Auto-SummaryThe post argues that technological advancement alone does not inherently benefit humanity; it requires the advancement of human values. The author emphasizes the need to shift from valuing individual gain to recognizing the value of community, resources, and the biosphere. Technology can either help align our values with sustainable practices or accelerate our departure from the biosphere, as seen with nuclear energy's dual potential. The post criticizes current value systems that prioritize financial systems over planetary health, citing examples like NASA's Mars mission being rejected due to cost. It concludes that a sustainable value system is necessary for the species' survival, urging individuals to expose others to new ideas and promote human dignity. Ultimately, the author believes that while human minds are powerful, they are not all-powerful, and aligning with natural balance is crucial for the species' future.
We've seen that the advancement of technology does not carry intrinsic benefit to the human species if it is not matched by the advancement of human values. By "values", I'm referring quite plainly to valuation: discerning between what has value and what does not.
For example, our value system places emphasis on the value of material and personal success, which is to say to say individual gain. The value placed on individual gain is placed ahead of the value of being part of a greater community; it's placed ahead of the real, tangible (as opposed to monetized) value of resources; it's valuation is so distorted that it has outpaced even the biosphere itself.
Such is the power of the human mind to manufacture a reality, and then live inside that reality, irrespective of what circumstances compel the human mind to reevaluate its scope and relationship with reality.
With that said, the human mind may be powerful, but is not more powerful than the sphere of natural laws which gave rise to its emergence. Those laws will force our species to yield. Unsustainable will become unsustained, and sustainable will be sustained. This cannot be escaped. The only question is: will the human species come to terms with the practical realities of its continued existence, or will it be disposed of by the immutable laws of that existence?
Here, technology can play a very valuable role. Should our species come out of its bamboozlement and establish a coherent relationship with the practical realities it is faced with, technology will be enables us to quickly render that relationship synergistic. Equally, that same technology can be deployed in ways which will accelerate our forced departure from the biosphere. Consider nuclear energy: research into nuclear energy is the reason why Voyager II now relaying information about the nature of the heliopause from the very farthest edge of the solar system. It is also the reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In 2005, NASA estimated that with current technology, a $50BN plan could be realized to put a team of explorers on Mars who would subsist long enough to carry out valuable scientific research, as well as generate the hydrogen fuel required for them to achieve escape velocity and return home. Congress rejected the plan out of hand because of its financial cost. The value of such a mission, in Congress' view, was not high enough to justify the $50BN allocation of economic worth. To date, 12.6% of world GDP is allocated to bank bailouts alone. The value of banks and bankers, according to our current value system, is many times higher than the value of exploring other planets. Even though banks contribute nothing tangible to society--all they do is move arbitrary units of valuation around in computers--they were deemed "too big to fail" (read: too valuable to fail). This is evidence of our value system disorder.
This value system disorder must be revised. Indeed, it will be revised, because it has aligned our species against the very biosphere which sustains us. Whether this revision means our extinction, or whether it means our sustainable continuance, the current imbalance will come to an end. All imbalances must necessarily return to balance. That is their unchangeable nature.
When the circumstances are unsustainable, change is inevitable. If our species is to survive as the technologically integrated whole it has become this past century, it will require the abandonment of obsolete values and the adoption of a completely new, completely sustainable value system. I believe human beings have this potential. I believe it is within reach, and that our preference for survival will ultimately win out against our preference for unconstrained material wealth. If I'm wrong, it will mean our extinction. Since our extinction lies beyond the threshold of reckoning, it seems useless to me to reckon anything other than our potential.
Since I cannot control the minds of others around me, my responsibility begins and ends with my responsibility to expose the people within my reach of influence to new ideas, new ways of thinking, and to appeal to their human dignity. If I extend myself beyond this responsibility, I suffer, because to try to change what you cannot change is to suffer. If I fail to rise to this responsibility, I suffer, because to idle is to degenerate. To not suffer in this regard, therefore, is to think within my scope, and to act within my radius of action; it is to regard the world with all the same dispassionate equanimity it extends to me.
The natural world is, after all, dispassionately equanimous. It subsists entirely on balance, and it does not carry bias or preference. The greater numbers of us who gain accord with this principle, greater the likelihood of our species' gaining accord with a sustainable subsistence. The human mind is powerful, but it is not all-powerful.
Case in point:
Consider yourself a citizen of the human world, and you will be subject to its chaos and upheaval. Consider yourself a citizen of the natural world, and you will come into alignment with principles beyond chaos and upheaval.
Edited by Ped (01/05/13 04:10 PM)
|