Archive for Evolution

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

June 21, 2013 Consciousness, Evolution No comments

I attended a conference last weekend dedicated to the goal of creating an “immortal” version of a human being by transferring our “mind,” or possibly our brains as well, into an android by 2045. The conference was called GF2045. The GF stands for Global Future. The Russian who created the conference, Dmitry Itskov, did a good job of bringing together a lot of diverse people from the forefront of futurism, brain research, robotics and spirituality/religion, including Peter Diamandis, Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurzweil, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Dr. Roger Penrose, and Dr. George Church, though some appeared via a canned video presentation.

It seems that there is still a wide variance of opinion about what constitutes the mind and what it means to be human? Age-old questions persist. Does consciousness arise from the biological mechanisms of the brain or does it simply reside there while the body is alive? Can we be human with a replacement body?

Some presented research showing that we should be able to repair damaged parts of the brain with replacement circuitry. Others thought that computers would soon be sophisticated enough to mimic human intelligence. Others saw it as a no-brainer (pun intended) that someday an individual’s consciousness could reside in something other than our original human birth bodies.

But nobody, in my opinion, got to the root of what it means to be human—what characteristics of consciousness we all share and what motivates us to make “progress.” Death was the problem that the conference was trying solve. The operative assumption was that we’d be better off if we could all live forever and that we had to take control over our own evolution to get there.

I’m not sure that should be our goal. Where we put our energy determines the results we will get. I’m of the opinion that we have much more pressing issues to solve than human mortality. How about we aspire to not killing each other before we try living forever.

Competition by Itself Is Out of Balance

June 25, 2012 Economics, Evolution, Politics, Republicans, Values, Wealth One comment

The odds against human beings existing in the universe are astronomically large. An unbelievable number of factors had to remain in balance in order for humans to have evolved. The planet had to be in exactly the right position around the exact right size star. The right chemicals had to come together in the exact right amounts, at the exact right temperature to start the process of life.

The point is that there is a very narrow zone of equilibrium where all of the necessary forces and chemicals and sources of energy are balanced. Balance and equilibrium are key to the development of life and the continuance of ecological systems. Humans have evolved not just by outcompeting other species, but by cooperating with each other. Competition and cooperation need to be balanced.

This analogy also holds true for societies and politics. Currently, the Republicans represent a value system cannot produce the equilibrium required for societal stability and growth. They, along with free-market libertarians, believe that competition is sufficient; that each individual selfishly pursuing his or her own self-interest will produce a balanced and fair society. They seem to believe that wealth is synonymous with merit and that those who do not have a job or enough money to feed themselves, educate their children or pay for healthcare have only themselves to blame.

This sort of belief system is based a model of reality that acknowledges competition but doesn’t acknowledge the need for us all to cooperate. Therefore cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and programs that aid the poor is just because the cost of these losers is being borne by the meritorious winners. Why should they share? They work hard, they deserve. The poor do not.

That is why government should be small. Those that drive the economy don’t need the government. Just let these hard workers compete and let the winners win. The winners will employ others to help them. This is how society works—how the winners produce value for everyone. We need to compete to keep the wealthy corporations happy—giving them incentives to hire people in this state or that state. This is the expressed belief system of conservatives and it’s out of balance. Competition is all that is required.

But it is clear that competition by itself does not produce good results for society. It has led to very few very big winners and huge multitudes of losers. That is what the facts on the ground prove.

In this election we have one candidate who believes that the winners need more incentives to win and that the benefits the non-winners currently receive are a drag on the economy. We can’t afford cooperation and compassion. Cutting benefits for the non-winners will balance the budget and a balanced budget will free up capital up so winners will be able to compete even more successfully. This has not and will not work because it is profoundly out of balance. It will only create more wealth disparity. Romney must be defeated.

I suggest this simple slogan for Obama. Romney is only for the rich. I’m for everybody.

The End Is Near

July 2, 2010 Economics, Energy, Evolution, Politics, Values No comments

If you’re awake and paying attention you may have noticed that things aren’t going so well right now. The oil spill in the gulf is a harbinger of more difficult challenges ahead as we have to go to greater depths, literally and figuratively, to find the oil that powers our world. That’s because the end of easy cheap oil is here. That’s bad news for the economic reality of the life we’ve become accustomed to. Because to work properly, the dynamics of our current economy depend on constant growth fueled by cheap oil. So the end of life as we know it is near. And the change that is bearing down on us is not pretty.

Of course it’s not like the economic system we have has been working all that well anyway. The middle class is going backward and the millennials are really going backward in terms of prosperity. The world economy had to stop growing sometime. Constant growth—in the stock market, in home prices, in ever more affordable energy—has never been possible. But it’s only now, when it’s ending that we realize we shouldn’t have expected an ever-rising arrow of economic well-being.

The idea that most of our kids will have a better life than we did has already ended. With cheap energy ending, global warming coming and a world economic system increasingly unable to sustain itself at the current level, life as we’ve come to know it is definitely ending.

The question is how bad will it be when it ends? You see, many great civilizations, such as Rome and the Egyptians, collapsed not because of conquerors, but primarily because they grew too large for the energy resources available. Their agricultural land went fallow and in the case of Rome at least, the dark ages ensued. (This is laid out in the great 2009 book The Empathetic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin.) Right before the industrial revolution Europe was entering an energy crisis because the wood they used for virtually all housing and energy was almost gone. Fortunately rail and mining technology arrived just in time for a transition to coal without a real nasty economic collapse.

Will we be so fortunate? Or will we only transition to new forms of cleaner, sustainable energy after life as we know it ends? Right now the power lies in the hands of those who control the oil and the industries that rely on it. Unless we all rise up and recognize it’s already ending and work together to make a transition many of the humans on this planet are definitely going feel extreme stress. I don’t want civilization as I’ve known it to end. But unless we radically change course, the end truly is near. It’s too bad that many in power have let self-interest be a blanket they pull up over their heads to keep from having to acknowledge how near the end is.

The Vision Thing

May 4, 2010 Communication, Consciousness, Evolution, Politics, Values No comments

Those of you who are as old as I am may remember that when George H. W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton in 1992, there was talk that he lacked “the vision thing.” Bush was accused of running as a competent manager, rather than someone who had a grand philosophical vision of where the country should go. At least that’s how I remember it.

Clinton’s “I feel your pain” turned out to be a better message than George Bush Sr.’s “I know what I’m doing.” But in truth, neither candidate then, and none of the candidates today, really have the vision thing. The best that can be said is that every four years we have a choice between two opposing philosophies of governance. And both philosophies operate within fairly narrow agreed-upon parameters.

Nowhere, for example, is there a politician who says that he has a vision for how human beings should all live together on the planet—a vision for where evolution is taking us. Politicians don’t even really speak in terms of a global vision. It’s still the U.S. vs. China, or the West vs. the Third World, or the rich vs. the poor.

So it is left to philosophers and activists and NGOs and academic commissions to promote the vision of how all people of the world can live together in peace, harmony and physical security. The shift to a global consciousness is already starting to occur among—dare I say—intellectuals. Articulating this vision in a way that is simple and powerful enough to gain traction in popular culture is the mission of HumansTogether. Despite clear evidence that no one is paying attention yet, I am confident that they will.

Empathy and Compassion

April 20, 2010 Consciousness, Evolution, Politics, Values One comment

Based on what I’ve been reading lately, specifically The Empathetic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin, human beings have evolved into highly empathetic creatures. In fact, an individual’s well-being is highly dependent on the successful transmission of empathy from the mother, or other primary caregiver, to the child. The whole notion that people are driven solely by self-interest turns out not to be true.

I’m only a little way through the book but so far his over 600-page scholarly treatise seems to be providing an extremely well reasoned and well researched case to support what I call “species consciousness.” Rifkin calls it “biosphere consciousness.” The point is that we must identify ourselves with all of humanity on a planetary basis if we are to avoid global catastrophe.

From empathy to compassion is a short side trip. That’s where the Charter for Compassion [http://charterforcompassion.org/] comes in. This site/organization/movement bases its call for global togetherness on the Golden Rule, which it says is at the center of every great religion and spiritual practice.

Rifkin’s book and the Charter for Compassion are part of a growing global meme that we must become one humanity, that we must act as “HumansTogether.” To do this we must first scrape away the layers of cynicism and pessimism we have acquired through our lives and recognize that we and others are fundamentally not “just looking out for number one.”

We must examine the evidence and recognize that we are instead highly social creatures who at our core are much more about compassion and empathy than greed and selfishness. It may take a little digging, but the evidence is there. It just doesn’t get any press. But as Rifkin points out, the only reason our worst behaviors are featured on the news is that they are unusual. Most of the world is actually the opposite of the news, full of loving, concerned people who want to work together to help everyone.

Question Your Beliefs

April 14, 2010 Evolution, Politics, Values One comment

Where do your beliefs come from? Did you get your religion from your parents or did you reject your parents view completely? Did you make a decision to believe what you believe based on logic or did your values come by absorbing the views of your community or culture? Do more highly educated people have different beliefs than less highly educated people?

It’s hard to answer these questions, at least for someone who hasn’t read a lot of scholarly literature about the subject. The point is that beliefs come from a lot of places for a lot of reasons and most of them are not acquired based on a logical evaluation of all possible alternative beliefs.

Religion and culture are good examples. There are probably people who chose a religion after carefully evaluating and comparing all the tenants of the world’s spiritual practices. But more than likely the religion you have is the one your parents had, and you adopted it without really being aware that there were alternatives. And even without exploring the alternatives, there are many Christians who believe they have a handle on the ultimate governing principles of human reality. Those who were raised in other traditions believe just as fervently that they are the most righteous.

In this country, it kind of goes without saying that “America is the best country on earth.” Many, if not most of us, simply except this. We have an ingrained bias against anyone who is not American, even if we know intellectually that being born in any particular location doesn’t make a human being superior to another human being.

The fact is that beliefs drive behavior and if we are going to pull together as a species to solve the imminent planetary crises that we face, we have to take control of our beliefs. They can’t be random. We need to come together around a set of beliefs that recognizes that we are more alike at the core than we are different. Before we think of ourselves as Americans or any other nationality, we have to think “I am a human being on planet earth.”

This bigger picture vision locates us more appropriately for working together and appreciating our common humanity.

Consciousness Precedes Reality

March 30, 2010 Consciousness, Evolution 4 comments

For years I’ve had this idea about the ultimate nature of reality: consciousness precedes reality. As I’m not a philosopher (yet), I wasn’t exactly sure what that really meant. My conception of it was that reality as we know it requires humans to know it. Without human consciousness, reality looks very different. What is reality to a fly, a kangaroo, or a tuna? Certainly not the reality we know.

Now, in an interview in the most recent issue (Spring/Summer 2010) of the unbelievably great magazine EnlightenNext, consciousness researcher Stuart Hameroff, MD, puts forth a theory that a “fundamental field of protoconscious experience has been embedded all along—since the big bang…”

According to Hameroff, other renowned thinkers such as Betrand Russell, William James, and Baruch Spinoza, have put forth this same basic theory, known as neutral monism. “Neutral monism says that there’s one common underlying entity that gives rise to, on the one hand, matter, and on the other hand, mind.”

So even though I never read any of those philosophers, I had the same intuitive sense of the universe; the notion that reality is a transactional process between matter and mind. Perhaps we are necessary for the protoconsciousness embedded in the universe to manifest, just as humans are a particular configuration of the same sub-atomic particles that make up everything else in the 4% – 5% of universe we live in—the part that isn’t dark matter or dark energy. Or maybe protoconsciousness is part of dark matter and dark energy that doesn’t yet exist for us, because we haven’t yet gotten our minds around it.

Lost in the Flood

March 28, 2010 Communication, Evolution, Politics, Values No comments

I wear my iPod when I go for a walk. Today, when I heard Springsteen’s “Lost in the Flood” off his first album from way back in the 70’s, a new meaning occurred to me: Lost in the flood of thoughts.

All of us, unless we take great pains to step outside them, are lost in a flood of conscious thoughts that prevent us from connecting with our true selves. We’re focused on the things that are right in front of us, right off the front bumper of our awareness, instead of looking down the road and getting a more comprehensive view of what’s actually affecting all of us.

We get absorbed with our own self identities instead of the fact that we are all human beings on planet earth. We are all the same.

All of the hate and separation we feel from others is based on a belief that we are all different and that those differences are dangerous. They are dangerous because the others may want to hurt us, or because the others have ideas that if correct, would make us wrong, or cause us to question what we believe. And no humans are really in love with being wrong or having to change.

And that’s the point, under the superficial differences of appearance, culture, religion, class, gender and politics; we are a single species that is way more the same than different. We are all here together on this planet, an infinitesimal oasis in a cold and empty universe (so far as we know). After billions of years, we are the highest example of life-based, matter-connected consciousness that exists (so far as we know). And we’re in danger of destroying ourselves because we see our own personal survival and that of our group as being in competition with other humans who are exactly the same as us.

I believe the highest calling we have as humans, is to recognize that all of us are responsible for getting our species through to the next stage of evolution. This can be a world in which we cooperate together by acting from a set of beliefs based on we are all the same, we are all valuable, and we are all deserving.

The alternative is a set of beliefs based on I’ve got mine, good luck to you. That belief is not going to move humans forward. That belief will keep us divided and invested in fighting with each other, because it is based on a fundamental untruth—that I, my family and my group are better and more deserving than all the others. It is based on denying the truth that we humans are all the same underneath.

Not Equivalent, but the Same Underneath

March 26, 2010 Evolution, Politics No comments

Sarah Palin is right. There is a major problem with the main stream media. The problem is that they assume an equivalence between the right and the left. I’ve heard people I respect say that the problem is polarization. That we have the rantings of Glen Beck on the right and Keith Olbermann on the left. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the insane, deranged, lunatic ramblings of Glen Beck are given equivalence to the insightful, beautifully written, calls to inspiring action of Keith Olbermann. One guy from the left and one guy from the right and their views are supposed to be equally valid. They’re not.

A friend of mine told me something he thought was particularly insightful. The Democrats are playing Jeopardy, trying to be smart about the facts. The Republicans, on the other hand, are playing Family Feud, trying to figure out what a random selection of not too well educated people might answer based on their gut instincts. These things are not equivalent. One is based on rationality and one is based on fear, superstition and the propaganda of Fox News.

But here’s the thing. Underneath, at the core, all human beings are the same. Emotionally we all want validation and respect. But what we don’t realize is that we don’t have beliefs, beliefs have us. Once we adopt a belief that government is bad, or that liberals are trying to take away our freedoms or that Southern fundamentalists are unsophisticated rubes, we are trapped in beliefs that make dealing with those with opposing views very difficult, if not impossible.

However, if we remember that all humans have the same need for love and validation, and we understand that the beliefs others are acting out of represent what they have become as a result of their circumstances in life, it is easier to be tolerant.

Republicans are currently lying about healthcare reform (government takeover) because they are angry that they are no longer in control. Their belief is also because of their parents, their church, and the superior attitude they picked up from those who could afford to go to an expensive college. Whatever.

The point is that they are feeling bad about themselves and acting out. Underneath they are humans that need love, just like all other humans.

It’s the same with Israelis and Palestinians. They are born as totally equivalent human beings and they become hateful toward each other as they absorb the beliefs of their culture.

This site is about understanding that we are all the same. We are unbelievable miracles of evolution—the highest level of consciousness that the universe has produced (so far as we know). So no matter how unequivalent various notions of reality may be, underneath, all humans are exactly as valuable as each other. Seeing that core truth is what will save us from destroying each other.

Toward a Species Consciousness

March 24, 2010 Evolution No comments

While in college in the mid 1970’s I read the book Star Maker by Olaf Stapleton. Written in 1937 as the forces that caused World War II were already brewing, Stapleton described a mind-only astral trip through the space-time of the universe. Along the way he encountered numerous highly evolved, highly self-aware species with a level of consciousness and technology analogous to our own.

I have always remembered the main point: the planetary civilizations that survived all evolved a collective “species consciousness” (my term) at a point when they were in a global crisis. A powerful meme of recognition took the form of “a widespread passion for a new social order which should be just and should embrace the whole planet.”1

“Tribal prestige, individual dominance, military glory, industrial triumphs lost their obsessive glamour, and instead the happy creatures delighted in civilized social intercourse, in cultural activities, and in the common enterprise of world-building.”2 In the book, civilizations that continued on this path eventually developed a “psychically unified community.”3

Flash forward to today where a new meme is beginning to propagate. This meme begins with a belief that through meditation we can still the machinery of the individual mind long enough to make contact with the universal mind—the vast void of infinite consciousness that animates our true, authentic selves and all life in the cosmos. The meme continues with the thought that this universal mind is the force that is driving evolution in the direction of higher and higher consciousness (i.e. single-celled organism to human).

Finally, the meme concludes with this thought expressed by Andrew Cohen, evolutionary scholar and editor of the magazine EnlightenNext: “The next evolutionary leap, as I see it, is the leap from the individual to higher collective, a ‘higher we.’”4

In other words, humans will not only begin to see themselves as one, they will literally be one through a common sense of immersion and experience of the cosmic mind. Who is to say if this is true? But it feels true. And it feels necessary if we are to avoid a future of planetary suffering, strife and death.

1-3 from Chapter 9, Part 1 of Star Maker by Olaf Stapleton, Busy Utopias.

4 from page 32 of EnlightenNext, Issue 46, Spring/Summer 2010.

« Older Entries