I think the next big leap in evolution is a shift to a higher consciousness. The end of capitalism toward a more sustainable and equitable model, working together for the greater good
Define capitalism. Never mind. Allow Adam Smith to do that for us.
Capitalism's founding principle is the name of Smith's book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). "Moral sentiment" and "treating others the way you would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot" are different phrases expressing the same meaning. Start with capitalism, subtract morality, and you're left with the problem Smith was trying to solve.
So, the way our modern culture defines capitalism is the logical equivalent to the way Christian Nationalism defines Christianity (hate your neighbor). In other words, if they're right, then Jesus of Nazareth thought that Christianity is the opposite of Christianity. Likewise, our modern "groupthink" definition of capitalism is the opposite of capitalism.
The planet is currently facing serious challenges -- greed, poverty, potential for war over resources, etc. Human behavior would have to undergo a dramatic mutation to fulfill the vision suggested. Private space stations -- we've seen that movie about inequality before: Elysium (2013). People in space will want to get back to Earth, depending on whether creating a dystopia was necessary to achieve a spacefaring civilization. Perhaps best to make Earth a better home. The life of the planet, before it burns up in the sun, is roughly 1 billion years (to sustain life as we know it), with the Sun's transformation in 5 billion years. Hopefully, civilization will not have to start over from scratch. Best to have a system firmly in place to prevent life-ending asteroid collisions. One big solution, for space colonization or not, would be a United Nations Constitution designed as an "ethocracy" -- a system of governance based on ethics and wisdom that addresses the problems of democracy, such as the tendency toward greedy plutocracy, disunity, autocracy, and fascism. Such a draft "ethocracy" Constitution is currently being circulated.
It will never happen! It's too expensive and will take more time (beyond a few tentative footprints) than we have. If the planet had long ago been politically unified (no more war) then perhaps we might have afforded both the time and money. As it is, economic collapse precipitated by climate change and ecological destruction will soon take us back to a new dark age
People misuse the concept of evolution all the time. Evolution is about production of grand kids, not mankind moving toward any specific goals or idea. What the next evolution will be is whatever get you the best advantage in producing lots of grand kids. That is how it works, no matter the species. The factors currently being selected for are those who are less dependent on technology, Those are the one producing the most grand kids are all indications are that that trend will continue
Well they do talk about social evolution, which is fairly goal-directed. Down the ages the great innovators haven't been very good at producing grand kids, Musk being a notable exception. Biologically, from the time that humans could control their environment, selection for fitness has stopped and our species has even regressed.
Selection for fitness never stops. What is fit for any given circumstance however is constantly changing. A tribe that is producing a percentage innovators at the cost of them producing fewer is increasing its ability to have grandchildren for a large gain in survivability.
I'm so glad some of the comments here are echoing a less anthropocentric understanding than what is conveyed in the interview. The authors here pay SOME lip service to the idea that human beings on Earth are not the end-all-be-all of the Universe(s), but at the same time, they're assuming that we're the ones who will do this, when I don't think we're even capable of doing this in a less destructive way than we're already doing. Tools don't seem to be the problem here; it's humans.
I agree that major transitions in life’s history are moments when the rules change — when new kinds of possibilities transform how evolution proceeds.
Take the origin of our species, for example. When mammalian social systems emerged, it radically expanded what life could do. It unlocked new ways for organisms to exist. The first multi-family social system — the hunter-gatherer band — is another one: Suddenly, our earliest post-origin ancestors could respond adaptively to rapidly cycling environmental change because, unlike the ancestral single-family system, the band-sized system could modify its surroundings at a much larger scale.
That’s what I think awareness of our uniquely human social instinct represents. It’s not just groups of humans in competing social systems. Instead, in the 21st century, it’s inescapably roughly eight billion subjects of a single global social system. The only question: When will civilization recognize that it’s long past time to grow up? Regardless, I do think that will be a single breakthrough moment. Once you see that, you can’t unsee it.
I find the short-sightedness of people very amusing. Our vaunted "intelligence" that purportedly puts us ahead of the rest of life is just an evolutionary development in response to our paucity of instincts. Even at that, we have tended to study other life to learn how to behave. We will never get past the extensions of our 5 senses or understand the Universe completely. We aren't well enough equipped mentally, and we aren't intended to be. Our relationship to the planet is like ticks on a dog basically. Our physical and mental limitations will never allow us personally explore the Universe or solve its mysteries because it is infinite and our minds are finite.
I think the next big leap in evolution is a shift to a higher consciousness. The end of capitalism toward a more sustainable and equitable model, working together for the greater good
Define capitalism. Never mind. Allow Adam Smith to do that for us.
Capitalism's founding principle is the name of Smith's book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). "Moral sentiment" and "treating others the way you would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot" are different phrases expressing the same meaning. Start with capitalism, subtract morality, and you're left with the problem Smith was trying to solve.
So, the way our modern culture defines capitalism is the logical equivalent to the way Christian Nationalism defines Christianity (hate your neighbor). In other words, if they're right, then Jesus of Nazareth thought that Christianity is the opposite of Christianity. Likewise, our modern "groupthink" definition of capitalism is the opposite of capitalism.
The planet is currently facing serious challenges -- greed, poverty, potential for war over resources, etc. Human behavior would have to undergo a dramatic mutation to fulfill the vision suggested. Private space stations -- we've seen that movie about inequality before: Elysium (2013). People in space will want to get back to Earth, depending on whether creating a dystopia was necessary to achieve a spacefaring civilization. Perhaps best to make Earth a better home. The life of the planet, before it burns up in the sun, is roughly 1 billion years (to sustain life as we know it), with the Sun's transformation in 5 billion years. Hopefully, civilization will not have to start over from scratch. Best to have a system firmly in place to prevent life-ending asteroid collisions. One big solution, for space colonization or not, would be a United Nations Constitution designed as an "ethocracy" -- a system of governance based on ethics and wisdom that addresses the problems of democracy, such as the tendency toward greedy plutocracy, disunity, autocracy, and fascism. Such a draft "ethocracy" Constitution is currently being circulated.
It will never happen! It's too expensive and will take more time (beyond a few tentative footprints) than we have. If the planet had long ago been politically unified (no more war) then perhaps we might have afforded both the time and money. As it is, economic collapse precipitated by climate change and ecological destruction will soon take us back to a new dark age
People misuse the concept of evolution all the time. Evolution is about production of grand kids, not mankind moving toward any specific goals or idea. What the next evolution will be is whatever get you the best advantage in producing lots of grand kids. That is how it works, no matter the species. The factors currently being selected for are those who are less dependent on technology, Those are the one producing the most grand kids are all indications are that that trend will continue
Well they do talk about social evolution, which is fairly goal-directed. Down the ages the great innovators haven't been very good at producing grand kids, Musk being a notable exception. Biologically, from the time that humans could control their environment, selection for fitness has stopped and our species has even regressed.
Selection for fitness never stops. What is fit for any given circumstance however is constantly changing. A tribe that is producing a percentage innovators at the cost of them producing fewer is increasing its ability to have grandchildren for a large gain in survivability.
I'm so glad some of the comments here are echoing a less anthropocentric understanding than what is conveyed in the interview. The authors here pay SOME lip service to the idea that human beings on Earth are not the end-all-be-all of the Universe(s), but at the same time, they're assuming that we're the ones who will do this, when I don't think we're even capable of doing this in a less destructive way than we're already doing. Tools don't seem to be the problem here; it's humans.
I agree that major transitions in life’s history are moments when the rules change — when new kinds of possibilities transform how evolution proceeds.
Take the origin of our species, for example. When mammalian social systems emerged, it radically expanded what life could do. It unlocked new ways for organisms to exist. The first multi-family social system — the hunter-gatherer band — is another one: Suddenly, our earliest post-origin ancestors could respond adaptively to rapidly cycling environmental change because, unlike the ancestral single-family system, the band-sized system could modify its surroundings at a much larger scale.
That’s what I think awareness of our uniquely human social instinct represents. It’s not just groups of humans in competing social systems. Instead, in the 21st century, it’s inescapably roughly eight billion subjects of a single global social system. The only question: When will civilization recognize that it’s long past time to grow up? Regardless, I do think that will be a single breakthrough moment. Once you see that, you can’t unsee it.
Excellent ideas.
I find the short-sightedness of people very amusing. Our vaunted "intelligence" that purportedly puts us ahead of the rest of life is just an evolutionary development in response to our paucity of instincts. Even at that, we have tended to study other life to learn how to behave. We will never get past the extensions of our 5 senses or understand the Universe completely. We aren't well enough equipped mentally, and we aren't intended to be. Our relationship to the planet is like ticks on a dog basically. Our physical and mental limitations will never allow us personally explore the Universe or solve its mysteries because it is infinite and our minds are finite.