Science Forums 2

[enorbet2]

I am going to attempt to keep this brief so as not to drift into a social sciences off topic thread even though I have a lot to say on this subject. Let me start by saying that whatever one's opinion may have been about Alvin Tofler's book, "Third Wave" published in 1980, the basic premise that human civilization has gone through "waves" of fundamental change as from Hunter-Gatherer to Agricultural through Industrial to The Information Age is a pretty safe bet. Further recognizing that such fundamental change has always been met with trauma and upheaval and would likely again is not exactly stepping out on a limb either, particularly now that we are in the middle of it.

The major question facing us at this point has been asked by Hawking and Sagan and many others and it can be posed many ways. "Is intelligence an evolutionary advantage?" or "Does intelligence, possibly compromised by the slow rate of changes in instinct, once it achieves this level of technology ie: splitting of the atom and genetic modification of viruses to name a few, always self-destruct?" So far SETI and others have failed to find any evidence that anyone else has ever made it, possibly the most pressing reason to continue the exploration of Space if only to find that answer.

While there are times I have grave doubts, in general I am optimistic, hopefully because it's the only way to live a positive life and not from rose-colored glasses. Numerous philosophers, thinkers, and political activists have in the past reasoned that it is to everyone's advantage, including the rich, at the very least in the quality of life in the world in which we and our children live to eliminate poverty. This isn't hard to reason since so much conflict from petty crime to war is between perceived Haves and Have Nots. However recently I read in a Science magazine in an article about budding geniuses who are expected to have a great impact on our futures, that at least one man heads a team who has employed a super computer to model civilization based somewhat on the idea of so-called "God Games" that can adjust and progress through algorithms changes in society's variables. Apparently in every instance if one arbitrarily eliminates poverty the results exceed all other variables. That super computers can now be put together for under $4000 US is just another reason for confidence in the triumph of Reason.

Additionally recent trends in Science to study systems in terms of networking seem to show that it may not have to be arbitrary or even all that difficult given the understanding and the will and that it may even be essential, especially if one considers the need for Hope among human individuals. It's not that every person that grows up in an oppressive situation that renders constant negative reinforcement, feedback that there are no readily available avenues to realize one's potential, an utter lack of hope, will turn to evil, or crime or even just against society in general, but enough of the smarter, more industrious ones that could be a positive force will to negate the good will and quality of life of many. This is partly why frontiers have been so valuable in the past as an outlet for the restless and ambitious who felt constrained within a society closed to upward mobility through clearly defined paths. This is even an accepted business model for maximizing productivity. I attribute the rise in anti-science and fundamentalist religions as well to the lack of such hope.

It seems to me we either must become aware and supportive of a scientifically derived social contract that practices what it preaches or else have frontiers available for the "misfits" who won't be held down. Better, why not have both and actually try to achieve an open society envisioned by such as Gene Rodenberry? It is quite possible that the only alternative is massive reduction in world population by either plague or war and who knows how many Einsteins in so many fields have already been lost to such?