I'll stop sulking -- here's a critique/response to Francis' statements,
prefaced with the remark that I agree more than disagree that many of the
processes discussed are potentially important - I'm just not sure they
capture the most critical factors or are the ones that will/should
dominate. Also, we should all realize that science traditionally has a very
narrow perspective on reality, by design.
I. CRITICAL FACTORS
A. What are the factors that are most critical to the long term
survival of humanity?
>1. The augmentation of our individual and collective intelligence so that
>we would be able to tackle the complex problems that confront an
>interdependent, changeful, information-rich world
This assumes that survival is based on intellectual ability. Is there not a
difference between intelligence and understanding, which invokes man's
search for meaning? I would say there is at least an equal argument that
the future might depend more on advancing our individual and common sense
of meaning in life, involving all sectors of society. The big questions of
the future may not be "how" questions as much as "why" questions, perhaps
returning to the idea of science as natural philosophy. In the millenia of
our struggle to gain physical security and longevity, and in modern
science, we were adddressing many "how" questions, but even in the most
difficult of times culturally, or the most pragmatic times in science, the
"why" questions were still present. If we look forward to a technically
advanced future, I think the emphasis on meaning will likely increase. This
would predict increased interest in political, moral, and religious matters
as well as quality of life issues. It would also mean increased interest in
how science can deal with meaning. Granted, however, much of the planet has
not achieved the level of affluence that this assumes, but that would also
exclude that portion of humanity from much of the technological future
mentioned in the original statements.
>2. The development of a universal "world view" that ties all our knowledge
>together and shows us how we fit into the larger whole of evolution, thus
>providing us with a "meaning of life". Its system of values should help us
>to tell right from wrong in the most general contexts. It should be based
>on scientific and philosophical insights about which everybody can agree,
>rather than on dogmatic or culture-specific traditions.
The view in #1 does not seem to support a serious exploration of meaning.
Although I agree with the goal of the first sentence, and hope it can be
achieved, it seems doubtful at this point that a universal world view that
includes most of society would also be adopted by scientists. It is
ambitious enough to hope for integration of science. Also, I wouldn't agree
that an integrated SCIENTIFIC world view would be sufficient to tell right
from wrong, which is intimately embedded in culture and personal
experience. Presently, the scientific view is opposite the intuitive view
regarding the ontology of thought, and thus the basis of any distinction
between "right" and "wrong." (Right or wrong FOR WHAT implies subjective
values).
>3. The development of a practically enforceable political system, based on
>the above values, that would allow us to manage global society and the
>ecosystem, so as to increase the quality of life for humanity as a whole.
Who does "us" refer to in this vision? Who's doing the enforcing and who is
being enforced on? This vision creates an automatic division which has been
fundamental to human strife. The values referred to are subjective and I
doubt that there is any convincing theory that says this will change
without oppression. The idea of "scientifically based values" is
practically an oxymoron, with some exceptions (e.g., H.T. Odum's natural
"emergy" comes close to being suggested as a natural value, but it still
requires human endorsement).
>
> B. What are the current map and trajectory of these factors?
>
>1. As demonstrated by the "Flynn effect", individual IQ has been increasing
>over the past decades, together with the general level of education and the
>technological support for processing information.
>2. Developments in various fields, such as general systems theory,
>cybernetics, evolution, complexity, self-organization and artificial
>intelligence, seem to point to the emergence of a new scientific world
>view, which is dynamic and holistic, and which would transcend both the
>Newtonian world view, which is static and reductionist, and the different
>prescientific, religious world views.
This I would agree with. It's just the extent and importance of this in
society that is questionable. I strongly support the idea of scientific
integration (e.g., ISSS activities). However, I realize that our efforts in
this regard are to communicate with other scientists who speak a similar
language. In public discourse there already is a different worldview
orientation that is quite opposite current scientific views, but most of
the public is thus confused by the disagreement. Does this predict that the
non-scientific views will die in favor of the scientific? I'd say this is
unlikely to be the result. A better prediction might be that a unification
of science will reveal its value AND limits and pave the way for a better
balance between science and our more direct experiences.
>3. There is some movement towards supranational, political integration with
>institutions such as the UN, EU, WTO and IMF. Awareness of global and
>ecological issues is growing in different countries.
OK, but this does little to explain the trend. What is driving it? My view
is that the conflicting pressures of population growth (and consumption)
and resource depletion (including pollution and ecological impoverishment)
drive philosophical and social change. What is the extent of our coping
mechanisms and what alternatives do we leap to when those limits are
exceeded? Surely one might predict that one tendency will be toward
increasingly non-linear responses to such pressure. Perhaps, as some hope,
there is a balancing tendency to explore our inward humanity that has the
strength to endure outward pressure. There may also be self-regulating
population mechanisms built into human fecundity as we approach (or exceed)
carrying capacity.
>
> C. What are the problems and opportunities with the factors identified?
>
>1. The growth of complexity and available information in present society
>has been so large that even with their increased cognitive level most
>people still feel overwhelmed and unable to cope. The danger is real that
>some classes of poorly educated people will be completely left behind,
>while the most educated will suffer severe stress because of information
>overload.
So the poor will die from disenfanchisement from the intellectually elite
and the educated will succumb to stress? This is our current situation, not
a forecast. Granted, the processes that cause this imbalance will likely
persist, but is there not a limit where any increasingly polarized system
must shift into another mode? The question is, what is the other mode, or
domain of such modes? The split between poor and rich, educated and not,
North and South, East and West, masculine and feminine, yin and yang -- is
much more fundamental than this statement implies. As the split widens (if
it widens) the liklihood of catastrophic shifts would seem to increase
(e.g., terrorists, religious fanatics, supremicists, etc. having a greater
impact; or perhaps a collapse of financial and political institutions
sparking a re-emergence of eastern modes of thought, or other dramatic
changes). On the other hand, there is no reason I can think of to predict
that the split will widen rather than close. There are many cultural trends
to look to where the goal of greater understanding of differences is being
effectively pursued. A merging of east and west seems to be actively
developing in many circles. This may slow growth (economic, technological,
political) but increase happiness.
>2. In spite of the many promises, 50 years of attempts to build a unified
>systems science have met with little success, mostly because of the sheer
>complexity of the task.
I would attribute this lack of progress to scientific compartmentalization
and a misunderstanding of more general epistemologies than hypothesis
testing within a strictly (and classically) objective framework.
>In the meantime, existing scientific,
>philosophical, ideological and religious systems of thought have continued
>to erode and fragment.
This seems like a personal perspective. An equal case could be made that
these changes are natural evolution of these systems. Some idealogical and
religious systems, far from eroding, have become more entrenched. I believe
that in any time in history, and likely the future, it is possible to see
the cup as either half full or half empty, and each side sees it as
increasing or decreasing accordingly.
>3. Supranational integration and global management meet with huge
>resistance, because of the intrinsic selfishness of nations and groups, who
>are unwilling to give up their privileges for the common good. After the
>fall of communism, there is as yet no credible political system to counter
>the obvious shortcomings of capitalism.
Rather loaded with political bias, I'd say. The "selfishness" of
capitalistic societies, as implied here, may be a reflection of more
natural laws than the presumed good of common servitude. Survival and
apparent success of these societies may be due to their recognition of this
aspect of human nature and that the "higher" motivations emerge best in an
atmosphere of free choice rather than legislation. One's view on this
generally depends on whether you believe on an individual level if the
human spirit seeks good with greater preference than evil (defined in one's
own terms).
>
> II. POTENTIAL IN YOUR FIELD
> What do you envision as the greatest potential/future in your field in
>the 1000 year future?
>
>The single most important opportunity is the emergence of a world-wide,
>intelligent, computer network, a "global brain", that would make the whole
>of existing knowledge instantly available to every individual.
The global brain will make data and information available to many
individuals. This does not imply either knowledge or wisdom. Those
qualities must still depend on personal choice as to how the information is
used. Would it be valid to predict that the global brain, as envisioned,
may actually be a hugh syntactical monster, devoid of semantics?
Its
>intelligent processing of data and knowledge would help us to overcome
>information overload, to solve extremely complex problems, such as managing
>the global ecosystem, and to develop a unified world view that is both
>firmly rooted in scientific results and applicable to every-day decisions.
I would suggest that the information system itself cannot achieve or
guarantee this result. The Unified World View must be generated from
subjective, experiential realms, because that's where values originate, not
from stored data. If the right values emerge outside the global brain, then
it can be used for such noble purposes. Otherwise it is just another
magazine filled with ads, or another tabloid. We have a real catastrophy
looming in information systems because of the present over emphasis on
delivery of information at the expense of quality. The buzzword in IT
circles now is to avoid "stovepipe systems," which can be defined as an
information or data system that has an overly unique structure such that
it's outputs cannot be shared to the full extent of its potential users. I
recently proposed the counterpart of this concept to be "sewerpipes
systems," or those systems that are so general in their structure that they
can pass everything along but because of their generality tend to destroy
unique structures that otherwise are important for maintaining the proper
context and meaning of information. I see this happening in the current
data infrastructures being developed nationally and internationally.
>Borderless exchange and discussion of ideas would make it easier to reach a
>supranational consensus on values and global policy, while extensive,
>real-time collection of data would help us to monitor progress towards the
>chosen objectives.
Borderless exchange increases opportunity for dialogue but does not
guarantee the outcome by itself. Check out the "borderless" dialogue about
the US Impeachment hearings on National Public Radio's discussion forum
(http://iris.npr.org/cgi-bin/WebX?13@^40907@.ee738c8). Its a forum for
posting opinions, but there is little resolution. The value of these
systems is in working out one's own ideas, within a system of values that
generally come from other experiences. The richness of those other
experiences is more determining.
>
>
> III. DISCUSSION TOPICS/QUESTIONS
> What are two or three topics/questions, critical to the long term future
>that you wish to explore in small group settings at H3000?
>
>How can we minimize the ill effects of too fast change ("future shock") on
>individuals and society?
>What are the opportunities and dangers associated with the overall
>reduction of "friction" in technology, society and the economy?
>How can we tackle the "inertia of desires", because of which people
>continue to want more of some quantity (e.g. food, transport or
>information) long after the real need has been saturated?
>What are the prospects for reaching biological immortality?
>
> IV. 1000 YEAR VISION
> Please articulate your vision of the 1000 year future in a 3-5 line
>statement.
>
>I see humanity undergoing a "metasystem transition" to a higher level of
>evolution. Humanity would be integrated into a single "superorganism",
>where individual humans would play the roles of the cells in a
>multicellular organism. The superorganism's nervous system, the "global
>brain", would have a superhuman intelligence, and reason at a level of
>abstraction or consciousness beyond anything we can presently imagine.
>For more details, see http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FUTEVOL.html
I do not believe there is claimed to be any greater trend in evolution
toward the formation of superorganisms in preference to individuals. Things
like sponges and ant colonies certainly have evolved, but I havn't heard
any claims like in the prior discussion of the idea that complexity in
general may be driven as opposed to random. Does someone claim there is a
tendency toward superorganization within a species? If not, the pathway
needs to be explained in terms of human needs and decisions. We are
building an information network to communicate. But this could as easily
support greater individuality as conglomeration into a single unit. There
is also only shaky evidence that "bigger" means better. We do not know (do
we?) that anything larger than the human brain is required for dramatically
greater intelligence than we currently exhibit. So the future could as
easily be more individualistic, continuing the trend we currently see, as
modern society was apparently derived from more unified indiginous
societies. Also, presently, the more unified societies (socially,
culturally, religiously, etc. - on the humanistic level) tend to be the
less technologically advanced, do they not? As our industrial/technological
society emerged from their native roots the trend has been toward greater
individuality. During times of technological and infrastructure collapse
(disasters, wars, etc.) we see people drawing closer and becoming more
community dependent. I'd guess that the evidence supports the opposite
trend to this global organism. My personal view is that BOTH processes will
persist - greater society functioning and greater individual functioning.
Perhaps this is an increase of complexity in both areas. but they will have
to be balanced.
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)