>>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.
>
>It seems a Nice split :-), but ALL technological "solutions" depend on
>human decisions
>so there are not any direct solutions to #1. ??
>>
Yes, so it must ultimately be considered an arbitrary division. Of course,
#1 is also not a problem, except from a human perspective, so in a sense it
solves itself without our perspective.
>>#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.
Good point. There was discussion on the list earlier about the scientific
value (i.e., non-value) of individually subjective states, however when
they become collectively shared and discussed do they then become
objectified to some degree?
...... 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!
Yes, this is perhaps a bit biased to my personal hopes. However, I do think
there must be a logical end-point, something like Tielhard de Chardan's
"Omega point" where a more complete inquiry of all the aspects of reality
lead to some inescapable realizations about who we are. From what I've
seen, it appears that the very pessimistic views, or self-destructive
views, are found in narrow sub-system thinking and disappear in the larger
systems views. Is this a valid observation or an illusion?
>>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.
>>
Wow. I wouldn't want to say that in public. Could it not include a
diversity of modes that are "unified" only in the sense of fitting into a
larger conceptual whole? The "socio-cybersystemic" view seems to imply a
material unification rather than a conceptual one, or is that not implied
in these terms?
......
>>#2. We might fail to recognize our deeper nature (!!!???)- "human nature"=
> is
> a socio-political meme-contagion phenomenon.
Thus implying that it is acquired by the organism, rather than emergent and
fundamental to it (as in a "deeper nature"). Can it not be both? What
emerges may stem from a fundamental nature that may be shared among a
species or even among all life. Is there a rationale to rule this out? By
"deeper nature" I mean a better answer to the question of who we are (as
opposed to what we are), which may have some basic aspects inherited from
natural laws that we have yet to understand. In other words, the
theologians would assume human nature is ordaned in some fundamental way,
yet corrupted by our emergent behavior that may loose contact with this
more fundamental reality. To provide sharp contrast, a scientific view
might defend the exact opposite view - that human behavior is entirely
determined by life experience and external phenomena. The reason for this
view may be more to maintain the division than to explain the evidence in
the best way.
......
>>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.)
>
If this has general agreement, we should try to identify what the main
stumbling block is.
..... 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?).
Sure, but language-culture and memetic propagation in human terms - so
obviously the only ones so far meeting those definitions. Other animals
have languages (bees? gorillas and chimps?) and one can certainly discuss
acquisition of new learned behaviors in other primates and other mammals in
terms of memes (Japaneese macaques learning to wast sweet potatoes, chimps
developing meat eating and war-like behaviors, etc.). Where do you draw the
line? My point is we draw the line based on some criteria about how
sophisticated these capabilities are, and this is not a fundamental
difference, only one of skill level.
>>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.
So it seems. However, my point is that at some psychological level, in fact
we DO NOT really admit to common bonds and thus use physical distinctions
to justify prejudice. We need only look at wartime dehumanization
campaigns. It seems that lact of respect invokes some need for
justification in our minds, and so we devise various arbitrary means, such
as race, sex, nationality, height, accent, etc. Recall all the very serious
scientific theories about why women were less intelligent than men, blacks
inferior, etc. We seem to need objective justification for discrimination
to cover its inherent subjectivity. So I'm saying that as the objective
justifications are gradually removed, we realize closer bonds.
>>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!).
Yup.
>>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).
>>
Yes, that would be something learned "externally." Can we also consider
what might be commonly acquired from introspection, or do we assume that
every psyche is completely unique?
-----------------------------------------------
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)