Off Topic: Basic Assumptions

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Dear Margaret (and Laura);

  I want to change the nature of our discussion...to "raise it up" a bit, 
if you will, and talk about more fundamental, and in a sense, strategic 
issues for our societal well-being (including of course a universal respect 
for privacy). Please don't react until you've read the entire message here. 
Then I would be very interested in what you think.

  I spent some time this weekend working on a talk that I will be giving in 
March at our local museum on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence 
and the distinct possibility that we may be alone in our galaxy, depending 
on how one addresses the various factors in the Drake equation or one of 
its derivatives. The Drake equation is an approach for estimating the 
potential number of civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able 
to establish, or from whom we might at least hear, some form of radio 
contact.

  What is interesting is that in reading another book on the subject and 
revisiting my earlier research, I spent some time contemplating this 
subject (one that has been of interest to me for years). And I was again 
confronted with the "L" factor.

  In the Drake equation, "L" has to do with the length of time a technical 
civilization (narrowly defined for SETI purposes as one that can transmit 
and receive detectable radio signals into space) is likely to continue to 
transmit and receive those signals. In short, it asks the question, "Once a 
species evolves to the point where it discovers technology and harnesses to 
some extent the electromagnetic spectrum, just how long is that species 
likely to survive?" As you might expect, the value for "L" is a 
controversial number.

  And that got me to thinking about your last correspondence, in which your 
frustration with me was, shall we say, obvious. You hammered on the point 
of "fairness." But in your message, and thinking about what you have 
written and shared over the past few months, I began to see a deeper 
message. Now hear me out, because I AM ON YOUR SIDE. I am AGREEING with 
you, I think, if you can believe that.

  As I think you know, I advocate Capitalism because I operate under a key 
assumption. I think it is an assumption that you find you cannot accept, 
perhaps in part because of its grim implications, but you'll have to 
clarify that if such is not the case. I'm not saying this assumption is 
"right" or "wrong" so you don't have to take issue with it. Indeed, I don't 
LIKE this assumption. But it seems, based on an observation of our history 
as a species, conquering and clubbing and bombing each other to death much 
of the time, to be valid. Let me just express it, and then discuss what I 
perceive to be your desire for our nation and indeed, our species.

  My "operating assumption" is that humans, as a species, regardless of 
origin or nationality, are inherently savages; that they are fundamentally 
selfish, and that outside of small, essentially tribal communities, they 
will not work for a "greater good" than themselves. They will not be 
motivated to work or put forth anything near their best effort for the 
collective good of their society or their species. Rather, they will do 
that which they perceive to be in their own best self-interest, and they 
will be near-sighted about that. That is, they will do things that are 
highly destructive to their OWN long term interests, if they perceive it to 
provide a short-term gain. My view, and I know you might take issue with 
it, is that Capitalism generates, creates, a lot of wealth, because it 
harnesses that fundamental human nature to the collective good, at least 
for most of the people in a society. ("Good" being defined in the economic 
sense as improvements in the standard of living, increased consumption, 
etc.)

  Now, this view of human nature is admittedly depressing. It's pretty 
grim. And in all honesty, it's not that I want the world to be that way. I 
don't. It just appears to me that such is the way the world is.

  You, on the other hand, see things differently. You seem to be calling 
people to a higher, more evolved state; one where people will not try to 
seek only what they perceive to be their own best interest at the moment, 
but will keep in mind the larger picture of society and even the global 
community. You seem to believe that such an evolved state is a possibility 
for humanity; that is may be achievable.

  What I find intriguing is that it is possible that the long-term survival 
of our species, barring some unforeseen cosmic event like a major impact, 
may depend on our achieving YOUR VISION of social evolution, getting past 
the "savage state" and moving to a more mature level of social and 
political functioning. I honestly don't have a clue as to how that could 
happen, but it may be that if it doesn't, we are doomed, perhaps as a 
species, in the relatively near future (say in the next 100 to 500 years).

  In an article entitled "The Likelihood of Interstellar Colonization, and 
the Absence of Its Evidence," (reprinted in Zuckerman & Hart, 
"Extraterrestrials: Where are They?" (2nd ed, 1996), Sebastian von Horner 
writes:

  "Looking at our own present activities leads us back to Frank Drake's old 
question, 'Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?' This is one of the real 
values of SETI: it makes us look at Earth from a distance and in general 
terms. Our own large-scale public activities have mostly been 
self-destructive. At present, world-wide military expenditures are about 
800 billion dollars per year, with almost no decline after the end of the 
'cold war' escalation, which, by the way, was not ended by intelligent 
reason at all but by the unreasonable economic ruin of one of the two 
rivals. The destructive power piled up in nuclear bombs is now 3000 times 
larger than all explosives used in 5-1/2 years of World War II (which 
killed about 45 million people). And, divided by our world population, the 
destructive nuclear power equals 2 tons of TNT per capita; which means 4000 
pounds of dynamite for every man, woman and child on Earth, black or white 
or yellow. And if we generalize our case, we may expect that a goodly 
percentage of all technical civilizations have ended, undetected, by 
self-destruction. But hardly all of them. Technology may act as a filter, 
allowing into a future only those who have developed wisdom together with 
intelligence."

  If my assumption about the fundamentally un-evolved, savage nature of 
humans is by and large correct, it does not bode well for our survival as a 
species. Our paranoia, savagery, and our refusal to act in our own long 
term best interest will very likely lead to our own self-destruction.

  If I understand what you are saying, Margaret, you are fighting for an 
evolution in our nature...that we as a species, as a rare and fragile race, 
rise above our paranoia, our petty selfishness, our blind savagery and our 
short-sighted, myopic "me-first" thinking. You see evidence of the savagery 
all around you, and you see Capitalism, as well as other forms of 
government, as perpetrators of that savagery. You see Capitalism perhaps as 
the most insidious danger of all, because it thrives on and reinforces the 
very evolutionary traits in human nature that may well be instrumental in 
our own destruction. We annihilate ourselves while the gold coins are 
spilling out of our pockets.

  If so, it is an interesting and sobering point. I need to think on it 
more. Your thoughts?

--Greg