I've been giving myself a crash course in the history of philosophy these past few years, and although the road has been winding, one can see the progression of civil society these last few thousand years towards a more enlightened moral awareness. It may be slow, and often stalls out before growing in fits and starts again, but it's clearly a progression.
The question of "Am I my brother's keeper?" has been answered and re-answered in interesting ways, but the real progress has been in the follow up questions: "Who is my brother?" and "What do I owe him?" For all its faults, we now live in a modern society that believes we have a moral obligation to send aid and comfort to victims of natural disasters and wars and other human tragedies half way around the world. We even consider that animals may have rights not to suffer! Bob's notes that we've come pretty far even since Shelley wrote Frankenstein, a mere couple hundred years ago. This is really a remarkable progression!
But the hidden theme of "Frankenstein" is also that technology that gives us godlike powers may be beyond our moral capacity to manage. Sure enough, our biggest existential danger may be that our technological progression is moving faster than our moral evolution at this point.
Bob suggests it's a race against THAT clock. Anyone disagree? Is there a world where our moral evolution leapfrogs our technological gamesmanship?
I agree, but I'd throw in a couple of important caveats. This progression was strongly fuelled by rise in a standard of living enabled by an abundance of cheap energy. Especially economists and scientists are prone to couch this progress as being the result of human ingenuity and pluck. But most of it just boils down to someone digging up some coal or coming across oozing oil and realising "hey, this burns pretty well," and industry then gradually accreting around this.
The other, and related one, is that we have a view on human "progress" that's heavily distorted by our vantage point from a society that valorises things like indoor flushing toilets, comfortable beds and chairs, individualised modes of transportation, etc. and declares these to be the measures of all things valuable. I happen to value these things as well, but one cannot help but notice that these items come at a high long-term cost (mainly to the environment) and that therefore many of these items will become scarce again.
Since scarcity is an important source of conflict, maintaining a clear view on the causes and supports of current (western) culture is probably a wise thing to do. In that regard, technological progression can be a two-edged sword--it can help promote a move to more efficient ways to use available resources, but it can also be used to fracture society to the benefit of a few select winners (the time-honoured divide-and-conquer strategy, now deployed beyond national borders).
You bring up an important point about scarcity and conflict. At some point, technology may drive the cost of living to near zero.
Say we develop a matter replicator á la Star Trek. What else would you ever need to buy besides maybe land or cheap energy? Or more impending, if the automation of jobs finally fulfills the promise of industrialization and humans no longer have to struggle to meet basic needs by having a Universal Basic Income, then is that shift to an abundance-based world from a scarcity-based world our ticket to averting the apocalypse? Are we more realistic in this endeavor placing bets on speeding up technology than we are speeding up moral evolution?
"At some point, technology may drive the cost of living to near zero."
In some sense, we've already arrived at that point. Until fairly recently, it took more than half of all people to produce enough food, but now it's <5% in most (all?) industrialised countries.
Instead of heeding Maslow's pyramid of needs and ensuring that basic needs are met for all people, a wealth gradient developed thanks to commodifying these storable products and goods and creating artificial scarcities--mostly wants for things we don't really need and often buy on credit, either directly or through government treasuries in the industrialised world, and more fundamental needs for sufficient food and clean water for people living in countries that are mainly mined for minerals and other resources or calories and proteins (e.g., rare earths from Asia and soy from South America).
The challenge imo isn't so much to develop technology that helps us meet our basic needs, but that especially in the western world (and now also China and India), new and more elaborate needs are constantly created--it's the Dutch tulip mania manifesting in sometimes ornate and obscure ways (like the financial markets and some housing markets).
A rich field indeed, and that's the other great existential question around an abundance-based society: Where will people find contentment? Even having the luxury of focusing on that question is a testament to how far humanity will have come. Will we create every more elaborate material distractions? After a time of not needing to run around to survive, will we miss the scramble? Or will we embrace more uplifting spiritual and intellectual pursuits?
Still, to me there is no question that technological options will develop at a faster rate than moral evolution will normally happen. (A new Major Religion™ getting born that could sweep the world suddenly is the only thing that could move faster than technology, but that often doesn't end well...)
I just see the real race for averting apocalypse as technology providing an abundance-based world over a scarcity-based one rather than raising everyone's consciousness a few degrees. I see a path for the former but still don't see one for the latter. Maybe Bob has some ideas on that one.
I actually think overcoming a scarcity consciousness is a core goal to avert any kind of apocalypse. There are already systems out there that focus on sharing, kinship, or gift economies. They don’t need any new technology, just an acceptance that hyper-individualism isn’t the be-all and end-all. And economic theories like Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics are already being deployed, and could provide an excellent larger-scale framework for what!s being discussed here (lithium is a great example of a resource that needs to be included in a doughnut).
Loved this! I really like Frankenstein as a novel, and went back and reread it after reading Smilla's Sense of Snow, which refers to that Arctic scene quite a bit.
Coincidentally, I was thinking about Frankenstein's monster the other day when wondering about the difficulties that often seem to occur when someone is writing a fictional self-aware AI character. The roboticist Ayanna Howard wrote about Frankenstein in her book about AI, "Sex, Race, and Robots," and how our imagined AI characters reflects human values and sometimes how we *wish* to see ourselves. Which seems related somewhat to your point about being able to see the "other" and cognitive empathy.
You might like that Ayanna Howard book I mentioned (it’s an audio book, nonfiction; wish they”d had her read it as she’s a good speaker). She has sections on morality and how we treat AI. She’s very passionate and pro-AI, but delves into how it’s being done wrong and how we can instead do it better.
I like how sci fi eternally takes difficult human problems and thinks about their future iterations and implications. It’s an under-valued genre for that purpose!
It's interesting, I've experienced that, too, and have wondered if it's more that our moral imaginations aren't robust enough. By that I mean the creative moral imagination. It feels like the sci fi I used to watch or read envisioned a more harmonious future, but most now doesn't. Maybe that's more realistic. Not just Black Mirror, but with shows like Discovery (which I love) or books like The Three-Body Problem, there is a lot of world-building and plotting, but still the same human failings creating problems over and over. Though with Discovery at least it was a good model for thinking about how to be a moral being in an immoral environment.
I hadn't heard of Curtis until last month and then couldn't turn off the most recent documentary until I'd finished it. It was incredible, and I think you've described his ideas excellently.
The point about media is well taken, and it's part of why I work to encourage people to refocus on local, on-the-ground efforts to make communities better places to live. There is tons of that work all around us, but it will never, ever make much of a news splash, and therefore the big narratives dominate our mental space. It takes a lot of effort to refocus, but I've found it worth it (if still a lifelong struggle for me). Also I know a lot of people have found Garrett Bucks's Barnraisers Project incredibly helpful. It's specifically to help white people work on antiracism and other issues in their own communities. Reading his newsletter (The White Pages) gives me heart every time.
So, a couple of years ago I published a book about walking and walkability, and your points about tech advancement are one of the major issues I thought about (though only wrote about a little bit). Technology is moving so fast, and for me rediscovering a relationship with our physical bodies in the physical world is one of the best tools we have for mitigating its effects. I think it's integral with mindfulness partly because it's such a deep part of our evolution.
The whole profit motive issue is one of my major interests. It's why I read and write about the commons and how we restructure value systems around the health of the commons rather than profit. You're right, it's very hard to find examples of things that aren't commodified, but to my mind getting to the heart of that, the commodification of everything itself, is where I'm focusing my energies. I don't see long-lasting change without uprooting that structure.
Same re Star Trek: TNG! My family went to see the pilot episode at a pizza place when I was 10, and it's one of my happy memories. Also because it was the first time I ever had pineapple pizza and it was the best :)
"Where do we get our positive, healthy ideas from? Where do we find inspiration and healthy ideological leadership?"
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but to me the answer is you won't find it "out there." It's become a cultural habit (because it generates "profit" and can be easily manipulated) to always look for first-hand news and second opinions before we feel empowered to form our own.
That this is entirely backwards rarely dawns on us--solid knowledge, which empowers and thereby creates meaning, derives mainly from direct perception and inference, augmented with knowledge gained from analogy and testimony.
These days, most of us rely mostly on the latter two epistemic instruments (especially testimony in the forms of news reporting, opinions of others, rumours, and hearsay) and rarely use the first two (in the form of focussed intro- and extrospection and both analytical and heuristic deliberation). It's a precarious imbalance that drives a lot of discontentment--but luckily, meditation (in the broadest sense), coupled with a strategic retreat from "information consumption," can help redress this, at least in my experience.
"Nemo prudens punit, quia peccatum est; sed ne peccetur" quoted by Schopenhauer whose views on punishment/retribution are quite interesting (as well as on matters of free will, which one could with Einstein summarize as "'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants").
Something that hasn't come up yet for this project and should is various efforts to cultivate mindfulness in children. Thinking about what I commented on below to Eric Lortie about lack of imagination in science fiction, I haven't seen much in sci fi or apocalypse-aversion discussions about what might result from those efforts. There's the Center for Healthy Minds, obviously, which has been working on mindfulness for very young kids for many years. And I've used the Headspace app's kid meditation for my own children when things were hard. Most importantly maybe are the implementation of social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula in public schools. I have no idea how widespread this is (many textbook publishers, including non-profits, have developed SELs), but it's pretty new and to my mind a very good thing. Our own school district implemented one a few years ago. It is of course imperfect but is far, far better than having nothing at all, and at least helps kids develop better tools for dealing with strong emotions and conflict. But I haven't seen anyone talk about what kind of impact we might see in 20 years from widespread use of SEL in schools.
"And I do crazy stuff when I’m pissed." Would we then be dealing with a case, strange or not, of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Wright?
Having heard Bob mentioning the novel and his perspective in a recent podcast, the full paper does not disappoint. Nicely integrated into the AAP!
Now, let's reform Hollywood, the gaming industry mantra, and the American Manichean storytelling tendency, both in news and in fiction, and we will be well on our way.
Though, I'm not sold on the idea that Shelley's message "didn’t align with the moral intuitions that are natural in human beings." That empathy, forgiveness, and compassion are powerful means to greater happiness and well-being has been recognised for 1,000+ years (e.g., very prominently in Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara--A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life). Spinoza wrote (some 200 years before Shelley's "Frankenstein"), "Hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and can on the other hand be destroyed by love. Hatred completely vanquished by love, passes into love."
Just because we seem to be living in an era where hate and revenge seem so abundant (sometimes in real life but mostly because they easily get our attention online or on TV) doesn't mean that they're "natural moral intuitions."
I'd bet my money that zeal for revenge and "stick-it-to-themness" are cultural habits that masquerade as "intuitions." I think that distinction is important because kicking a detrimental habit (such as smoking or yelling at someone as a first response) and tasting the sweetness of overcoming the habit is easier to do than changing intuitions. The latter are much more deeply rooted and usually pertain to how cognition delivers us representations of the world in a way that makes us believe that these representations are things in the world that exist as such and independently of our cognition.
Yes, empathy, forgiveness and compassion are natural--part of human nature, grounded in our genes. But by "moral intuitions that are natural" I was referring to natural intuitions about how and when to deploy these things. Such as the intuition that a monster who has committed horrible crimes doesn't deserve compassion--and that, indeed, it's a morally good thing for the monster to suffer. This intuition is also, I believe, part of human nature, grounded ultimately in the genes (which isn't to say it can't be consciously rejected and, at an emotional level, resisted).
Why the emphasis on genes? I'm asking as someone who's worked in the field of molecular biology for a good while and who's devoured "Sociobiology" by E.O. Wilson and "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. For many years, I was enamoured of the elegance of their choice of experiments and arguments and swallowed their assumptions and propositions hook, line, and sinker. Like them, I thought that once we've uncovered all the genes' functions, we'll have a "theory of everything" in biology.
But now we have the human genome deciphered, know a lot more about gene structures and regulation, protein structure and function, population genetics, and what have you. Yet we still have little clue as to how, or even if, genes significantly shape our behaviour. In fact, it's become harder to really drill down what a "gene" is--epigenetics, linkage disequilibria, alternative splicing, protein modifications, etc.--have really muddied what a few decades ago looked like a pristine theory about inheritance and penetrance.
This, coupled with the fact that almost the entire field of researchers pioneering this area--along with those in psychology--represent a thin sliver of today's world (i.e., they're mainly male, white, and largely well to do) has given me significant pause. Especially when it comes to evolutionary psychology--a field that I know you champion and that I also found very exciting initially--I'm almost inclined to treat it the same way I handled a batch of questionable data when I was still working at the bench--I'd throw it out because analysing it would in the end lead to just more confusion and wasted time.
I think scientific research has taken hits on multiple fronts, and it will take time to rebuild, including staffing more diverse faculties, reducing exploitation of temporary staff (a big problem in the biological sciences that bears on the direction and quality of the work produced), and doing away with perverse incentives such as judging researchers largely by the amount of papers they publish than by the quality of the research.
Lest you think that I'm a cheeky interloper trying to stick flies into ointments, I greatly enjoyed "Why Buddhism Is True" and your course "Buddhism and Modern Psychology." They really propelled my practice and helped me move on from a gradual (and initially unrecognised) disillusionment with science, helping me to see it less as the sole way to understand the world (as I had tried doing before) but as a useful tool to solve some select problems.
As such, I don't think that genes and genetics will provide the explanatory power for solving our many predicaments--the concept of "gene" (and also "evolution") is too fraught and feeble to convince the right people they should take action. Just my 2 p's.
The Selfish Gene and Sociobiology have many virtues, but neither spends much time making the argument that our moral intuitions, including the retributive impulse, are products of natural selection. My 1994 book The Moral Animal spends much more time making that argument and grappling with its implications. And I think the argument remains strong. (I wouldn't expect that by now we'd literally know which genes shape our moral psychology; the human genome project was just a sequencing operation--we still have almost no understanding of the human genome.)
"My 1994 book The Moral Animal spends much more time making that argument and grappling with its implications."
Thank you--I'll add it to my reading list. This reminds me that I've read Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" some time back. I'm a little hazy as to how deeply, if at all, he ventured into the biological origins of moral behaviour, but I do recall that he discusses the influence of natural selection on social and mating patterns and that he had some speculative ideas as to the provenance and future directions of some of Homo sapiens' destructive tendencies (which he fleshes out more in Guns, Germs, and Steel and in Collapse).
I wouldn't say Diamond is really steeped in the evolutionary psychology world view. But I don't honestly remember what he gets into in The Third Chimpanzee, which I only skimmed.
Yes, it’s all cultural—everything discussed here is cultural. Cognitive empathy is thinking directed by cultural values that have evolved over thousands of years, always changing to fit the perceived needs/desires of the individual and institutions. Hence, for AAP purposes, the path is clear: just change the cultural values and resultant behavior. Obviously, a horrendous task, as has been mentioned up repeatedly.
And what about emotional empathy? Well, here we get into the biological evolution of emotions, and the question of how much control we have over those. Again, cultural values enter as a solution in that they are can be used to direct emotions in positive directions. Frankenstein provides an example for that, as do the emotional actions we express every day.
So getting out of the weeds and taking a look at the forest, our AAP solution is clear: proper cultural values (which humans can totally control) will lead to desired behavior, reinforced by directed emotional motivation (over which we have some control). Simple. And I think that’s what this discussion here is all about. BUT, what is the mechanism for accomplishing this goal—for motivating individuals to do what they should. What is the exact path for providing an accepted AAP presentation of values? That’s the task at hand.
One of your predecessors on the path toward apocalypse aversion was Buckminster Fuller. His contributions should not be overlooked, in particular those of his last two books CRITICAL PATH and G.R.U.N.C.H of Giants. Although not an intellectual, Fuller originated a vocabulary and vision of global success unprecedented in our time. Be patient, his cadence takes a bit of getting used to but soon is easy. Please, take a look.
However, as my relationship with my husband is at detente and I come to understand cognitive empathy, I see that it has been by being less emotional that we've reached the "agree to disagree" phase. Yet, it is a continual struggle. Is it possible for much of the world population to willing delve into this kind of effort for the good of others when in personal relationships it is difficult to do so? I remain hopeful.
"I’m not saying there’s no such thing as free will—or that there is such thing as free will; I find that question too baffling to take a position on."
For AAP to succeed, it may be important to take a position. Some degree of free will is necessary for us to change. Some degree of free will is necessary to direct our attention to our intentions.
I do not frame free will as something we have or not. I believe we have free will, but, importantly, only a very little bit of it. Exercising our free will is like controlling our breath. Mostly breathing happens automatically in the background. But we can choose to control our breathing to some degree. However, when we choose to hold our breath, we quickly learn that we do not have much control, only a little.
As delusional as this may sound (or be), I perceive I am now the "beating heart" of humanity's largest and most global profession of engineering in that no one, to my knowledge, is prodding it about significant and persistent deficiencies to the scope and implementation of its code of ethics - its secular creed.
I also perceive I am the most influential member of 2 million member federal civil service regarding significant and persistent deficiencies to the implementation of the "merit principles," the statutory bedrock for employment practices in every federal agency.
Finally, I perceive I am the most influential professing Christian - humanity's largest religion - regarding its near non-existent theology and praxis for secular professions as engineering.
So, am I worth 15-20 minutes of your time to chat? if so, fine. If not, it's probably time for me to wish AAP well and move on.
I've been giving myself a crash course in the history of philosophy these past few years, and although the road has been winding, one can see the progression of civil society these last few thousand years towards a more enlightened moral awareness. It may be slow, and often stalls out before growing in fits and starts again, but it's clearly a progression.
The question of "Am I my brother's keeper?" has been answered and re-answered in interesting ways, but the real progress has been in the follow up questions: "Who is my brother?" and "What do I owe him?" For all its faults, we now live in a modern society that believes we have a moral obligation to send aid and comfort to victims of natural disasters and wars and other human tragedies half way around the world. We even consider that animals may have rights not to suffer! Bob's notes that we've come pretty far even since Shelley wrote Frankenstein, a mere couple hundred years ago. This is really a remarkable progression!
But the hidden theme of "Frankenstein" is also that technology that gives us godlike powers may be beyond our moral capacity to manage. Sure enough, our biggest existential danger may be that our technological progression is moving faster than our moral evolution at this point.
Bob suggests it's a race against THAT clock. Anyone disagree? Is there a world where our moral evolution leapfrogs our technological gamesmanship?
I’ve always wondered if the human ingenuity trendline can outpace the human destruction trendline.
I guess that’s why many of us are here?
"but it's clearly a progression."
I agree, but I'd throw in a couple of important caveats. This progression was strongly fuelled by rise in a standard of living enabled by an abundance of cheap energy. Especially economists and scientists are prone to couch this progress as being the result of human ingenuity and pluck. But most of it just boils down to someone digging up some coal or coming across oozing oil and realising "hey, this burns pretty well," and industry then gradually accreting around this.
The other, and related one, is that we have a view on human "progress" that's heavily distorted by our vantage point from a society that valorises things like indoor flushing toilets, comfortable beds and chairs, individualised modes of transportation, etc. and declares these to be the measures of all things valuable. I happen to value these things as well, but one cannot help but notice that these items come at a high long-term cost (mainly to the environment) and that therefore many of these items will become scarce again.
Since scarcity is an important source of conflict, maintaining a clear view on the causes and supports of current (western) culture is probably a wise thing to do. In that regard, technological progression can be a two-edged sword--it can help promote a move to more efficient ways to use available resources, but it can also be used to fracture society to the benefit of a few select winners (the time-honoured divide-and-conquer strategy, now deployed beyond national borders).
You bring up an important point about scarcity and conflict. At some point, technology may drive the cost of living to near zero.
Say we develop a matter replicator á la Star Trek. What else would you ever need to buy besides maybe land or cheap energy? Or more impending, if the automation of jobs finally fulfills the promise of industrialization and humans no longer have to struggle to meet basic needs by having a Universal Basic Income, then is that shift to an abundance-based world from a scarcity-based world our ticket to averting the apocalypse? Are we more realistic in this endeavor placing bets on speeding up technology than we are speeding up moral evolution?
"At some point, technology may drive the cost of living to near zero."
In some sense, we've already arrived at that point. Until fairly recently, it took more than half of all people to produce enough food, but now it's <5% in most (all?) industrialised countries.
Instead of heeding Maslow's pyramid of needs and ensuring that basic needs are met for all people, a wealth gradient developed thanks to commodifying these storable products and goods and creating artificial scarcities--mostly wants for things we don't really need and often buy on credit, either directly or through government treasuries in the industrialised world, and more fundamental needs for sufficient food and clean water for people living in countries that are mainly mined for minerals and other resources or calories and proteins (e.g., rare earths from Asia and soy from South America).
The challenge imo isn't so much to develop technology that helps us meet our basic needs, but that especially in the western world (and now also China and India), new and more elaborate needs are constantly created--it's the Dutch tulip mania manifesting in sometimes ornate and obscure ways (like the financial markets and some housing markets).
A rich field for mindfulness to be deployed....
A rich field indeed, and that's the other great existential question around an abundance-based society: Where will people find contentment? Even having the luxury of focusing on that question is a testament to how far humanity will have come. Will we create every more elaborate material distractions? After a time of not needing to run around to survive, will we miss the scramble? Or will we embrace more uplifting spiritual and intellectual pursuits?
Still, to me there is no question that technological options will develop at a faster rate than moral evolution will normally happen. (A new Major Religion™ getting born that could sweep the world suddenly is the only thing that could move faster than technology, but that often doesn't end well...)
I just see the real race for averting apocalypse as technology providing an abundance-based world over a scarcity-based one rather than raising everyone's consciousness a few degrees. I see a path for the former but still don't see one for the latter. Maybe Bob has some ideas on that one.
I actually think overcoming a scarcity consciousness is a core goal to avert any kind of apocalypse. There are already systems out there that focus on sharing, kinship, or gift economies. They don’t need any new technology, just an acceptance that hyper-individualism isn’t the be-all and end-all. And economic theories like Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics are already being deployed, and could provide an excellent larger-scale framework for what!s being discussed here (lithium is a great example of a resource that needs to be included in a doughnut).
Thanks for the reference to Doughnut Economics. It does seem to present a nice summation of where we need to go in what areas.
Loved this! I really like Frankenstein as a novel, and went back and reread it after reading Smilla's Sense of Snow, which refers to that Arctic scene quite a bit.
Coincidentally, I was thinking about Frankenstein's monster the other day when wondering about the difficulties that often seem to occur when someone is writing a fictional self-aware AI character. The roboticist Ayanna Howard wrote about Frankenstein in her book about AI, "Sex, Race, and Robots," and how our imagined AI characters reflects human values and sometimes how we *wish* to see ourselves. Which seems related somewhat to your point about being able to see the "other" and cognitive empathy.
and Karel Čapek's R.U.R, where he actually introduced the word robot.
Which I've still never seen! I've read about it but not seen the play.
You might like that Ayanna Howard book I mentioned (it’s an audio book, nonfiction; wish they”d had her read it as she’s a good speaker). She has sections on morality and how we treat AI. She’s very passionate and pro-AI, but delves into how it’s being done wrong and how we can instead do it better.
I like how sci fi eternally takes difficult human problems and thinks about their future iterations and implications. It’s an under-valued genre for that purpose!
It's interesting, I've experienced that, too, and have wondered if it's more that our moral imaginations aren't robust enough. By that I mean the creative moral imagination. It feels like the sci fi I used to watch or read envisioned a more harmonious future, but most now doesn't. Maybe that's more realistic. Not just Black Mirror, but with shows like Discovery (which I love) or books like The Three-Body Problem, there is a lot of world-building and plotting, but still the same human failings creating problems over and over. Though with Discovery at least it was a good model for thinking about how to be a moral being in an immoral environment.
I hadn't heard of Curtis until last month and then couldn't turn off the most recent documentary until I'd finished it. It was incredible, and I think you've described his ideas excellently.
The point about media is well taken, and it's part of why I work to encourage people to refocus on local, on-the-ground efforts to make communities better places to live. There is tons of that work all around us, but it will never, ever make much of a news splash, and therefore the big narratives dominate our mental space. It takes a lot of effort to refocus, but I've found it worth it (if still a lifelong struggle for me). Also I know a lot of people have found Garrett Bucks's Barnraisers Project incredibly helpful. It's specifically to help white people work on antiracism and other issues in their own communities. Reading his newsletter (The White Pages) gives me heart every time.
So, a couple of years ago I published a book about walking and walkability, and your points about tech advancement are one of the major issues I thought about (though only wrote about a little bit). Technology is moving so fast, and for me rediscovering a relationship with our physical bodies in the physical world is one of the best tools we have for mitigating its effects. I think it's integral with mindfulness partly because it's such a deep part of our evolution.
The whole profit motive issue is one of my major interests. It's why I read and write about the commons and how we restructure value systems around the health of the commons rather than profit. You're right, it's very hard to find examples of things that aren't commodified, but to my mind getting to the heart of that, the commodification of everything itself, is where I'm focusing my energies. I don't see long-lasting change without uprooting that structure.
Same re Star Trek: TNG! My family went to see the pilot episode at a pizza place when I was 10, and it's one of my happy memories. Also because it was the first time I ever had pineapple pizza and it was the best :)
"Where do we get our positive, healthy ideas from? Where do we find inspiration and healthy ideological leadership?"
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but to me the answer is you won't find it "out there." It's become a cultural habit (because it generates "profit" and can be easily manipulated) to always look for first-hand news and second opinions before we feel empowered to form our own.
That this is entirely backwards rarely dawns on us--solid knowledge, which empowers and thereby creates meaning, derives mainly from direct perception and inference, augmented with knowledge gained from analogy and testimony.
These days, most of us rely mostly on the latter two epistemic instruments (especially testimony in the forms of news reporting, opinions of others, rumours, and hearsay) and rarely use the first two (in the form of focussed intro- and extrospection and both analytical and heuristic deliberation). It's a precarious imbalance that drives a lot of discontentment--but luckily, meditation (in the broadest sense), coupled with a strategic retreat from "information consumption," can help redress this, at least in my experience.
"Nemo prudens punit, quia peccatum est; sed ne peccetur" quoted by Schopenhauer whose views on punishment/retribution are quite interesting (as well as on matters of free will, which one could with Einstein summarize as "'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants").
Something that hasn't come up yet for this project and should is various efforts to cultivate mindfulness in children. Thinking about what I commented on below to Eric Lortie about lack of imagination in science fiction, I haven't seen much in sci fi or apocalypse-aversion discussions about what might result from those efforts. There's the Center for Healthy Minds, obviously, which has been working on mindfulness for very young kids for many years. And I've used the Headspace app's kid meditation for my own children when things were hard. Most importantly maybe are the implementation of social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula in public schools. I have no idea how widespread this is (many textbook publishers, including non-profits, have developed SELs), but it's pretty new and to my mind a very good thing. Our own school district implemented one a few years ago. It is of course imperfect but is far, far better than having nothing at all, and at least helps kids develop better tools for dealing with strong emotions and conflict. But I haven't seen anyone talk about what kind of impact we might see in 20 years from widespread use of SEL in schools.
So . . . the race is on; the game is afoot. Our better angels versus impending doom. I'm in. Put me down for the better angels. I love a long shot.
"And I do crazy stuff when I’m pissed." Would we then be dealing with a case, strange or not, of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Wright?
Having heard Bob mentioning the novel and his perspective in a recent podcast, the full paper does not disappoint. Nicely integrated into the AAP!
Now, let's reform Hollywood, the gaming industry mantra, and the American Manichean storytelling tendency, both in news and in fiction, and we will be well on our way.
“The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth”
Great example of the power of cognitive empathy.
Though, I'm not sold on the idea that Shelley's message "didn’t align with the moral intuitions that are natural in human beings." That empathy, forgiveness, and compassion are powerful means to greater happiness and well-being has been recognised for 1,000+ years (e.g., very prominently in Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara--A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life). Spinoza wrote (some 200 years before Shelley's "Frankenstein"), "Hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and can on the other hand be destroyed by love. Hatred completely vanquished by love, passes into love."
Just because we seem to be living in an era where hate and revenge seem so abundant (sometimes in real life but mostly because they easily get our attention online or on TV) doesn't mean that they're "natural moral intuitions."
I'd bet my money that zeal for revenge and "stick-it-to-themness" are cultural habits that masquerade as "intuitions." I think that distinction is important because kicking a detrimental habit (such as smoking or yelling at someone as a first response) and tasting the sweetness of overcoming the habit is easier to do than changing intuitions. The latter are much more deeply rooted and usually pertain to how cognition delivers us representations of the world in a way that makes us believe that these representations are things in the world that exist as such and independently of our cognition.
Yes, empathy, forgiveness and compassion are natural--part of human nature, grounded in our genes. But by "moral intuitions that are natural" I was referring to natural intuitions about how and when to deploy these things. Such as the intuition that a monster who has committed horrible crimes doesn't deserve compassion--and that, indeed, it's a morally good thing for the monster to suffer. This intuition is also, I believe, part of human nature, grounded ultimately in the genes (which isn't to say it can't be consciously rejected and, at an emotional level, resisted).
"part of human nature, grounded in our genes."
Why the emphasis on genes? I'm asking as someone who's worked in the field of molecular biology for a good while and who's devoured "Sociobiology" by E.O. Wilson and "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. For many years, I was enamoured of the elegance of their choice of experiments and arguments and swallowed their assumptions and propositions hook, line, and sinker. Like them, I thought that once we've uncovered all the genes' functions, we'll have a "theory of everything" in biology.
But now we have the human genome deciphered, know a lot more about gene structures and regulation, protein structure and function, population genetics, and what have you. Yet we still have little clue as to how, or even if, genes significantly shape our behaviour. In fact, it's become harder to really drill down what a "gene" is--epigenetics, linkage disequilibria, alternative splicing, protein modifications, etc.--have really muddied what a few decades ago looked like a pristine theory about inheritance and penetrance.
This, coupled with the fact that almost the entire field of researchers pioneering this area--along with those in psychology--represent a thin sliver of today's world (i.e., they're mainly male, white, and largely well to do) has given me significant pause. Especially when it comes to evolutionary psychology--a field that I know you champion and that I also found very exciting initially--I'm almost inclined to treat it the same way I handled a batch of questionable data when I was still working at the bench--I'd throw it out because analysing it would in the end lead to just more confusion and wasted time.
I think scientific research has taken hits on multiple fronts, and it will take time to rebuild, including staffing more diverse faculties, reducing exploitation of temporary staff (a big problem in the biological sciences that bears on the direction and quality of the work produced), and doing away with perverse incentives such as judging researchers largely by the amount of papers they publish than by the quality of the research.
Lest you think that I'm a cheeky interloper trying to stick flies into ointments, I greatly enjoyed "Why Buddhism Is True" and your course "Buddhism and Modern Psychology." They really propelled my practice and helped me move on from a gradual (and initially unrecognised) disillusionment with science, helping me to see it less as the sole way to understand the world (as I had tried doing before) but as a useful tool to solve some select problems.
As such, I don't think that genes and genetics will provide the explanatory power for solving our many predicaments--the concept of "gene" (and also "evolution") is too fraught and feeble to convince the right people they should take action. Just my 2 p's.
The Selfish Gene and Sociobiology have many virtues, but neither spends much time making the argument that our moral intuitions, including the retributive impulse, are products of natural selection. My 1994 book The Moral Animal spends much more time making that argument and grappling with its implications. And I think the argument remains strong. (I wouldn't expect that by now we'd literally know which genes shape our moral psychology; the human genome project was just a sequencing operation--we still have almost no understanding of the human genome.)
"My 1994 book The Moral Animal spends much more time making that argument and grappling with its implications."
Thank you--I'll add it to my reading list. This reminds me that I've read Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" some time back. I'm a little hazy as to how deeply, if at all, he ventured into the biological origins of moral behaviour, but I do recall that he discusses the influence of natural selection on social and mating patterns and that he had some speculative ideas as to the provenance and future directions of some of Homo sapiens' destructive tendencies (which he fleshes out more in Guns, Germs, and Steel and in Collapse).
I wouldn't say Diamond is really steeped in the evolutionary psychology world view. But I don't honestly remember what he gets into in The Third Chimpanzee, which I only skimmed.
Yes, it’s all cultural—everything discussed here is cultural. Cognitive empathy is thinking directed by cultural values that have evolved over thousands of years, always changing to fit the perceived needs/desires of the individual and institutions. Hence, for AAP purposes, the path is clear: just change the cultural values and resultant behavior. Obviously, a horrendous task, as has been mentioned up repeatedly.
And what about emotional empathy? Well, here we get into the biological evolution of emotions, and the question of how much control we have over those. Again, cultural values enter as a solution in that they are can be used to direct emotions in positive directions. Frankenstein provides an example for that, as do the emotional actions we express every day.
So getting out of the weeds and taking a look at the forest, our AAP solution is clear: proper cultural values (which humans can totally control) will lead to desired behavior, reinforced by directed emotional motivation (over which we have some control). Simple. And I think that’s what this discussion here is all about. BUT, what is the mechanism for accomplishing this goal—for motivating individuals to do what they should. What is the exact path for providing an accepted AAP presentation of values? That’s the task at hand.
One of your predecessors on the path toward apocalypse aversion was Buckminster Fuller. His contributions should not be overlooked, in particular those of his last two books CRITICAL PATH and G.R.U.N.C.H of Giants. Although not an intellectual, Fuller originated a vocabulary and vision of global success unprecedented in our time. Be patient, his cadence takes a bit of getting used to but soon is easy. Please, take a look.
Bravo!
Cognitive empathy. Oxymoron?
However, as my relationship with my husband is at detente and I come to understand cognitive empathy, I see that it has been by being less emotional that we've reached the "agree to disagree" phase. Yet, it is a continual struggle. Is it possible for much of the world population to willing delve into this kind of effort for the good of others when in personal relationships it is difficult to do so? I remain hopeful.
"I’m not saying there’s no such thing as free will—or that there is such thing as free will; I find that question too baffling to take a position on."
For AAP to succeed, it may be important to take a position. Some degree of free will is necessary for us to change. Some degree of free will is necessary to direct our attention to our intentions.
I do not frame free will as something we have or not. I believe we have free will, but, importantly, only a very little bit of it. Exercising our free will is like controlling our breath. Mostly breathing happens automatically in the background. But we can choose to control our breathing to some degree. However, when we choose to hold our breath, we quickly learn that we do not have much control, only a little.
Bob,
My reaction to your description of AAP is 'good, but not enough," as I think you know.
Here is a recent profile of my 30 year-long trudge as a federal agency whistleblower, about nuclear weapon material safeguards, among other things, see https://whistleblowersblog.org/2021/04/articles/whistleblower-of-the-week/joseph-carson-pe/.
As delusional as this may sound (or be), I perceive I am now the "beating heart" of humanity's largest and most global profession of engineering in that no one, to my knowledge, is prodding it about significant and persistent deficiencies to the scope and implementation of its code of ethics - its secular creed.
I also perceive I am the most influential member of 2 million member federal civil service regarding significant and persistent deficiencies to the implementation of the "merit principles," the statutory bedrock for employment practices in every federal agency.
Finally, I perceive I am the most influential professing Christian - humanity's largest religion - regarding its near non-existent theology and praxis for secular professions as engineering.
So, am I worth 15-20 minutes of your time to chat? if so, fine. If not, it's probably time for me to wish AAP well and move on.
Please make this a chapter in your upcoming AAP book! Loved it! Juxtaposition Award for the title/photo pairing!
Good example of paradigm shift here.