Please realize that I am fully aware of the potential risks of making ANY
statement on these politically-enabled questions, but believing in
fairness, I don't want to be in any priveleged place in the shooting
gallery. I am therefore well stocked with gauze and bandaids.
This is a broader take on the subject - attempting to divide it into two
categories that we seem, at present, to employ in both science and society:
the Human vs. natural distinction. Perhaps this can help find not the
correct prediction for the future, but what it will balance between. It may
seem too simplistic, but as we've seen specifics may be overreaching at
this point. It may also seem too idealistic - take it as an optimistic view
because I believe the forces of evil will loose. Hence that colors my
predictions.
I took for my starting point Francis' comment that he was only responding
about what we (humans) have control over. So I thought about the other
half, which we don't control but instead react to and to some degree try to
anticipate.
Also, note that I do not use any insults in this description, so now is
your chance to prove that such is not necessary to provoke response. I
really would appreciate feedback, not to start a long diatribe, but just to
note the similar or counter views.
I. CRITICAL FACTORS
A. What are the factors that are most critical to the long term
survival of humanity?
Split into two categories which have different solutions:
1. Natural events affecting the continued existence of the Earth and life
support systems.
2. Decisions affecting same.
#1 solution is technological and scientific (class this generally with the
objective view)
#2 solution is societal and humanistic (class this generally with the
subjective view)
B. What are the current map and trajectory of these factors?
#1. Natural events will continue to present challenges and there is a
slight chance of human extinction.
#2. Technological development for the purpose of solving #1 will dominate
over humanistic development until it intolerably causes more problems than
it solves. We're nearing that point, say in the next 100 years or so. When
it is generally realized that the tech/sci solution will not correct the
humanistic problem, there will be greater emphasis on the human psyche, in
science as well as society. This is already occurring in isolated pockets.
When this realization is extended to an understanding of psyche in general
(not just human) we will then be on the threshold of an integrated
worldview ("Weltanschauung") from which we approach life's problems and our
own understanding. We will then realize that #1 and #2 have more in common
than we assumed, and we can map the areas where they intersect. This
implies that humanity is progressing toward a greater understanding of our
unity with nature, contrary to appearances. This unity will not come from a
return to an Earth culture, nor a leap to a purely technological culture,
but an increase in our understanding of both.
C. What are the problems and opportunities with the factors identified?
#1. We might be too slow and get clobbered, big time. The opportunity is
expansion to other planets, and preservation of our own planet's functions,
both of which will increase the odds of survival as a species.
#2. We might fail to recognize our deeper nature and continue to act like
fools. This will impeed true progress in #1 (i.e., we'll address the wrong
priorities and race ahead with counter-productive technologies) increasing
the odds of random annihilation. Also, overemphasis on technological
substitutes for human qualities may be dramatically misleading. While the
"Global Brain" paradigm is basically a positive vision of better
communication, the "tower of babel" paradigm is the fundamental warning.
Better communication requires equal emphasis on better content. Hence real
progress depends on a balance and implied responsibility between these
factors.
II. POTENTIAL IN YOUR FIELD
What do you envision as the greatest potential/future in your field in the
1000 year future?
In ecology (the discipline), the greatest need and potential is theoretical
unification of ecology with evolution, psychology, modern physics, and
other fields; as well as a resolution of the present worldview opposition
between science/objectivity and human experience/subjectivity. The
potential exists and the beginnings of that unification have been charted;
however these efforts are generally unnoticed because of limited ideas
about the definition of science and its compartmentalization. Theoretical
unification would also remove the boundary between human vs "natural,"
developing the science instead from a new foundation where "human" activity
is theorized as a part of nature and vice versa. Also, the arbitrary
compartmentalization whereby humans are explained as fundamentally unique
would disappear (except for the normal species distinctions). This, in
turn, would lead to the realization of our common bond with all life, not
just physically but also psychologically, and thus a new respect for life,
including our own. Since beliefs drive our social and political systems,
the dominance of this belief (if achieved) would be reflected in our laws,
policies, and programs (whether globally federated or not).
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?
1) How can we move toward an integration of science?
2) How can science be reconciled with personal (psychological) experience?
3) How can science and humanism be reconciled with religion?
4) How can the integration of 1-3 help facilitate an understanding of why
we exist?
5) Are there universal values to which humanity aspires or that can be
learned from nature (internal and external)?
*note - these are a personal preference of topics, not necessarily what I
think is most critical or of common interest.
IV. 1000 YEAR VISION
Please articulate your vision of the 1000 year future in a 3-5 line state=
ment.
The potential outlined above may not be achieved in 1000 years, but there
will be progress toward it. Set-backs will intervene, and these are
unpredictable in any detail. The basic struggle will be between developing
our material support and developing our psychological nature. Overemphasis
on the former will cause damage to life-support systems and increase the
risk of self-destruction because of our misdirection. Overemphasis on the
later will increase vulnerability to natural catastrophies, including the
products of human activity (as from overpopulation, disease, etc.), because
of our lack of participation. In the end, our survival will depend on
maintaining an appropriate balance between physical action and
psychological harmony; where each properly informs the other. This balance
also implies that meaning will be enhanced in both individuality and society.
-----------------------------------------------
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)