• [deleted]

  • Post #9

Dear Stephen!

I rated your essay high, due to its relevance and its written quality.

Your essay is well-reasoned, scholarly written. The abstract draws forth similar important considerations to which my essay also points out. However our point of view for a possible resolution quite different. I think, humanity is able to steer his own fate, and need to find his place on his own evolutionary path, but that is truly a bit confused by forces acting on society as you write - "... While no one group within society can steer the whole in a constructive direction...".

I feel, there is a constant mistake of understanding our origin and our evolutionary path. We are tend to think packing the whole out of its parts, but we do not give enough importance thinking reversed. What if, the whole and its parts also are in simultaneously existing, and some ones are continuously engaged on to figure out what should be the proper arrangement kept in optimal balance even so allowing a worthy development?

Dr. Rudolf Steiner's thoughts and works, his full world-view deeply impressed me especially because of he could clean cut formulate in his time (1861-1925) the MAN's complexity, the Earth's Cosmical Evolution. He tried to establish a proper interpretation of MAN's conscious development along with his psychical, physical interrelation with the Nature and operating method of the Law of Cosmos. He could see the meshing of Cosmos, Earth, MAN neither of them being separated, and he formulated the conception of Cosmic MAN at first time in our modern era. He also attempted to explain and looked for adequate words to describe the connection between the phases of development of man's consciousness and the formation of a Planet drawing an analogy with the organization of man's physical body too. He had an extraordinary retrospection into the past and at the same time a foresight of the mankind's future.

Earlier I'd already read his famous book of which link I've found again recently

"...Rudolf Steiner shows that the insoluble link between man and cosmos is the fundamental basis of evolution. As man has participated in the development of the world we know today, so his achievements are directly connected with the ultimate destiny of the universe. In his hands rests the freedom to shape the future course of creation. Knowledge of his exalted origins and of the path he followed in forfeiting divine direction for the attainment of his present self-dependent freedom, are indispensable if man is to evolve a future worthy of a responsible human being. This book appears now because of its particular significance at a moment when imperative and grave decisions are being made in the interests of the future of mankind...." (p. 8, Cosmic Memory (Prehistory of Earth and Man) By Rudolf Steiner added with an Introduction by Paul Marshal Allen Englewood, New Jersey June, 1959)}

I suggest reading this book also for you and anyone. At least the introduction and Q/A sections concerning the theme we are dealing with here.

Let me draw attention to a concept too, what if the EARTH is Only Planet of Choice for humanity?

background material comes beyond the Solar System...

Best wishes for you,

Valeria

Okay Stephen!

try https://archive.org/details/TheOnlyPlanetOfChoice typing into your browser.

:)

Valeria

8 days later

Dear Stephen,

Your essay involves ideas that I thought of some time in the past. My opinions along these lines are considerably modified. I see that you are interested in the prospect of interstellar space exploration. You might be interested in my book "Can Star Systems Be Explored? The physics of starprobes." This little book is intended as a way of introducing a range of physics to readers through the over arching subject of sending spacecraft to other stars. I don't speculate much on any interstellar future for humanity. In fact I suspect if there is some long term astronomical future impact our species has that it will not be us directly, but rather through the evolution of von Neumann probes and self-replicating systems we loft into space. These may over millions or billions of years migrate through the galaxy and evolve to form a sort of "galactic eco-system" of diverse bio-analogous systems. In fact for all we know DNA and some aspects of molecular biology might form a part of their information processing.

I thought I would not enter an essay this year. However, I thought of something germane to this question. I am shamelessly using this to promote some physics, and even admit it in the essay written so far. The thesis addresses certain limits imposed on us and our ability to grow. We may be able to spread into interplanetary and even maybe interstellar space; that I can't rule out, but I think there are certain constraints that will exist on that even if this happens.

S. J. Gould's observations about progress are based on the idea that processes are random walks. This then means the drift of any system from the start point will migrate a distance d ~ sqrt(t). If there is some boundary to the drift of such systems then they will in time end up in a complete equilibrium configuration within that confined space. This is a closed system, indeed closed in a certain thermodynamic sense, perspective. Of course with respect to energy the Earth is an open system, and with respect to information and complexity there is some element of openness that is also apparent. It is difficult to define progress or complexity, but the surface of this planet exhibits a range of complexity on a large scale, .01m to 10m, with respect to life forms that simply did not exist before the Cambrian explosion. I do think Gould got it right however that this is actually a small measure over the whole system.

Cheers LC

I agree with Jonathan:

"The difficulties and dangers of continued growth can be eased through understanding that major opportunities for further human progress are to be found in space."

I see this a much too wide perspective of blind science fiction at the brink to a cynical parody instead of providing honest answers to pressing questions.

Eckard Blumschein

13 days later

Hey Ashworth,

This is well written, and there is no doubt about the language skills and the ability to capture an audiences attention. Bravo there! I would ask for a more in depth explanation for the point made that human life, or the brain/societal structure of a human being is the most evolved life form on this planet. Sure, we think, but animals can reason as well. I also heard an argument that made sense to me. It went that if intelligence is defined by the ability of a species to survive, unless humans figure something out, plants may have to be given the title. But to put the thought in my own words, evolution doesn't necessarily go along with intelligence or how we separate from the whole living kingdom by human-like distinctions. About the only thing we have significantly more manifest than the rest is an ability to reflect, to think this is happening and pick a new direction based on this awareness or self directed thought. Well, we are pretty good at wasting time and making mistakes too! I am not asking you for a defense, I just want to see where you are coming from on that point. It gives humans a too central role, in my opinion. I am not saying that I agreed with everything you said other than just this, but that is the only part that my ability to read seems to have left in darkness.

Best,

Amos.

I'd never heard of Dawkin's Information Bomb idea of a different sort of exploding cosmological body. Thanks!

And, regarding your "Exponential growth is hardwired

into the system" comment, you might find my own paper interesting... I offer a highly organized (if very general) map for how we can, indeed, "cut present-day problems down to a manageable size".

6 days later

I gladly append my name to the long list of people who enjoyed your essay!

One remark.

It occurred to me that, if one takes a fully abstract version of the nested shell model (dropping any biosphere-oriented interpretation, and any labelling of the levels), and populates it with randomly moving identical balls, initially all packed at level zero, one still obtains an apparent progress, in the sense that, with time, more and more shells will be populated, even with perfectly symmetric gateways (this is the second law of thermodynamics in action.)

I think it would be important to stress the essential differences between this elementary, biology-free layered onion and the one that you (and Dennett) refer to - after realizing that *both* of them, in some sense, enable progress.

One crucial difference may be in the fact of letting balls differentiate and evolve: a more complex ball may be capable of exploiting energetic opportunities that are out of the reach of a less complex ball; and this new match between agent and environment creates a new opportunity for growth, a new life form, a new shell (if I understood correctly!)

Another attractive goal that your essay suggests (at least to me) is to come up with some very simple, stochastic or algorithmic *formal* model of interacting agents capable of capturing the agent-environment-energy relation mentioned above, then run a simulation to see whether some quantized orbitals of life forms emerge for free.

Final remark: I see interesting similarities, or compatibilities, between the nested shell model of progress and Teilhard de Chardin s views at the biosphere and the cosmos (as expressed in The Human Phenomenon, 1955). I refer in particular to the distinction he makes between the two energies - tangential and radial. He would imagine the first to be operational within a single layer, while the second would be responsible for the growth of complexity and the shift to the next upper layer.

However, following your reasoning, the radial energy may be regarded as completely illusional: vertical emergence would be a trivial side effect of horizontal activities (which does not make me particularly unhappy.)

Dear SA

Notwithstanding all the points with which I disagree, your essay did expand my horizon. Thanks.

Many of your statements of "...must..." or "...has to be..." are false in the sense there are other possibilities.

That humanity could not steer is not clear. Humanity as a whole does not consciously or "scientifically" direct humanity. Nature chooses. Certainly, complex systems are unpredictable with our current understanding. Understanding and predictability are efficient and mankind's way, but are not required. Nature will decide anyway. Trial-and-error is a time-tested method to solve problems. Science uses it by developing many models.

Nature gives us the value judgment or the goal of survival. That we "must" use "scientific rigueur" is unproven and likely false. We can steer our future by a trial-and-error method toward nature's goal of survival. The science is in the choice of the trial-and-error method.

The idea of "...whether the evolution of life in general can or can not be described as progressive must be faced." Is in doubt. I submit this is a diversion and is unanswerable. The definition of progressive" is questionable and vague. Life either tends toward survival or dies. S. J. Gould was correct but, perhaps, for the wrong reason.

I agree that we must get off this doomed rock if our progeny is to survive is only partially valid. I like the thought that DNA was transported to Earth via and asteroid from another nova (transpermia). If we don't thin our way off this rock, 'm sure nature will move some DNA maybe from earth (probably not from humans) to another planet.

I think the "... core values of democracy, science and humanity..." are still being tested in the caldron of nature. Further, "...humanitarian values..." may not produce survival. But I think "...growth of technological capabilities..." has a history of producing survival for mankind if by no other means than increased war ability.

Defining a goal other than survival is unnecessary but does fit mankind's way of doing things.

Enjoying the ride seems passive. Passive in nature fails to survive.

Hodge

4 days later

Hello Stephen,

I enjoyed your essay; but I take issue with the notion that we do not steer - because I think this view is a luxury we dare not allow ourselves, on the premise that there will always be individuals who subvert the will of the people for personal gain. I think perhaps it would be better to state "Humanity Must Steer, or it Will Not Enjoy the Ride." I am in complete agreement that we must steer our way to the stars and that going into space is the intelligent thing to do, but I lack your conviction that this is something humans will do regardless of which of the three factions prevails at any moment.

Your assessment that the view of the three categories can allow us to segment the view on growth are naive, at best, because this ignores the modus of learning to do things more intelligently - rather than equating growth and progress with increasing levels of scale. While on the one hand I acknowledge that extremely large-scale fabrication facilities are needed to efficiently construct space vehicles, I wonder if enormity of scale is otherwise a justifiable measure of growth and progress. And finally, I offer this.

Perhaps humans are not ideally suited for space travel anyway. Maybe intelligent marsupials would be better adapted to the rigors of space and long periods in an enclosed space, than placental mammals. Maybe the economical thing to do is for human scientists to advance the evolution of kangaroos, to create a human-roo hybrid - that would harvest the asteroids for us. Or maybe we both read too much science fiction.

All the Best,

Jonathan

    Dear Stephen,

    As many others in this competition have mentioned, you claim that "the future evolution of a system as complex as human civilisation is unpredictable".

    That is true of course, but it should not be overdone. Let's think of a smaller case involving, say, my wishing to take my family on holiday this year. This decision is part of a complex socio-economic system. Yet it is not hard to make it happen. Sure, there might be unforeseen issues (monetary or otherwise), but one can adapt and replan. What your claim points to, I think, is that idea that we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control. Yet humans are rather special in that they can act teleologically, with an end goal in mind, and modify, switch, and adapt to achieve it. I think this kind of future-avoidant thinking is in part responsible for some of the major problems with humanity. That is: we don't always need to predict because we can actively make (many) things happen by acting so as to bring them about.

    Best,

    Dean

    9 days later

    You wrote this essay beautifully. What is not clear to me, though, is what part, if any, do individual human beings play in the future of humanity... To what extent are they relevant for your account?

    Stephen,

    Well-organized thoughts on a prescribed direction of space exploration and exploitation. However, as a type 0 civilization, we seem to have meager capabilities for space with a technology limiting human survival, speed of spacecraft and the high cost of launching vehicles. As you suggest, our endeavor is not exactly conscious, and perhaps with a conscious effort, we might advance quickly. It is true that a plasma propulsion system can reduce a Mars trip to some 3 months rather than 2 years, but still harmful radiation is a survival factor. I assume you are speaking of solar-system travel to asteroids and other close sources of resources. What time frame do you pose for a survival that steering for the future must consider.

    I like your approach but like my essay, it is difficult to foretell a viable approach once you describe our current steering problems.

    Jim

      Hi Stephen,

      I like how you have considered the potential confrontation of different groups who have different views of how we should prepare for and build the future.It would, as you explain, be difficult to unite mankind with a single purpose without imposing views upon people, compulsion. Compulsion to support for example a technological trans-human pathway would be as bad, as I see it, as compulsion to follow an extreme religious fundamentalist pathway. Though both have supporters who see that pathway as correct and desirable. The path we really do not want is unlimited growth in economies (using up resources more quickly) or populations (requiring more resources).

      Migration to space will not solve the population problem, all the while there is growth, but the idea will give hope. There may be resources that could be mined but rather than doing that, which requires a lot of energy, it might be better to learn restraint and to reuse the resources we already have and invest the money for space programmes into developing resilient, self sufficient, sustainable Earth societies.

      I can see the goal of space migrations being something that all mankind could get behind with appropriate political-social engineering. Though at present the cost and current technology are limiting factors.It would be necessary to sell the idea to the people making the cost and dangers seem acceptable and the migration a natural progression in mankind's development that gives hope for the future survival of the species.

      I think your essay is well written, relevant and thought provoking. Good luck,Georgina

      What an excellent essay, Stephen.

      Though I disagree with the premise that humanity cannot steer its future -- I can see how the assumption of hierarchies forces that conclusion. I argue the opposite in my own essay, which hopefully should shortly appear -- that laterally distributed, not hierarchical, information in a complex system makes self determination possible. I hope we can get into a lovely discussion of these contrasting models. Thanks for a great read!

      Tom

        I meant to say "lively," yet perhaps "lovely" fits!

        It's interesting that a denial of the question should rate so highly (currently top) among those trying to answer it. When you're able to catch up, Stephen, I'd like to critique your essay a little. Would you be willing to reciprocate?

        Dear Author Stephen Ashworth

        Rarely seen a thoughtful analysis and focused as you.

        I also noticed: Humans should not (and can not) directing future.

        Let come Future by measures of Future will use to choose us?

        Best wishes with the highest point - Hải.CaoHoàng

        Respektlosigkeit zu Regierung und Wirtschaft ist nicht sinnvoll.