Showing posts with label SOCIETY FINANCE POLITICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOCIETY FINANCE POLITICS. Show all posts

15.3.11

GANGS... A DEMORALIZED, ALIENATED SOCIETY

GANGS... A DEMORALIZED, ALIENATED SOCIETY

12.3.11

ARE WE DRIVEN BY SELF INTEREST?

Birds Migrating
Mahmoud Zayat/Getty Images Birds migrate over the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon.
Continuing this week’s 13.7 focus (here and here and here) on our self-absorbed human predicament, let me offer a few evolutionary perspectives on how we got here and how we might move forward.
All organisms, by definition, are laden with self-interest. Self-maintenance, self-protection, self-reproduction — these are biological imperatives. This mandate is often stated as “surviving to produce fertile offspring,” but organisms that only eke out survival are far less likely to be the ancestors of large lineages than are organisms that flourish in a given ecosystem. Nor is “flourishing” a synonym for that old canard “the fittest.” Rather, it connotes being well adapted to the particular environmental circumstances in which one finds oneself.
Social organisms remain self-interested, but in addition, they also cooperate in such vital activities as food acquisition and predator protection. Hence their mandate is both to flourish as an individual and to flourish in community. Sociality has evolved numerous times: Bacteria secrete signaling molecules to regulate group-related activities (quorum sensing); butterflies migrate; fish swim in schools; birds join together to chase off the circling hawk; wolves hunt in packs.
Social behaviors are in most cases “instinctive,” but in some cases organisms inherit the capacity to learn social behaviors. Primates, in particular, develop minds capable of keeping track of friendships and favors and mastering the nuances of fluctuating social hierarchies, behaviors that enhance the stability and hence the flourishing of their troops. Importantly, natural selection doesn’t “care” whether behavior is hardwired or learned; it only “cares” whether the outcome is adaptive.
Navigating the demands of self-interest versus group cooperation can be fraught with conflicting impulses, and the option to go-it-alone is frequently taken in the context of stress. Under such circumstances, social organisms typically hunker down and engage in self-interested survival patterns, the default behavior of all creatures.
Stress invariably arises when organisms find themselves in environments that fail to mesh with what their genetic scripts anticipated. Unexpected ecosystems fail to provide the necessary context for pulling together the social behaviors that were selected to generate flourishing communities in expected contexts.
Which brings us to human primates.
  We turn out to be “niche constructors” — the familiar prototype being the beaver who dams up a stream and inhabits the resultant lake. We inhabit not only the planetary ecosystem but also the human-made, language-based niche we collectively call culture, allowing us access to information accumulated from generation to generation.
Language-based cultures are continuously evaluated and modified; hence humans are by definition born into unanticipated contexts. The stress engendered by this feature of our niche is minimized when a culture is stabilized by "tradition,” and maximized when cultures are amended in increasingly rapid timeframes, as is currently the case.
From this perspective, the angst expressed in this week’s series of blogs need not be attributed to the new information provisioned by scientific inquiry, nor to the new technologies generated by that knowledge, nor to the challenges modernity poses to traditional religious or political or community or family systems.
The angst arises because it’s all changing so precipitously that we’ve lost our bearings. We had hundreds of thousands of years to absorb fire and spear production; thousands of years to absorb the written word; hundreds of years to absorb heliocentricity.
And now look at us.
Talk about the stress of inhabiting unanticipated environments! Under such circumstances, self-interested survival patterns could be said to be adaptive.
But they aren’t, of course, for the simple reason that the planet lacks the carrying capacity to provide grounding and solace for all in the form of plastic purple penguins by the pool. If there has been an overarching human error, it has been to construct cultural contexts that fail to mesh with planetary realities.
But cultures are us. We invent them and re-invent them. We learn and we teach. Our growing awareness of our error and its consequences will hopefully allow us to access our inherited suite of social emotions – fairmindedness, respect, reverence and empathy – as we generate cultures that balance self-interest and Earth community. Such cultures wouldn’t seek to mask or bemoan our earthly materiality but rather would celebrate it.
We’ll always be self-interested. We’ll always want stuff. That’s part of our animal nature. But as I’ve lift up in a homily on stuff, it’s not getting what you want that’s important, it’s wanting what you’ve got. What we’ve got is a splendid planet; what we need to want is that it flourish.

Re-Imagining Society: Are We Trapped By Old Ideas?

We always live in a world we partially construct for ourselves by a ring of ideas.
This holds true for the society that shapes us and that we shape.
In this blog I want to sketch familiar ideas that frame us, and will critique them in later blogs.

We can begin 4,900 years ago with Abraham, breaking the idols in his father’s idol shop, and his putative role in inventing monotheism.  With that shift from polytheism, the ancient Jews culled 100,000 years of beliefs in multiple gods to be appeased, with their conflicting egos - think of the Greek gods and their strife - into a single Creator Agent God and that God’s Creativity acting in the ongoing becoming of the universe: “In the Beginning was the Word...”, Genesis, our current religious Abrahamic creation myth among three billion of us on this planet.
The ancient Jews lived stubbornly with Yahweh, debating the interpretations of His Laws, and sought to live righteously with those commandments. They were a people deeply of history, namely, their own as the Chosen People with their God, who would also love their non-Jewish neighbors.
The Greeks were universalists, seeking universal laws. Think of Archimedes running through the streets: Eureka!, as he understood floatation.  The Greek universalist culture was deeply at odds with the particularist Hebraic culture rooted in historicism.
  Skip to glorious Newton.  In three laws of motion and a universal law of gravitation, the invention of the differential and integral calculus, he gives us, in a stunning integration, a Greek-spawned view of the world, classical physics. In this view, still workable in many settings, given the initial and boundary conditions of a system of particles, or billiard balls, the future evolution of those particles is entirely determined and knowable by integration, hence deduction as Aristotle would want, of the differential equations given initial and boundary conditions.
Skip to Laplace and his Demon: Such an intelligence, if knowing the positions and momenta of all particles in the universe, could know from Newton’s laws, the entire future and past of the universe.
So with Newton, we arrive at both reductionism, seen first clearly in Laplace and in our Dreams of a Final Theory, as Steven Weinberg wrote not long ago, and we become frozen with the conflict between the Creator Agent God and that God’s Creativity acting forever in the open becoming of the universe, for that God is a free willed one on the one hand, and classical physics on the other.  If we are to be modern in that 17th Century world of Newton and thereafter, the tension between religion and science is enormous. We are left with either Deism, or a God of the Gaps retreat of religion.
This gives rise to the foundations of both our secular society, our loss of spirituality as we cleave to science as telling us what the world really is, and the rise of capitalism with the invention of banking and the Industrial Revolution unleashed by physics then chemistry.
The birth of secular society is also the child of our beloved Enlightenment, unleashed by about fourteen thinkers whose aims were to shut down the irrational and antiscientific bounds of the clerics, and unleash the power of reason and science to tell us what the world really is, and, via reason, to make forever progress is mastering nature for our benefit, and build a perfect society.  With the Enlightenment, the sacred wanes into the dwindling gaps of the God of the Gaps.
In this vein, Locke was a close friend of Newton and from Locke we get, in the United States, and now around the world, a unique political philosophy: Our Constitution with its three branches of government, Exectutive, Legislative, Judicial, in a hoped for constant tension of counterbalancing forces which - Newton like - would sustain an ongoing equilibrium of power.
But notice something deep: The Hebraic idea of life in living history is not part of our Constitution.  We do not have a “theory of history,” even with Hegel and Marx trying, and Kant, before them, seeking laws of history.  Lacking a theory of history, we do, however, have in our Constitution, derived also from British Common Law, the concept of the gradual, hopefully wise, evolution of our laws as history unfolds.
So here is a new conflict: On the one hand, classical physics says the becoming of the universe is either a becoming that is deterministic, Newton and Laplace, or there is no becoming at all in Einstein’s four dimensional spacetime, only geometric world lines.
On the other hand, we grope with the sense that we do live in a world of open becoming: As I have noted before, the invention and wide sale of the main frame computer enabled the invention and wide sale of the personal compute,r which in turn enabled the invention and wide sale of word processing, which enabled the storing of computer files, whose wide use enabled the storage and sharing of files, which enabled the invention and wide use of the Web, which enabled selling things on the web, which enabled content on the web, which enabled Google.
This is a constant becoming in what I call the Adjacent Possible of the econosphere.  The Adjacent Possible is like a forever expanding house, where passing via a particular door from a room to another room, opens new doors in the Adjacent Possible which we explore in, for example, the explosion of goods and services in our economy in the past 50,000 years, rising from perhaps 1,000 goods to billions. The economists have no theory for this explosion, which has created our technological present beyond stating that research brings new inventions. I will hold that this is a strongly impoverished understanding of the unfolding of economic history, in which the current Actual opens new possible opportunities in the Adjacent Possible, both for human life and for the biosphere's historical evolution.
One deep question is the ontological status of this Adjacent Possible of the economy. Is it a wisp of our imagination?  When the young entrepreneur presents his business case to the venture capitalist, are the possibilities and countervailing risks he presents that may convince the VP to invest, mere “imaginings?” Or, I will very tentatively suggest, perhaps this Adjacent Possible is ontologically real, so reality consists of the Actual and the Possible, as Aristotle suspected and Alfred North Whitehead believed.  This will, I think, lead us to the mysteries of quantum mechanics as part of stepping beyond our familiar framework.
But the first, firmer step beyond the grip of these framing ideas will be to examine whether we can have sufficient natural laws for the evolution of the biosphere, econosphere, and history. I will claim that we cannot have such sufficient natural laws, with, I believe, widespread consequences for our views of ourselves, thus our full humanity and the society we may want to enable that humanity.

8.3.11

Don't Worry be Happy! “I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace.”


“I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace.”

LIVING EXPONENTIALLY - THE POPULATION ISSUE

The Ethical Implications of Charitable Giving

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...