Monday, September 22, 2008
Aren't we just animals ?
Reductionism and determinism (the ideas that force the use of the adjective "just")are nothing new. What's most dangerous about them is that they are as dangerous as any religion-Forceful and simple. Secularists too are prone to making things a bit too simple.
Scientists tend not to see things quite as simply as the above 3 groups. Humility is needed too- they are generally not happy with the word " just" in that description . Take Einstein ( whose recognised his limited vision but whose limited vision still set the scene for the current adventures with LHC "circlatron" ) .
Einstein said, roughly translated ,that we one have one choice "Either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle" .I am a practical environmental geochemist resolving land use conflicts but what would i know?
I agree after many years of studying ecosystem function and resiliance that freedom and dignity are not lost . The choice for all us is still to "care" ( what a fantastic objective!) . Wonder can lead to respect and to a feeling that the rights of men and animals are things we can act for.
The problem I see with choosing a deterministic worldview, as so many do, is that the "no miracle "position doesn't seem to be sustainable in terms of upholding our societies interest in others rights( the use of the word animal for example invokes interest in a legitimate biological connection and obligation, but many do not accept that we are all branches of the same big tree; or that "family first" is itself enough ) look up Punctuated equilibrium . "No miracle" has "not enough punch" long term ??
So in our public talk , increasingly talk of "Rights" seem to evaporate any level of real care in the face of a cold calculating self preservationist imperative logic. The increasing leverage for "me first " ideas is stiffling - promoting indifference to others , not the other way around.
Did you hear Greg Sheridan talk about the dangers of deterministic doctrines (DL) on QandA ABC TV recently? The evidence is not just scientific -its historic.( read what logic dictators in the last century used to kill people)
As a eco scientist, I recognise that cooperation is a wonderful feature of ecosystems. However , with our present knowledge of life it's clear the human animals function method and origins are still hidden- as they for most life . Humility about how all this came about is completely rational and sensible , as is a sense of wonder.
Most importantly, if the only way you can add value to the species in the tree of life is by connections, it seems you may still be without a value system that cuts deeper than simple rule crunching and crude determinism ( read something on the history of eugenics) . Cockroaches didn't get much of a go in Rwanda. Going on how Hilter / pol pot used the (DL)argument , even immediate family ( homo sapiens ) is not a close enough connection to make anyone care "enough" about "family". I have a feeling that the dear animals in our ecomias ( households) might not ( should they be asked) really think we humans are consistent enough with our ideas and actions to be considered part of "their" family ?
Why should you/ we care? is great question . As Dosteyevsky stated " if there is no God, there is no right or wrong". If we are right about a basis for caring even all the green talk on the far right , will go the way of hot air . If there are no rights except clad rights? What is there to say that men won't just choose to care about the animals they care about - demonstrating the level of hypocrisy that surrounds us . Dosty might have revised his words " if God does not care , why should we ?
Scientists tend not to see things quite as simply as the above 3 groups. Humility is needed too- they are generally not happy with the word " just" in that description . Take Einstein ( whose recognised his limited vision but whose limited vision still set the scene for the current adventures with LHC "circlatron" ) .
Einstein said, roughly translated ,that we one have one choice "Either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle" .I am a practical environmental geochemist resolving land use conflicts but what would i know?
I agree after many years of studying ecosystem function and resiliance that freedom and dignity are not lost . The choice for all us is still to "care" ( what a fantastic objective!) . Wonder can lead to respect and to a feeling that the rights of men and animals are things we can act for.
The problem I see with choosing a deterministic worldview, as so many do, is that the "no miracle "position doesn't seem to be sustainable in terms of upholding our societies interest in others rights( the use of the word animal for example invokes interest in a legitimate biological connection and obligation, but many do not accept that we are all branches of the same big tree; or that "family first" is itself enough ) look up Punctuated equilibrium . "No miracle" has "not enough punch" long term ??
So in our public talk , increasingly talk of "Rights" seem to evaporate any level of real care in the face of a cold calculating self preservationist imperative logic. The increasing leverage for "me first " ideas is stiffling - promoting indifference to others , not the other way around.
Did you hear Greg Sheridan talk about the dangers of deterministic doctrines (DL) on QandA ABC TV recently? The evidence is not just scientific -its historic.( read what logic dictators in the last century used to kill people)
As a eco scientist, I recognise that cooperation is a wonderful feature of ecosystems. However , with our present knowledge of life it's clear the human animals function method and origins are still hidden- as they for most life . Humility about how all this came about is completely rational and sensible , as is a sense of wonder.
Most importantly, if the only way you can add value to the species in the tree of life is by connections, it seems you may still be without a value system that cuts deeper than simple rule crunching and crude determinism ( read something on the history of eugenics) . Cockroaches didn't get much of a go in Rwanda. Going on how Hilter / pol pot used the (DL)argument , even immediate family ( homo sapiens ) is not a close enough connection to make anyone care "enough" about "family". I have a feeling that the dear animals in our ecomias ( households) might not ( should they be asked) really think we humans are consistent enough with our ideas and actions to be considered part of "their" family ?
Why should you/ we care? is great question . As Dosteyevsky stated " if there is no God, there is no right or wrong". If we are right about a basis for caring even all the green talk on the far right , will go the way of hot air . If there are no rights except clad rights? What is there to say that men won't just choose to care about the animals they care about - demonstrating the level of hypocrisy that surrounds us . Dosty might have revised his words " if God does not care , why should we ?
