We Need To Fix The World. Maybe what we need to fix is humans...
What kind of world do we want? What is that hierarchy and where did it come from. What is progress?
Why do we need progress? What is the alternative? What happens if the hierarchy comes undone?
What is worse, super predators or zillions of regular old human predators?
What do you want? hierarchy — groups vying to pull each other down Or one where consensual hierarchy has collapsed into predation Or one in which, improbably, hierarchy and progress have learned, improbably, to walk hand in hand?
This is a good analysis and a good way of looking at it. What if there is another way that asks the same questions but gives different understandings and answers as well as a different path out? What if the problem is different than it looks? I want to solve the same problem, to prevent the fall of darkness, the collapse of the civilization that we all depend on for more than just progress. We depend on it for our survival.
What would it look like if you asked the same questions from a biological perspective? You would notice that the civilization we depend on doesn't exist in nature and so must be created, maintained and protected in an extremely cooperative effort. It is not a product of nature like most ecologies are... such as the hunter gather ecology that humans developed in and depended on for survival. What the author has described though sounds exactly like the expected problems of applying the strategies of nature to civilization. The strategies of nature are almost always "red in tooth and claw", driven by blind competition leading to win-lose outcomes. Our society is created by human strategies expressed as human laws and designed to lead to win win outcomes. We are fighting the strategies of nature that are in our instincts. Luckily we also have powerful instincts to cooperate. You can see them everyday, though they are less dynamically visible than the competitive behaviors. We must recognize both in our society and in our own drives. We must choose between them. There is only so much overlap.
As I said, first we have to consciously recognize our instinct for mindless competition. It is usually called dominance behavior. We also have to recognize our instinct for cooperation. We have to recognize these in our world and recognize which one is dangerous to us and which one will build our civilization. Without the clarity of this to give us a goal, we will never achieve it. Only by using the win win strategies that have come to us in politics, philosophy and religion can we sustain our civilization.
Now... that all sounds good, but in my decades of working on this, I've never seen it appear compelling to people. There are so many brilliant philosophies but so few adherents. We need to adapt genetically and strategically to civilization to make it work so that it can give us a path to the future, but how to get to civilization in the first place? What if there is another path? An easy enough path that people might follow it and it would get us where we need to go? In my book, Genetics for a New Human Ecology, I point out an existential danger that no one seems to pay attention to... which is understandable considering what that it is a thing from biology and who pays attention to that. What we have called human progress has been the removal of natural selection. That's nice. We die less often from disease, starvation, accidents and such. That a few more die from war doesn't change the equation. We all know the weak and sick don't really die any more like they used to. Well, it's a much bigger problem than it looks. Every generation there are what are called "de novo" mutations, Latin for "fresh". They aren't fresh, they are broken. They accumulate and in biology they are called "genetic load". No species can survive without natural selection to keep the species' genes healthy by removing the weak. It is a primary effect of disease that picks off people with weak links. My book describes that we must replace the effect of natural selection. It can be done ethically and economically. It's not just for some elite. This effects everyone. There is a lot to the story, but the first important point is that humans could fairly painlessly take our genetic destiny in hand. We must to if we want to survive as more than animals. Not only would it create an incredible wealth that could be passed on to our children, but it could never be stolen from us. What is the value of physical and mental health? What is the value of beauty? Again it is a case where human strategy could work far better than nature's strategy. Nature can only select against "bad" genes. It's incredibly inefficient compared to human strategy. Humans could learn to make sure that our children would inherit the best genes from both parents. Nature can't come close to that. This is a technology that already exists in its infancy. The second important point though is that I think it is the only way to get people to grow up and protect civilization. If we get used to husbanding our genetic destiny... and women get quite interested in genetics when pregnant, would we consciously choose and husband our strategies of survival including recognizing the value of civilization? Would we do what it takes to preserve it? It might sound odd but to get to a goal may require a path that is not a straight line. I think solving the gene problem would be easier and in ways more important because of the danger it presents, but it also might be the easiest or only path to protecting civilization. If you are interested in the story, the book is more up to date than the YouTube video but they tell much the same story. (Oh, and I need to fic that typo. It's 70,000 years, not 170,000 years.)
Genetics For A New Human Ecology (Transition)
