{"id":3557,"date":"2013-02-03T20:21:38","date_gmt":"2013-02-04T01:21:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/?p=3557"},"modified":"2013-02-03T20:22:34","modified_gmt":"2013-02-04T01:22:34","slug":"but-wait-there-are-more-worries-from-the-edge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/2013\/02\/03\/morality\/but-wait-there-are-more-worries-from-the-edge\/","title":{"rendered":"But Wait! There are More “Worries” from The Edge!"},"content":{"rendered":"

I won’t parse all 150+ of them<\/a>, but here are a few more that caught my eye.<\/p>\n

Science writer and historian Michael Shermer<\/a>, apparently channeling Sam Harris, is worried about the “Is-Ought Fallacy of Science and Morality<\/a>.”\u00a0 According to Shermer,<\/p>\n

…most scientists have conceded the high ground of determining human values, morals, and ethics to philosophers, agreeing that science can only describe the way things are but never tell us how they ought to be. This is a mistake.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s only a mistake to the extent that there’s\u00a0actually some\u00a0“high\u00a0ground” to be conceded.\u00a0 There is not.\u00a0\u00a0Assuming that Shermer is not referring to the trivial case of discovering mere opinions in the minds of individual humans,\u00a0neither science nor philosophy\u00a0is capable determining anything about objects that don’t exist.\u00a0 Values, morals and ethics do not exist as objects.\u00a0 They are not things-in-themselves.\u00a0 They cannot leap out of the skulls of individuals and acquire a\u00a0reality and legitimacy that transcends individual whim.\u00a0 Certainly, large groups of individuals who discover that they have whims in common can band together and “scientifically” force their whims down the throats of less powerful groups and individuals, but, as they say, that don’t make it right.<\/p>\n

Suppose we experience a holocaust of some kind, and only one human survived the mayhem.\u00a0 No doubt he would still be able to imagine what it was like when there were large groups of other’s like himself.\u00a0 He might recall how they behaved,\u00a0“scientifically”\u00a0categorizing their actions as “good” or “evil,” according to his own particular moral intuitions.\u00a0 Supposed, now, that his life also flickered out.\u00a0 What would be left of his whims?\u00a0 Would the inanimate universe, spinning on towards its own destiny, care about them one way or the other.\u00a0 Science can determine the properties and qualities of things.\u00a0 Where, then, would the “good” and\u00a0“evil” objects reside?\u00a0 Would they still float about in the ether\u00a0as\u00a0disembodied spirits?\u00a0 I’m afraid not.\u00a0 Science can have nothing to say about objects that don’t exist.\u00a0 Michael Shermer might feel “in his bones” that some version of “human flourishing” is “scientifically good,” but there is no reason at all why I or anyone else should agree with his opinion.\u00a0 By all means, let us flourish together, if we all share that whim, but\u00a0surely we can\u00a0pursue that goal without tacking moral intuitions on to it.\u00a0 “Scientific” morality is not only naive, but, as was just demonstrated by the Communists and the Nazis, extremely dangerous as well.\u00a0According to Shermer,<\/p>\n

We should be worried that scientists have given up the search for determining right and wrong…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In fact, if scientists cease looking for and seeking to study objects that plainly don’t exist, it would seem to me more reason for congratulations all around than worry.\u00a0 Here’s a sample of the sort of “reasoning” Shermer uses to bolster his case:<\/p>\n

We begin with the individual organism as the primary unit of biology and society because the organism is the principal target of natural selection and social evolution. Thus, the survival and flourishing of the individual organism\u2014people in this context\u2014is<\/em> the basis of establishing values and morals, and so determining the conditions by which humans best flourish ought to be<\/em> the goal of a science of morality. The constitutions of human societies ought to be built on the constitution of human nature, and science is the best tool we have for understanding our nature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is gibberish.\u00a0 Natural selection can have no target, because it is an inanimate process,\u00a0and can no more have a\u00a0purpose or will than a stone.\u00a0 “Thus, the survival and flourishing of the individual organism – people in this context – is<\/em> the basis of establishing values and morals”??\u00a0 Such “reasoning” reminds me of the old “Far Side” cartoon, in which one scientist turns to another and allows that he doesn’t quite understand the intermediate step in his proof:\u00a0 “Miracle happens.”\u00a0 If a volcano spits a molten mass into the air which falls to earth and becomes a rock, is not it, in the same sense, the “target” of the geologic processes that caused indigestion in the volcano?\u00a0 Is not the survival and flourishing of that rock equally a universal “good?”<\/p>\n

Of the remaining “worries,” this was the one that most worried me, but there were others.\u00a0 Kevin Kelly, Editor at Large of Wired Magazine, was worried about the “Underpopulation Bomb<\/a>.”\u00a0 Noting the “Ur-worry” of overpopulation, Kelly writes,<\/p>\n

While the global population of humans will continue to rise for at least another 40 years, demographic trends in full force today make it clear that a much bigger existential threat lies in global underpopulation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Apparently the basis of Kelly’s worry is the assumption that, once the earths population peaks in 2050 or thereabouts, the decrease will inevitably continue until we hit zero and die out.\u00a0 In his words, “That worry seems preposterous at first.”\u00a0 I think it seem preposterous first and last.<\/p>\n

Science writer Ed Regis is worried about, “Being Told That Our Destiny Is Among The Stars<\/a>.”\u00a0 After reciting the usual litany of technological reasons that human travel to the stars isn’t likely, he writes,<\/p>\n

Apart from all of these difficulties, the more important point is that there is no good reason to make the trip in the first place. If we need a new “Earth 2.0,” then the Moon, Mars, Europa, or other intra-solar-system bodies are far more likely candidates for human colonization than are planets light years away.\u00a0 So, however romantic and dreamy it might sound, and however much it might appeal to one’s youthful hankerings of “going into space,” interstellar flight remains a science-fictional concept\u2014and with any luck it always will be.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, he doesn’t want to go.\u00a0 By all means, then,\u00a0he should stay here.\u00a0 I and many others, however, have a different whim.\u00a0 We embrace the challenge of travel to the stars, and, when it comes to human survival, we\u00a0feel existential Angst at the prospect of putting all of our eggs in one basket.\u00a0 Whether “interstellar flight remains a science-fiction concept” at the moment depends on how broadly\u00a0you define “we.”\u00a0 I see no reason why “we” should be limited to one species.\u00a0\u00a0After all, any species you could\u00a0mention is related to all the rest.\u00a0\u00a0Interstellar travel may not be a technologically feasible\u00a0option for me at the moment, but it is certainly feasible for my relatives on the planet, and at a cost that is relatively trivial.\u00a0 Many simpler life forms can potentially survive tens of thousands of years in interstellar space.\u00a0 I am of the opinion that we should send them on their way, and the sooner the better.<\/p>\n

I do share some of the other worries of the Edge contributors.\u00a0 I agree, for example, with historian Noga Arikha’s worry about, “Presentism –\u00a0the prospect of collective amnesia<\/a>,” or, as she puts it, the “historical blankness” promoted by the Internet.\u00a0 In all fairness, the Internet has provided unprecedented access to historical source material.\u00a0 However, to find it you need to have the historical background to know what you’re looking for.\u00a0 That background about the past can be hard to develop in the glare of all the fascinating information available about the here and now.\u00a0 I also agree with physicist Anton Zeilinger’s worry about,\u00a0“Losing Completeness<\/a> –\u00a0that we are increasingly losing the formal and informal bridges between different intellectual, mental, and humanistic approaches to seeing the world.”\u00a0 It’s an enduring problem.\u00a0 The name “university” was already a misnomer 200 years ago, and in the meantime the problem has only become worse.\u00a0 Those who can see the “big picture” and have the talent to describe it to others are in greater demand than ever before.\u00a0 Finally, I agree with astrophysicist Martin Rees’ worry\u00a0that, “We Are In Denial About Catastrophic Risks<\/a>.”\u00a0 In particular, I agree with his comment to the effect that,<\/p>\n

The ‘anthropocene’ era, when the main global threats come from humans and not from nature, began with the mass deployment of thermonuclear weapons. Throughout the Cold War, there were several occasions when the superpowers could have stumbled toward nuclear Armageddon through muddle or miscalculation. Those who lived anxiously through the Cuba crisis would have been not merely anxious but paralytically scared had they realized just how close the world then was to catastrophe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This threat is still with us.\u00a0 It is not “in abeyance” because of the end of the cold war, nor does that fact that nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II mean that they will never be used again.\u00a0 They will.\u00a0 It is not a question of “if,” but “when.”<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tTweet<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I won’t parse all 150+ of them, but here are a few more that caught my eye. Science writer and historian Michael Shermer, apparently channeling Sam Harris, is worried about the “Is-Ought Fallacy of Science and Morality.”\u00a0 According to Shermer, …most scientists have conceded the high ground of determining human values, morals, and ethics to … Continue reading “But Wait! There are More “Worries” from The Edge!”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[110,82,6,93,8,77,5,11,10,45],"tags":[128,162],"class_list":["post-3557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics","category-extraterrestrial-life","category-good-and-evil","category-hiroshima","category-history","category-interstellar-travel","category-morality","category-nuclear-proliferation","category-nuclear-weapons","category-space-travel","tag-ethics-2","tag-objective-morality"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pwEq0-Vn","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3557"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3557\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3559,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3557\/revisions\/3559"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}