing forests, transforming parched deserts into oases, exterminating pests, manipulating plant and animal DNA, etc. In sum, where humans were once the relatively helpless pawns of almighty nature, super-adaptable agents have transformed their former master into their servant. Nature now answers to the beck and call of its human overlords.

Human cultural evolution, especially through advances in the technological sphere, has made possible in a brief span of time an extraordinary expansion of human population and of the capacity of each person to affect adversely other people and the environment (Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 304).

Of course, some are likely to be offended by the suggestion that humans have transformed the natural environment into humanity’s servant. However, I believe that characterization--in light of both its positive and negative connotations--is apt. Rather than being dictated to by nature’s carrying capacity, humans have activated their agency in such a way as to make increasingly forceful demands upon nature. Humans--and this applies to Americans, in particular--tend to view nature as a conquered rival whom they presume exists only for the purpose of attending to their whims: providing on demand the bounty that humans require to lead comfortable, secure lifestyles.

For their part, humans tend to be as attentive to the needs and interests of the natural environment as vengeful, conceited masters are to the welfare of their slaves. Is it any wonder that the environment is suffering in response to the ascendancy of super-adaptable apes?

It is difficult to blame Homo sapiens for reveling in its newly realized ascendancy. For so long, nature was an overbearing, stingy taskmaster: drought, pestilence, plague and other natural disasters routinely inflicted unimaginable suffering on humans. Now that humanity has, as it were, removed nature’s boot from its neck, there are bound to be repercussions. If nature must suffer in order for humans to luxuriate in a blissful era of shameful overindulgence, then so be it. That is the price that nature must pay for being conquered by one of its former subjects. Tough nuts, Mother Nature.

Of course, super-adaptable apes would be well-advised to avoid celebrating too long and too excessively. Nature has a way of getting even. The more slighted that Nature becomes, the more wicked her eventual vengeance will be. About now, Thomas Malthus (Malthus and Gilbert, 1993) is having a hearty chuckle in his grave. So far, humans have succeeded in postponing the Malthusian nightmare, but will it be possible to avoid such a fate as the global population explodes toward eight billion people? Ten billion? Twelve?

Just because humans have developed an unprecedented capacity to achieve super-adaptive ascendancy over the formerly-deterministic limitations of nature, does not mean that humans have a license to be jerks. Sure, it’s good to be king. However, kings who turn a deaf ear to pleas of their subjects often experience a premature demise.  

The next, and very urgent question that humans must answer is this: Is it possible for super-adaptable apes to employ their agency for purposes other than competition, domination, and self-indulgence? Having succeeded in asserting unprecedented mastery over the planet, can super-adaptable apes draw upon their intellectual agility in an entirely new way in order to evolve from ruthless, insensitive combatants into judicious stewards of their own and their planet’s better interests?

The implication is that cultural change itself is the only hope for dealing with the consequences of a gigantic human population armed with powerful technologies. Both cooperation (in addition to healthy competition) and foresight are required to an unprecedented degree if human capabilities are to be managed wisely (Gell-Mann, 1994, pp. 304-305).

Karl Popper (1999) was correct in stating that all life is problem solving. Popper was also correct when he observed that the solution to any particular problem inevitably produced the result of generating a whole new set of even-more-difficult problems. Thus far, Homo sapiens has demonstrated that it is the most versatile, adaptable intellectual problem-solver ever to evolve on planet earth. However, our success has also generated crises of unparalleled scope and urgency. Will super-adaptable apes continue to be equal to the problems that their success has created? If Homo sapiens can call a halt to its prolonged victory lap and get down to the urgent business of solving the next set of species-threatening crises, then I like our chances. However, the outcome is yet to be determined and the clock is ticking.

References

Gell-Mann, Murray. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1994.

Grimm, Jacob, Wilhelm Grimm, and Anne Anderson. Grimms' Fairy Tales. London: William Collins Sons, 1915.

Popper, Karl. All Life is Problem Solving. Translated by Patrick Camiller. New York: Routledge, 1999.