survival = ultimate good

Alexei Sharov (sharov@VT.EDU)
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:29:25 -0400

John Kineman wrote:
>Regarding Cliff's comments about immortality, I suggest an alternative to
>the "survival = ultimate good" scenario. As we become less concerned with
>survival in a particular form -- which is the concern of natural selection
>-- we may loose our conern with physical survival altogether. Whereas we
>now value physical closeness and security as social and aware forms, we may
>begin to value psychological closeness more as we transcend form. This may
>already be evident in cyberspace. We may also discover certain kinds of
>psychological immortality - the propagation of our thoughts & panache, or
>the thought that we are a part of a collective mind that cannot be
>destroyed. Survival may become irrelevant. "Good" might then become equated
>more with psychological, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual unification
>as we transcend the physical forms that currently reinforce a fearful and
>separated state. Those whom our culture associates with the greatest good
>historically were also those who transcended thinking in terms of personal
>survival, and thought instead of a greater unity. Great "survivors" in
>history are sometimes considered heros (and villians), but not necessarily
>the highest ideal of "good."

1. I think it is not a business of science to make universal
normative statements about what is "Good". Science tells us
what kinds of things survive and why but it should not go further.
Having this information, any individual can make a decision
what is good for him/her personally.
Actually, this is a very interesting question because normative
statements were usually generated by politics and religion. So,
the question is: is it possible to develop a science of politics
and religeon? Can we develop a scientific ethics? I would answer
these questions in the following way:
Science tells us what kinds of things do survive, and what kinds
of things don't. But this is not a normative statement for me unless
I identify myself as a specific kind of system. Then I can use science
in order to predict my survival. I may identify myself with a specific
meme (idea) and then sacrifice my body in order to propagate this
idea. It appears that science develops models, but in order to apply
these models we need to classify objects including ourselves. This
classification is not science. For example, science may develop a
definition of a living organism, but the statement that I am a living
organism does not belong to science.
Thus, we can develop scientific politics, religeon, and ethics.
But it will be applicable to a specific kind of humans. If we identify
ourselves with this kind of humans, then we will interpret results of
science in a normative way. But if we say: "no we are different" then
we are free not to use these models. Then, there is a meta-question:
will we do better if we use these models or if we don't?

2. Term "survival" refers to the notion of "life". If "life" is
defined in a broad sense (functionally rather than structurally),
then memes are living and surviving. I believe that Cliff meant
a broad definition of life, thus, he was not using the term
"survival" in a sense of just physical survival.

-Alexei
-------------------------------------------------
Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html