Is Humanity a Failed Experiment?

[rebecca702]

The notion has been raised that we are currently riding out an evolutionary dead-end. Humanity is a failed experiment. And wisdom is simply a mutation.

I would like to know what the opinions are on this.

I recently received a mass email from Sam Harris, who contributed to "The Annual Edge Question" for 2009. http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_index.html I have never heard of this before, but questions in the past have been such as:

"What Is The Most Important Invention In The Past Two Thousand Years?" (1999)

"What Is Today's Most Important Unreported Story?" (2000)

"What are the pressing scientific issues for the nation and the world, and what is your advice on how I can begin to deal with them?" (2003)

"What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" (2005)

"What are you optimistic about?" (2007)

So, this year's question is "What will change everything?"

This got me thinking. There are a lot of optimistic people replying, which is well and fine. But I've been becoming less and less of an optimist.

If you think humanity is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around? That's my question to you!

And if you think it is ALREADY-failed, what caused this?

[Kevin Solway]

I would like to know what the opinions are on this.

It's too early to say that we've failed. When we're extinct, we've failed.

If you think humanity is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around?

Colonizing a hundred planets.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

Many people accept the fact that they are poor, exploited and uneducated because a lot of them understand/ acknowledge that they would have exploited and ruined others if they had the chance. Others try to get back to the top because they are competitive enough, and so, happily play the game. So...I actually have to agree with Mr Solway and say that we are not yet a completely failed species because many of us accept the state the world is in ( consciously and subconsciously ). Many people don't come into this world expecting any sort of great advantages or ease.

Also, when we say we wish for the improvement of the human race we are usually not able to gain this improvement because global or general improvement is usually flattened to the individual's desire to improve himself. When we say we want a better world we usually actually only mean that we want a better world for OURSELVES. If people want more land and food, they should have less children etc. But no one really takes this seriously so we have to admit we don't want the best for the planet but just for ourselves.

[Carl G]

If you think humanity is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around? That's my question to you!

And if you think it is ALREADY-failed, what caused this?

The term 'experiment' implies a willed-from-outside genesis. Do you assume a conscious God, or gods, who incubated the species? Indeed it is possible, there is even a faction who believe we were genetically manipulated into our present form by aliens. None of this is in the widely accepted scientific hypothesis, though. What is your base assumption?

Also, the term 'failed' (however qualified by 'nearly' or 'already') doesn't improve the coherence of your query. At most we are failing. But, how could we know that? Appearances can be deceiving. Hour darkest before the dawn, that sort of thing.

All this aside, a medium-sized meteor striking the planet might help.

[Dan Rowden]

The notion has been raised that we are currently riding out an evolutionary dead-end. Humanity is a failed experiment. And wisdom is simply a mutation.

I agree with Carl that "experiment" connotes something false. Humanity is a fact, not an experiment. To say we have failed or even are failing also connotes something false - teleology. To judge "failure" you must have some framework from within which to judge such a thing. What is that framework? What is Humanity's goal or meaning, such that it can "fail" at it?

I recently received a mass email from Sam Harris, who contributed to "The Annual Edge Question" for 2009. http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_index.html I have never heard of this before, but questions in the past have been such as:

"What Is The Most Important Invention In The Past Two Thousand Years?" (1999)

Toilet paper, hands down.

"What Is Today's Most Important Unreported Story?" (2000)

My gout.

"What are the pressing scientific issues for the nation and the world, and what is your advice on how I can begin to deal with them?" (2003)

All the unsolved ones; think.

"What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" (2005)

That there are things I believe that I can't prove.

"What are you optimistic about?" (2007)

Pessimism.

So, this year's question is "What will change everything?"

Cause and effect.

This got me thinking. There are a lot of optimistic people replying, which is well and fine. But I've been becoming less and less of an optimist.

If you think humanity is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around? That's my question to you!

And if you think it is ALREADY-failed, what caused this?

As I said, I don't think the "failure" paradigm is a sensible one. What would change things for the better - from my point of view - is a successful "reason meme". How to set one running is the $64,000 question.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

So, this year's question is "What will change everything?"

Cause and effect.

Sounds like more of the same to me.

What would change things for the better - from my point of view - is a successful "reason meme". How to set one running is the $64,000 question.

Reason out lout (or in print) at them. Communicate reason, reasonably. showing them the benefits. At first, encourage good reasoning, then later show them how reason is self-encouraging, and outside encouragement is actually false. This will work for many people. Exterminate the rest.

Please send my $64K via Western Union. Thank you.

[Dan Rowden]

I like the parts about reasoning out the louts and extermination. The rest, well, that has been tried and seems to have been an unsuccessful meme to this point. Depends how you measure success, I suppose.

[Jason]

So, this year's question is "What will change everything?"

Cause and effect.

Oh really? What's everything going to change into? Some other type of everything? :P

[Dan Rowden]

There's one in every crowd!

[Jason]

There's one in every crowd!

What, a philosophical-comedic genius? You must be imagining a mighty big crowd.

[rebecca702]

Kevin -

It's too early to say that we've failed. When we're extinct, we've failed.

That makes sense. Would you say we're circling the drain?


Carl -

The term 'experiment' implies a willed-from-outside genesis. Do you assume a conscious God, or gods, who incubated the species?

No. Experiment of life itself. "Experiment" does imply experimenter so I see your point.

What is your base assumption?

I suppose my base assumption would be that "success" would mean a species fully self-aware. But I realize people have different notions of what success or failure would mean, and I wanted to see what those variations were. So maybe it is a faulty question.

Also, the term 'failed' (however qualified by 'nearly' or 'already') doesn't improve the coherence of your query.

Right.

At most we are failing. But, how could we know that? Appearances can be deceiving. Hour darkest before the dawn, that sort of thing.

So what would be your definition of success, or dawn, or whatever?


Dan -

I agree with Carl that "experiment" connotes something false. Humanity is a fact, not an experiment. To say we have failed or even are failing also connotes something false - teleology. To judge "failure" you must have some framework from within which to judge such a thing. What is that framework? What is Humanity's goal or meaning, such that it can "fail" at it?

How about becoming wise? Or at least wise enough to not destroy the planet? But maybe its goal IS to destroy the planet - how should I know? Hmmm... right, on to more important things. Toilet paper IS cool.

[Jason]

Toilet paper IS cool.

Splinter-free was a particular milestone, I think.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin -

It's too early to say that we've failed. When we're extinct, we've failed.

That makes sense. Would you say we're circling the drain?

Yes, I'd say we are. But it's still possible we can spin out of it.

[Jason]

Kevin -

It's too early to say that we've failed. When we're extinct, we've failed.

That makes sense. Would you say we're circling the drain?

Yes, I'd say we are. But it's still possible we can spin out of it.

How are humans close to extinction, Kevin?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

a particular milestone, I think.

Cripes, the great toilet paper shortage was 1973? I remember that. I knew I had a few really early memories, but I thought I was older than 4 when that happened.

[Dan Rowden]

I can think of a number of hypothetical causes for our "extinction", but no extant ones. Maybe, decimation, but extinction? Nah. No extant cause for that exists in my view.

[Carl G]

What is your base assumption?

I suppose my base assumption would be that "success" would mean a species fully self-aware. But I realize people have different notions of what success or failure would mean, and I wanted to see what those variations were. So maybe it is a faulty question.

The first standard of success, I think, is survival. I don't think we'll have a problem with that in the foreseeable future, although society may change, perhaps even drastically.

The highest standard for humanity may be, as you say, species-wide self-awareness. I personally would not judge the species a failure if it did not meet this. It may not be in its realm of probability. Certainly people can function without it.

Are you implying this quality be considered the highest permutation of natural evolution? I would tend to disagree, judging from the effort required on my part to improve me in this area even a little bit. In other words, increased consciousness is not just part of a biological progression, it requires input from oneself, it requires motivation to overcome entropy, denial, ego, and such. It requires active work to develop such things as attention and will.

This, by the way, is how P.D. Ouspensky refers to it in his book Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution. Possible.

So, yes, it would be a stunning success if eventually humankind did rise to this level. But it wouldn't necessarily be a failure if it didn't.

A mom and pop grocery store may have the potential of building to become bigger worldwide than Walmart, and instead simply provide a good living and sucessfully put the kids through college.

How about becoming wise? Or at least wise enough to not destroy the planet? But maybe its goal IS to destroy the planet

I don't think we could destroy the planet. Even with all our nukes.

[Kevin Solway]

How are humans close to extinction, Kevin?

In my view, we are possibly close to extinction.

Firstly, it could well happen that 99.9% of the human race are killed by a virulent disease.

Our medicine puts a selection pressure on disease organisms which will create organisms of great virulence.

That still leaves some humans.

I don't trust that the remaining humans will have it together enough to survive, or to continue what we regard to be "civilization".

They might form a suicide cult where everyone kills themselves.

One reason I think it is easy for "intelligent" species, like ourselves, to become extinct, is because we haven't yet detected any other intelligent species in the Universe. I suspect there have been many other intelligent species, but that they became extinct, due to the same forces that threaten to bring about our own extinction.

[Carl G]

Kevin wrote:

we haven't yet detected any other intelligent species in the Universe.

How do you know this? (Being that there is evidence to the contrary.)

[Kevin Solway]

How do you know this? (Being that there is evidence to the contrary.)

I haven't seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.

Apart from this sighting of a death star over San Francisco.

[Jason]

I find this unusual take on extraterrestrial intelligence to be very thought provoking.

[Carl G]

How do you know this? (Being that there is evidence to the contrary.)

I haven't seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.

Illogical. You haven't seen, therefore you can unequivocally state a truth about "we"?

Apart from this sighting of a death star over San Francisco.

And then you joke about your ignorance?

[Zarina]

Hello, I am new, apologise, if my English not well. At first: thank you, Kevin Solway for "Sex and Character" by Otto Weininger, I read with ardent interest; " He who could understand himself could understand the world" - my life's device.
Answer for topic: I think that no failure; great cultures, civilizations were created and more important -religions and spiritual teachings and man have developed highest human principle(moral), because compassion and love - general and concluding purpose of Universe.
Not all of humanity achieve this stage , but, I think those who live without contact with souls have own direction in evolution.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

Welcome Zarina. It is a good point that you make, namely that we have should not overlook the spiritual and religious achievements or understandings we have reached, and that we should see them as a type of species triumph. You're entirely correct, we give ourselves too little credit for the invention of civilizations. But how do we know that compassion and love is the general and concluding purpose of the universe? Are you speaking from a religious point of view only?

( I believe that on a cosmic level, the word purpose has no existence or definition or even a reference, since the universe does not have a human brain or capacities to distinguish between and plan entities. On a cosmic level nothing exists, including the absence of nothing, which we then go on to label as somethingness. Therefore I believe that God is, whatever he comes across as to us, the pure potentiality which is seemingly inherent to what we call "the universe" and therefore the Bible is legitimate even though it is contradictory and therefore I totally believe in God, and also that my love for him may be contradictory. So I actually believe in the biblical goal of love and compassion. Of course, I am still working on my theory every once in a while ).

[guest_of_logic]

I find this unusual take on extraterrestrial intelligence to be very thought provoking.

I second that motion. Way cool stuff.