8 hours ago, Arez said:What I'm saying, which I thought seemed pretty clear, is we're operating naturally, exactly as we're supposed to at this given time period. Just like everything else, for good or ill. We're primates using artificial systems to help bring us together in numbers too large for our biological, primate tendencies. Put 1000 chimps together and watch them rip each other apart.
The philosophy of Naturalism is very popular today I think, in part, because Western civilization lost touch with its roots somewhere along the way, specifically around the time of Isaac Newton and the burgeoning Mechanical philosophy. We've neglected our home, "the only home we've ever known," as Carl Sagan put it. The Church and its injunction of "dominion over" as opposed to stewardship of Nature didn't help matters in the least, but there appears to be a course correction underway at this point. Civilization appears to be learning once again to work with Nature's systems as opposed to trying to control, change or dominate them, though there are some branches of the sciences, e.g. bio- and geoengineering, that apparently haven't received the memo just yet. You'll see this course correction in the writings of scientists such as Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser (a professor of Naturalism, actually) who eschew reductionism and admit that the sciences' quest for the Theory of Everything is misguided, at best, etc. You'll also see it in the writings of authors such as Sufi teacher, Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, and others in various historically repressed religious traditions, e.g. the Christian contemplative tradition, as well as the Pope's encyclical, Laudito Si. Indigenous wisdom also has never been more popular, obviously.
There is a danger inherent in it, though, and that is a return to the discredited Social Darwinism, which is the kind of philosophy you're suggesting with the dog eat dog analogies, its vestiges shambling on...like a zombie, actually...in predatory practices such as those that have taken over much of the gaming industry. Chimps may act that way in each others' company, but human beings are not obliged to do so themselves. I haven't much patience with the "humans are just hairless apes" folks myself. Quite obviously there are significant differences between us despite sharing DNA strains that differ only a smidgeon. We are creators and producers of art; music; poetry; and so much more. The new coziness between the Arts and Sciences also comes with an inherent danger written about in an article titled 'The Arts Can't Be Reduced to An Equation,' published in the The Independent several years ago. (It's no longer available online, though an excerpt is.)
The "artificial systems" are largely a projection of the refinement of the Mechanical philosophy redesignated Transhumanism to my mind, Transhumanism and its proponents -- the "Jeffelon Zuckergates" of the world -- proposing what is actually Cyborgism.
Anywho. Interesting stuff to ponder...and an awful lot of crossed wires to detangle. Thanks for participating.