John O. Campbell
This is an excerpt from the book The Knowing Universe.
Dictionary.com chose existential as its 2019 word of the
year due to a spike in internet searches partly in response to Bernie Saunders'
and Greta Thornburg's descriptions of global warming as an existential crisis
concerned
with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of
existentialism.
Historically our species has tended to
view its existence as given and unalterable, and this current interest in
existential threats is heartening. Perhaps our view of existence is shifting
from a static conception to one more dynamic. Static concepts of existence dominated western philosophical traditions before Darwin; the consensus view held that
all existing things came into existence in a single event and would retain
their initial forms until the end. For example, it was a consensus among
western intellectuals that God created all species during his seven days of
creation and that this original group of species had since remained static.
Darwin's findings compel us to consider existence in a new, dynamic light; existence may have only brief durations even for entire species. Since the beginning, novel entities embodying new strategies have winked into existence and those no longer able to resist natural tendencies towards dissipation have winked out. The current popularity of the word existential might be due to some lingering, justified unease about prospects for our continued existence.
As this book argues, existence is fragile and entirely
dependent upon knowledge inferred from the evidence. Cultures are not immune to
this winnowing process. Human history documents an unending succession of
cultures whose shockingly brief time in the sun is cut short through fatal
flaws in inferential abilities. We have cause for worry when dire circumstances
outmatch our nascent inferential abilities.
Some aspects of cultural inferences are
nearly flawless. Our many scientific inferences efficiently develop powerful
economies and technologies; these scientific models are flawlessly updated with
the latest available experimental evidence, becoming ever more powerful. However,
other cultural models, especially models concerning our use of technology, are neglected,
and there is resistance to updating them with the evidence. Models concerning the
usage of technologies form an essential part of cultural regulation, and neglect
of these models may pose our most considerable existential challenge.
It is common for entities to wink out of
existence when their models for achieving existence fall into error and are no
longer sufficient to maintain them within changed circumstances. For example, among
the most advanced life forms during the Late Ordovician, Trilobites met extinction
due to volcanic release of greenhouse gases and subsequent planetary warming
During almost all our species history, developing
models for the wise application of technology has been relatively straightforward:
use any available technology to maximize resource extraction in the service of
biological existence. This strategy of maximizing resource extraction was hard-wired
into our biological ancestors since the beginning, and the exponential increase
in our numbers evidence its success. Wisely, our conservative inclinations counsel
us not to tinker with a successful strategy. After all, existence is difficult,
and if we already have a model that successfully achieves existence, why fix
something that is working?
The wisdom of conservative strategies raises
the interesting question of when, if ever, is the right time to revise our basic cultural models.
What weight of evidence is sufficient to motivate adjustments to our primary strategies
for existence? The short answer is that we should heed the scientific evidence.
Science is by far our most powerful
process for understanding the workings of natural systems including culture. Powerful scientific
models are responsible for the modern technologies that vastly increase our
health and wealth and provide the improved circumstance in which we exist. It
only stands to reason that if we are going to use science to alter our world,
we should also use science to understand, as fully as possible, the
implications these alterations hold for our existence. The failure to correctly
apply scientific knowledge to strategies for existence opens the possibility of
our extinction. Only scientific knowledge is capable of guiding us through this
challenge.
The scientific method is routinely applied
as a rigorous inferential system in laboratories and universities worldwide to understand
natural processes and employ it as technological applications. Science and
technology provide great power, but that power is inherently dangerous to us. Great
power tends to provide increased forces towards dissipation, which is as true
within the cultural domain as it is in any other. As we have seen, the only way great
power can be compatible with existence is sufficient regulation, regulatory mechanisms discovered
through careful inferences. One of my mother's wise sayings that have stuck
with me is:
Fire is a
good servant but a bad master.
Fire is an example of a great power bestowing
great benefits, but if we have a fire in our homes, it is best contained in a
stove where it can be regulated and held subservient. If we allow it to burn unconstrained
outside of the stove, it follows an independent trajectory, one that may threaten
our existence. Given that human actions are now the most powerful influences on
our planet, we must model their effects as accurately as possible and regulate
our actions so that our planet's future states provide for our existence.
Perhaps the primary obstacle preventing us
from coming to grips with our predicament is a predilection for outmoded biological
values such as resource accumulation and status. These values emerge as a striving for
wealth in a cultural context, and although science and technology could easily
provide sufficient resources for all, we remain obsessed with these strivings. Societies
have become structured to facilitate competition for wealth, and this
competition has concentrated wealth in a small portion of the population,
often known as the one percent.
Within the US, for example, the top 1%, now own much more
wealth than does the bottom 90% of the population
The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally
punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench
of what Basil of Caesarea called "the dung of the devil". An unfettered
pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once
capital becomes an idol and guides people's decisions, once greed for money
presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns
and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people
against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common
home.
His last point, implicating current levels of wealth
inequality as a risk to our common home on mother earth, deserves some unpacking
within the context of existential threats.
References
1. .com, Dictionary.
Dictionary.com's word of the year for 2019 is existential. Dictionary.com.
[Online] [Cited: July 16, 2020.]
https://www.dictionary.com/e/word-of-the-year/.
2. Late Ordovician mass extinction caused by volcanism,
warming, and anoxia, not cooling and glaciation. Bond, David P.G. and
Grasby, Stephen E. s.l. : Geological society of America, 2020, Vol.
48. https://doi.org/10.1130/G47377.1.
3. Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel. Wealth
Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence From Capitalized Income
Tax Data. [NBER Working Paper] s.l. : National Bureau of Economic
Research, 2014.
4. Kozlowska, Hanna. Pope Francis: Unfettered
capitalism is "the dung of the devil". Quartz. [Online]
[Cited: 3 3, 2016.]
http://qz.com/450445/pope-francis-unfettered-capitalism-is-the-dung-of-the-devil/.
No comments:
Post a Comment