MasterPlanning!: Divine Will, Part 2
by Tony Chavira
Let’s presume, for a moment, that God doesn’t exist....
Nothing at all is metaphysical about our existence in the universe. Religion aside, we can literally draw a straight line from the Big Bang to our current evolved state using existing scientific knowledge: from particles to chemicals to single-then-multi-cellular organisms to insects, fish, amphibians, lizards, mammals, apes, and finally people. Between astrophysics, biochemistry, and evolutionary neurology we can see how the universe developed the key components for rational thought through self-organization and physical laws. No guiding hand, just the actions of probability.
In particular, our survival as a species has depended heavily on social cues and learned behavior. There’s no need for the idea of a soul if we could have evolved a sense of love, faith, devotion, rational thinking, and existential crisis out of survival necessity. There are a quadrillion little parts in our brains that work collectively to create our consciousness, and these interactions may be too complex to fully understand in a quadrillion lifetimes. But we’ve had the benefit of billions of years to develop into complex organisms, and thousands more to develop our complex emotions. Philosopher Daniel Dennett stated it best: our presumed “souls” can just be the accumulation of tiny robotic mechanisms in our brains. Complexly-interacting micro-components, self-aware and constantly self-analyzing. There is no Descartes-style mind-body division. The soul is only the awareness of the complexity of the brain. Developed by the brain, for the brain.
So the question for existence is no longer “Why do we have a soul?” (however you may define “soul”) because that answer is too simple for us: “Because we had to evolve one in order to survive this long in this harsh, chaotic universe.” We’ve adapted, and now the world works for us. We can breathe its air and drink its water just fine; none of those elements will kill or harm us. In fact, we are wholly dependent on them in order to continue surviving. From a purely evolutionary point of view, we know that polluting the earth is a stupid, primitive idea. We are slowly and knowingly destroying the engine that propelled us into our state of awareness, and we as a species cannot sustain if things get worse.
But, maybe less noticeably, we have spent the last fifty to seventy years organizing society in an increasingly unsustainable way. A way that is literally contrary to the need for strong social and communal ties that allowed our species to flourish in the past. One could argue that we’ve evolved past the point of requiring human interactions, but they’d be wrong in that humans require the assistance of organized systems in order to exist. You need to get fresh food and water somehow and from somewhere and, in the history of human existence, the job of attaining these goods for survival has never been the responsibility of a single person. In fact, if you live over your own reservoir and farm in your backyard, you’re still hardwired to be contemplative. You can’t deny: we are (evolutionarily) ridiculously intelligent beings, and sharing intelligence is the best way to enhance intelligence. Image how mind-numbing it would be to live alone and never have access to reading material.
We’re the accumulation of thousands of years of human knowledge, and living in complete isolation would prevent you from having thoughts as complex as the ones you are currently having. In fact, you’re being affected by a transfer of ideas right now, as you read this article. Isn’t the mere participation in the social system intellectually stimulating? This is a smart argument for smart growth, as density through smart growth both allows for a reduction in pollution output and an increase in social equity for people all along the wide economic range.
In fact, our sense of social equity is one of our oldest naturally-evolved traits. At one point it was more specifically helping other humans deal with bare essentials like food, shelter, and protection from saber-toothed tigers. Now it’s helping downtrodden denizens of devastated communities as they beg for your spare change so that they can build a well closer to their village, fight against socially-transmitted diseases, or go to school and accumulate their own knowledge. Since we’ve climbed to the top of the food chain and evolved beyond the point of fearing larger predators, we as a species are fighting with a newer and more powerful adversary in a completely different way. That subversive enemy is disease. Like a smart, adaptive villain, diseases are evolving alongside us to dominate our biology, and they have no reservations about exploiting our social nature. It’s no wonder that teachers, doctors and factory workers tend to get sick so easily: they work in a particularly social environment.
Conversely, health issues that should not affect humans any longer are on the rise as we cope with living in unsustainable sprawl. In fact, we now know that certain diseases can be wholly prevented through the perpetuation of smart urban growth and movement away from dead-end suburban sprawl. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (for a compelling example) have linked several health issues to sprawl, including obesity, respiratory disorders, heart disease and diabetes. Now think: fifty to seventy years of citizens have been affected by these health issues simply by living amidst sprawl.
Like truly dependent creatures of the universe, we are wholly affected by our environment and either adapt to it or die. When we begin to notice that a certain type of living condition, lifestyle, or social attitude is attributing to human disease and death, we have two choices. We can let those foolish enough to live in those situations die and wait for humans who are immune to diabetes, heart disease, etc. to evolve. Or, we can work collectively as a species to ensure a future for our kin by developing stronger, more cohesive communities that allow our species to flourish alongside others while reducing overall health problems. Maybe even evolve beyond these health problems.
God isn’t a factor, so there’s really no “wrong” answer here. Help live or let die, the choice itself has no morality attached to it at all and there won’t be any repercussions if you choose the “let die” option. But we can’t help but attribute morality to this choice. Our brains have evolved neurons that allow us to empathize with the plight of the downtrodden. It’s already part of our genetic history: we believe that helping people is just the right thing to do, and need no further explanation than that. There’s no cosmic justice, only laws we impose in search of an ingrained sense of fairness. For the sake of a better, brighter future for humanity, I hope that’s enough.
(Last week, we presumed that God exists....)
www.racaia.com | tony@fourstory.org
Comments
No comments yet.
