The new evolution

The experiments are no longer each individual of a sentient species, but the ideas and practicalities of their inner world. It is in these conditions that transcendence over seemingly biological imperatives is possible, subject to the intention/action gap.

However, because of the recursive nature of interaction between individual and society at large, problems and obstructions within third party individuals are shared by society and therefore by you as an individual.

I argue that this holds on not only for deep philosophical ideas, say in a conversation between two friends, but on the apparently trivial daily interactions - with the checkout chick, for example.

Therefore, in this 'second enlightenment' of ours, it becomes imperative to raise the welfare of society as a whole in order to benefit the individual. I refer to welfare here not only in the sense of one-dimensional economic wealth.

We ought not to be ashamed of pursuing individual interests. The current misinterpretation of Darwinism, applied to society, excludes the strategic advantage of cooperation. (Read some Richard Dawkins for more on this) Hence we see Ayn Rand followers like the incredibly destructive John Bolton in power in the US.

I think altruism exists, but even if does not simply satisfy greater needs in the donor, it is an unstable paradigm in the long-term.

Loving relationships of all kinds are examples of situations where mutual emotional investment is more rewarding than shallow self-interest. This isn't, and should never be seen as, a cold transaction - on the contrary - these needs should be celebrated, and I would argue that they are a force adding to the common good.

You may argue back that this is just where I want society to go. Here are my rebuttals:
1. Well, firstly I concede that in the short-term, it is unlikely we'll end up with a society geared towards common-good contribution and social fabric building for these purposes.

2. If I am right that the new evolutionary currency is ideas, then this viewpoint indeed forms part of the selective pressure, and I'll let your imagination run wild as to the possible recursive effects!

3. At any rate, it's better than plunging headlong into this strange, inhuman, cold economic rationalist future we seem to be hurtling inexorably towards. First we need to suggest alternative options!

4. I agree, for once, with religious leaders who proclaim there to be a spiritual hunger out there. I can think of no better example of a high need innate in our biology that plugs back very strongly into society. Now that we seem to have finally outgrown the somewhat childish idea of benevolent omnipotent deities, perhaps in future the 'replacement' will be the very act of searching. Searching within humanity - our closest sentient peers - for ideas and stories that most honestly satisfy this common desire.

If you think this is a rather airy-fairy metaphysical goal, you should read what Adam Smith had in mind when he wrote Wealth of Nations! More on that one in another post....