I know this comment misses the point but I am compelled to state that I loved the movie Interstellar but could barely finish the book Hail Mary. Hail Mary was essentially a story about the relationship between Rocky and Ryland and the universality of moral behavior. While that is a compelling thesis, it has been done to death in literature and in the case of Hail Mary, the novelty, such as it was, was simply that one party was not human. The most egregious mis-step in Hail Mary was the laziness of the scientific premise-a bacteria-like organism that consumes stars. It was so absurd as to be a constant distraction from the book’s thesis.
Now that I got that off my chest, let me talk about the subject of your essay. It might be a false dichotomy to say that the path to humanity’s future existence will depend on either actions notable primarily for their moral bases or on actions notable for their scientific underpinnings. I have probably mis-characterized your argument and if so I apologize.
In order for a happy outcome to prevail, human actions need to be moral and have scientific underpinnings. With the one without the other, we get Hiroshimas/Nagasakis and with the other without the one, we get hapless spiritual institutions that instruct us that whatever badness happens, it is “God’s will.”
I agree that Hail Mary's sciemtific premise is flimsy and that the Rocky/Grace partnership is sentimental treacle. But I am obsessed by the suspicion that humanity's fatal flaw resides in the fact that we have surrendered our future to forces consumed by rampant self-interest and that the moral energy needed for our survival has been consumed by greed, diffidence and stupidity.
I will state right off the bat that the following argument is intuitive and not based on any evidence; it is also not to excuse immoral behavior on the basis that it is “natural,” but, since humans evolved in a dearth of food, greed was , albeit indirectly, selected for. The greedy hominids amongst us packed on more pounds so could survive periods of starvation better. While it is true that there is no longer an adaptive purpose to greed, nor is the pinky toe or the appendix adaptive either. (I know I am overstating the case, pinky toes and appendices must have some utility,) but negative traits persist for awhile especially in humans whose selection pressure is now primarily just fertility. The point i am trying to make is that my opinion is that human self-destruction is baked into our genes. If, out of 100 people, 95 of them are able to ignore or sublimate our inherently greedy nature, the 5% will do just fine to ruin the planet for the other 95%. One moldy apple in the barrel can infect the rest of the apples. I don’t think my belief is a justification for nihilism. I can believe that being greedy is natural and widespread and that i can avail myself of the power of the frontal lobe to quash the greedy instincts of the amygdala, at least in those of us who are effortful thinkers.
Yet survival of groups requires cooperation which obliges organization leading to hierarchies. Once hierarchies are established organizational control becomes entrenched. The rise of Athenian lottery-based democracy was a brilliant attempt to wrest governance from the oligarchs. A denoument was established whereby the oligarchs retained a privileged position but were held in check by the ostraka. The system failed when the oligarchs seized control during the war with Sparta. The founders, forced to rely on suffrage, tried to erect a system of safeguards which appears to be failing. The question is whether the cycle of democratic collapse incrementally moves toward ever progressive systems.
We’ve had 2,000 years for progressive systems to develop, and I agree that globally the average person gets a more fair shake than earlier eras. But we are all at the mercy of bullies. It takes thousands of missiles to create Israel’s iron dome but only a single large missile to evade the dome and cause a catastrophe in Tel Aviv. A minuscule failure rate in any system is enough to cause catastrophe. The problem with the interconnectedness that creates hierarchies is it also creates low friction pathways for the spread of malicious ideas. I’m not optimistic.
Yes, military innovation is inevitably a trap. Invest in dreadnaughts and aircraft carriers depreciate your investment. Deploy tanks with reactive armor and drones will finish them off. Put out sniffer sensors and they will locate pockets of urine. Mount a midnight raid with C 130s and they will crash. Deploy GPS satellites and go blind so you never see the subterranean caverns hiding from your shock and awe.
I know this comment misses the point but I am compelled to state that I loved the movie Interstellar but could barely finish the book Hail Mary. Hail Mary was essentially a story about the relationship between Rocky and Ryland and the universality of moral behavior. While that is a compelling thesis, it has been done to death in literature and in the case of Hail Mary, the novelty, such as it was, was simply that one party was not human. The most egregious mis-step in Hail Mary was the laziness of the scientific premise-a bacteria-like organism that consumes stars. It was so absurd as to be a constant distraction from the book’s thesis.
Now that I got that off my chest, let me talk about the subject of your essay. It might be a false dichotomy to say that the path to humanity’s future existence will depend on either actions notable primarily for their moral bases or on actions notable for their scientific underpinnings. I have probably mis-characterized your argument and if so I apologize.
In order for a happy outcome to prevail, human actions need to be moral and have scientific underpinnings. With the one without the other, we get Hiroshimas/Nagasakis and with the other without the one, we get hapless spiritual institutions that instruct us that whatever badness happens, it is “God’s will.”
I agree that Hail Mary's sciemtific premise is flimsy and that the Rocky/Grace partnership is sentimental treacle. But I am obsessed by the suspicion that humanity's fatal flaw resides in the fact that we have surrendered our future to forces consumed by rampant self-interest and that the moral energy needed for our survival has been consumed by greed, diffidence and stupidity.
Preach, brother. A list of irreversible events: Horse out of the barn. Cat out of the bag. ICBM out of the silo.
I will state right off the bat that the following argument is intuitive and not based on any evidence; it is also not to excuse immoral behavior on the basis that it is “natural,” but, since humans evolved in a dearth of food, greed was , albeit indirectly, selected for. The greedy hominids amongst us packed on more pounds so could survive periods of starvation better. While it is true that there is no longer an adaptive purpose to greed, nor is the pinky toe or the appendix adaptive either. (I know I am overstating the case, pinky toes and appendices must have some utility,) but negative traits persist for awhile especially in humans whose selection pressure is now primarily just fertility. The point i am trying to make is that my opinion is that human self-destruction is baked into our genes. If, out of 100 people, 95 of them are able to ignore or sublimate our inherently greedy nature, the 5% will do just fine to ruin the planet for the other 95%. One moldy apple in the barrel can infect the rest of the apples. I don’t think my belief is a justification for nihilism. I can believe that being greedy is natural and widespread and that i can avail myself of the power of the frontal lobe to quash the greedy instincts of the amygdala, at least in those of us who are effortful thinkers.
Yet survival of groups requires cooperation which obliges organization leading to hierarchies. Once hierarchies are established organizational control becomes entrenched. The rise of Athenian lottery-based democracy was a brilliant attempt to wrest governance from the oligarchs. A denoument was established whereby the oligarchs retained a privileged position but were held in check by the ostraka. The system failed when the oligarchs seized control during the war with Sparta. The founders, forced to rely on suffrage, tried to erect a system of safeguards which appears to be failing. The question is whether the cycle of democratic collapse incrementally moves toward ever progressive systems.
We’ve had 2,000 years for progressive systems to develop, and I agree that globally the average person gets a more fair shake than earlier eras. But we are all at the mercy of bullies. It takes thousands of missiles to create Israel’s iron dome but only a single large missile to evade the dome and cause a catastrophe in Tel Aviv. A minuscule failure rate in any system is enough to cause catastrophe. The problem with the interconnectedness that creates hierarchies is it also creates low friction pathways for the spread of malicious ideas. I’m not optimistic.
Yes, military innovation is inevitably a trap. Invest in dreadnaughts and aircraft carriers depreciate your investment. Deploy tanks with reactive armor and drones will finish them off. Put out sniffer sensors and they will locate pockets of urine. Mount a midnight raid with C 130s and they will crash. Deploy GPS satellites and go blind so you never see the subterranean caverns hiding from your shock and awe.