From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Thu May 13 1999 - 11:05:13 MDT
From: Billy Brown <bbrown@conemsco.com>
>Arguing about the "ends" of an entire civilization is one of the most
>useless exercises I can imagine. Civilizations don't have goals, purposes,
>desires or ends - those are attributes of individuals.
Right, but individuals (except for sociopaths) seek to maintain the
continuance of civilization. Collectively, we can refer to the effort to
sustain the prosperity of economic populations as "civilization" which is
the sense in which I think some writers mean it.
>> Read the book, then decide..
>
>If the author seriously believes that resource depletion and ecological
>catastrophe are urgent survival issues for mankind, he is so far out of
>touch with reality that I'm not particularly interested in his opinions.
If
>his book happens to be devoted to proving that we should actually be
>concerned about these things (using hard evidence, not anecdotes and
>hysteria), I might give it a look just to make sure there isn't some new
>evidence I've missed. If, however, he takes these things as given, then
>there is no reason for me to waste my time.
I take it back. Don't read _Consilience_. You have more important things to
do than to try to understand a new idea.
>Playing word games does nothing to support your position. There is no
>scientific basis for the belief that current or anticipated levels of
>ecological damage pose any danger whatsoever to mankind's survival. If you
>(or Wilson) think otherwise, let's see some evidence.
Oh no, that would entail referring to the actual book, which we've decided
we don't want to do.
>The Antarctic isn't worth bothering with (although we could cover it with
>indoor farms and/or hydroponics facilities if we really wanted to).
>Irrigating and fertilizing the Sahara would require a few trillion dollars
>worth of nuclear power plants, chemical plants and heavy equipment, but it
>is perfectly doable.
Yes, indeed. Of course after withdrawing a few trillion from our bank
account, we'd have just enough left for some beer and chips.
>Of course, this is totally irrelevant to my point, which was that we can
>easily survive the destruction of virtually every species of life on the
>planet. All we need for survival is a few hundred species of domestic
>animals, a few thousand species of plants, and the various insects and
>microorganisms that will naturally survive in any environment where these
>species are preserved.
We can virtually survive the virtual destruction of virtually every species,
right. But actuality remains virtually unimpressed.
>Even the most extreme eco-destruction scenario won't make things as bad as
>that. Relatively modest preservation efforts are enough to ensure that a
>large majority of the ecology survives even after an area becomes heavily
>populated. The species that don't make it are not important to our
>survival.
I think young people need to worry about eco-destruction more than old folks
do. Since I've already passed that stage, it surprises me that I even worry
about this. Let the kids handle it.
>Now, as I said before, I don't think that means we should just let
>everything die. It simply means that we must be honest enough to argue for
>preservation on moral grounds instead of making up bogus threats.
That sounds very generous of you. Virtual morality has its own charm, I
suppose.
Some readers of _Consilience_ have commented:
Reading this book helped me put different kinds of knowledge together to
form a unified vision of life. As a member of humankind, we should not
imprison ourslves in a cave of practical skills and forget that well-rounded
knowledge is also good for our soul apart from its practical use. Another
book I am reading is as great for the same purpose. It uses adventure
stories in Virtual Reality to convey ideas about the nature of reality and
society, and convinces me that we humans together could be much more
creative and intelletually more powerful than we usually think. If you enjoy
reading this book, you might as well enjoy reading that one. Title: "Get
Real: A Philosophical Adventure in Virtual Reality."
The biologist Edward O. Wilson is a rare scientist: having over a long
career made signal contributions to population genetics, evolutionary
biology, entomology, and ethology, he has also steeped himself in
philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences. The result of his
lifelong, wide-ranging investigations is Consilience (the word means "a
jumping together," in this case of the many branches of human knowledge), a
wonderfully broad study that encourages scholars to bridge the many gaps
that yawn [yeah, it can be slow reading in places. --J. R. ] between and
within the cultures of science and the arts. No such gaps should exist,
Wilson maintains, for the sciences, humanities, and arts have a common goal:
to give understanding a purpose, to lend to us all "a conviction, far deeper
than a mere working proposition, that the world is orderly and can be
explained by a small number of natural laws." In making his synthetic
argument, Wilson examines the ways (rightly and wrongly) in which science is
done, puzzles over the postmodernist debates now sweeping academia, and
proposes thought-provoking ideas about religion and human nature. He turns
to the great evolutionary biologists and the scholars of the Enlightenment
for case studies of science properly conducted, considers the life cycles of
ants and mountain lions, and presses, again and again, for rigor and vigor
to be brought to bear on our search for meaning. The time is right, he
suggests, for us to understand more fully that quest for knowledge, for
"Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission
natural selection, the force that made us.... Soon we must look deep within
ourselves and decide what we wish to become." Wilson's wisdom, eloquently
expressed in the pages of this grand and lively summing-up, will be of much
help in that search.
A brilliant, and insightful argument for the unity of all knowledge and the
need to search for consilience—the proof that everything in our world is
organized in terms of a small number of basic laws of physics that comprise
the principles underlying every branch of learning. Wilson argues that there
is, intrinsically, only one class of explanation that unites the facts of
all disciplines by consilience—the perception of a seamless web of cause and
effect. This book shines forth with groundbreaking concepts; it is 'big
bang' thinking at its best. It will appeal to all those who enjoy stretching
and challenging their mind, and are seeking to think on the cutting-edge,
Reviewed by Gerry Stern, founder HRconsultant.com InfoCenter, author of
Stern's Sourcefinder-The Master Directory to HR and Business Management
Information & Resources and Stern's CyberSpace SourceFinder.
It is rare that an accomplished scientist is able to muster the
philosophical acumen, the interdisciplinary prescience, and the literary
music to put together such a tour-de-force as this. On top of it all, he
retains enough of the piquancy of the modern idiom to make it click. This
book may take its place among Wealth of Nations, Democracy in America, and
other mind-changing dissertations as forks in the intellectual road of our
planet. C. P. Snow's Two Cultures advanced this hypothesis -- that science
and the humanities are diminished as long as they are insulated from each
other -- but the latter's sound and common-sense presentation was just a
lieder in the face of Wilson's symphony. "Literature" is what the critics of
the next century make it; I predict they will be raving about this one.
Readers, the point of the book is not consilience for its own sake, it's the
last chapter- "To What End". I have read quite a few of Wilson's other books
including On Human Nature, Sociobiology (all of it), Biophilia, Naturalist,
as well as others. I give him five stars because he says what I would like
to say if I had the wisdom, eloquence, and status, but this time he says it
better than ever. And it's not hard reading for those accostomed to large
intensive doses of scientific nonfiction. By bringing together the
scientific disciplines and humanities, the hope is that we might be able to
step outside of our "norms of reaction" in order to behave in ways for which
we are NOT programmed. To be able to realize not only why snakes and spiders
seem creepy to us, but also when and why we are treating our fellow man and
the planet like shit. That way maybe we can STOP. Don't forget the Professor
Wilson's lilypads in a pond: On the first day there is only one. Every day
the number doubles. On day 30 the pond is full. On which day was the pond
half empty ?
Wilson quite simply places into prose what we as reasonable beings should
have grasped all along, that there exists a reality that is independent of
human "sophistication". Are we so arrogant as to truly believe that we
create reality as we go along? I cannot accpet this. The problems of our
world will not be solved by the specialists, but by those individuals and
groups that understand that every particle in this universe is governed by
the same laws, from the basic laws of physics to the most intricate
biological systems. These laws do not and cannot conflict, only compliment.
Wilson just has the foresight to glimpse the future, for better or worse...
Wilson's prose is superior. Lacking the pseudo-intellectual arrogance found
among many academics today, he instead humbly conveys the case for the unity
of knowledge. Rather than claim he has found the complete answer, he
encourages the readers to delve into their own minds and experiences to find
further support for consilience. The credit given to the founders of modern
thought is a fitting introduction. Wilson's plea for humanity to become more
environmentally aware for our own sake is a timely conclusion.
Consilience is a work in progress, to be shaped and pushed forward by all
humankind. An excellent work for the dawn of the next millenium.
A book long overdue. Follows Bateson book on "unity". We need to see the
connectivity of all branches of nature and knowledge-there is so much wisdom
for humanity to gather from this process-to live in peace with our
environment and ourselves.
Consilience is a magnificent work, worthy of a Nobel Prize
Having finished Wilson's Consilience last night, I can honestly say that no
book has affected the way I think or the way I view society and science as
this one has. Wilson puts it all together for us. Consilience is the center
that defines the circle that is knowledge.
"Still, scientific theories are a product of imagination--informed
imagination. They reach beyond their grasp to predict the existence of
previously unsuspected phenomena. They generate hypotheses, disciplined
guesses about unexplored topics whose parameters the theories help to
define. The best theories generate the most fruitful hypotheses, which
translate cleanly into questions that can be answered by observation and
experiment. Theories and their progeny hypotheses compete for the available
data, which comprise the limiting resource in the ecology of scientific
knowledge. The survivors in this tumultous environment are the Darwinian
victors, welcomed into the canon, settling in our minds, guiding us to
further exploration of physical reality, more surprises. And yes, more
poetry."
If you have the vocabulary to easily grasp the author's message in that
paragraph, you will probably enjoy this book.
Consilience, the title word (not in the average dictionary), means,
according to one review, a "jumping together," but in my old 1913 dictionary
is defined as "the coming into agreement of generalizations from widely
differing inductions" and thus the author's theme is that it is time for the
various scientific disciplines to share with each other in those areas of
mutual interest. And he points out that many of the most momentous
disciplines have a great many areas of overlapping interest.
Edward O. Wilson was born in a good year, 1929, which is also the year of my
birth. He was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and received his B.S. and M.S.
from the University of Alabama, and in 1955, his Ph.D. in biology from
Harvard, where he has since taught.
He is the author of two Pulitzer prize-winning books, "On Human Nature,"
1978, and "The Ants," 1990. His specialty, throughout his career as a
scientist, has been ants, on ! which he is probably the world's foremost
expert.
But, as this book shows, he has not neglected other areas of human
knowledge. Indeed, he might well be classed as a "generalist," for his wide
range of interest and accumulated knowledge. Indeed, two chapters, "The
Mind," and "Ethics and Religion," held me enthralled, although I am still
trying to decide how to disagree with him.
He makes a seemingly air-tight case for the mind's being simply a result,
mechanical necessity, if you will, of the brain's electro-chemical
processes. All of which is carefully documented and researched, labeled and
identified.
My problem with that is the phenomenon of awareness: self-knowledge. I know
that I exist. If awareness is only a by-product of chemistry, electricity
and physics, then the creation is surely greater than its creator. The brick
overshadows the bricklayer.
I have similar problems with his thoughts on religion, specifically: God.
Wilson is a nominal Baptist, and calls himself a Deist, rather than a
Theist. An empiricist, rather than a transcendentalist. And, he admits that
he might be wrong.
But, the purpose of this review is not to argue with him. In the first
place, his formal educational credentials far exceed mine, and in the second
place, I would not wish to detract from his book. It is the kind of book
that you find once or twice in a decade: one that holds your interest with
reasoned argument, and in which the author is worthy of your complete
respect. His arguments are cogent, well-reasoned and careful, and the result
of a long lifetime of careful observation.
And that, alone, is refreshing in this age when every half-educated,
semi-literate ignoramus eagerly exercises his right to loudly proclaim an
opinion on any and every subject that crosses his mind, no matter how
transiently, in seemingly inverse proportion to the amount of data he has on
the subject.
Those who are blessed with a decent vocabulary and an inquiring mind will
enjoy this book,! whether you find yourself in total agreement with the
author, or not. Those described in the last paragraph would be better off to
save their money.
=======================
But they're probably just a bunch of kooks.
Cheers,
--J. R.
CEE CEE Rider:
Conservative Existential Empiricist
Consilient Extropian Environmentalist
(with a pancritical rationalist predilection)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:43 MST