It seems a Nice split :-), but ALL technological "solutions" depend on
human decisions
so there are not any direct solutions to #1. ??
>
>#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)
Yes, however, the subjective views and interests of collectivities: teams,=
=20
peoples, religious transviduals etc. not just =EFndividuals"are
involved here.
>
>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.
Or at least an end to most kinds of decent joyful human living for
most of the 6 to 13 Billion humanimals to come soon to a place near you.
>#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.=20
WELL -perhaps we could? -can progress that way but the signs don't look
good at all,
except through "New Age " or other "spiritual" rose coloured glasses!
>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.
YES , -as the socio-cybersystemic unity of eco-co-cultural symbiosis.
>
>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 (!!!???)- "human nature"=
is
a socio-political meme-contagion phenomenon.
>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.=20
Agreed.
(-though ecology is not my field - Educational Technology is now.)
>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).=20
WEll- we do seem to be the only language-culture memetic-propagation
imperative=20
animal species which has evolved so far (Dolphins?).
>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,
NON Sequitur - we realise our common bond with other human beings but=20
do not accord even them respect.
>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?
A religion is whatever a group of people takes to be ultimately=
authoritative
(eg, science, wealth!).
>4) How can the integration of 1-3 help facilitate an understanding of why
>we exist? (why or how can that matter??)
>5) Are there universal values to which humanity aspires or that can be
>learned from nature (internal and external)?
WEll we can construct some which may command planetary majority respect in
time -
such as conservation of Requisite eco and cultural variety to sustain both
the desire and
the ability to go on indefinitely.
(gb).
>
>*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=
=3D
>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)
Professor Gary McIntyre BOYD
Educational Technology graduate Programme,=20
EDUCATION, LB-579, Concordia University
1455 DeMaisonneuve west, Montreal,
Quebec, CANADA H3G 1M8,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tel. (514)848-7329. ,fax.(514)848-4520
<http://alcor.concordia.ca/~boydg/drboyd.html>
Toward Eco-Co-Cultural-Conviviality through
Grace & Grudge networking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------