| BEC Mission | Sciences | Bookstore | Holo-Arts | Writings | Contact | Links |
Articles |
 |
|
|
Q - "I like the chapter ["The Darwin Paradigm in the Context of Western Culture and Civilization," from a book under construction]. It does spell out the propensity for war that seems to characterize Western civilization. How do you think we can whittle away some of the social Darwinism that frames the attitude?" —Vine Deloria Jr. [5 Jan. 05] A - A poet friend of mine once wrote, "If we can see the enemy, we can win." The first step in the whittling process would be to "de-cloak" Social Darwinism, to reveal it as it is, not a long-gone philosophy, but the primary, very active philosophy that underlies the propensity for war of the Western nations. George Soros, among others, appears to have noticed that Social Darwinism is a principal enemy of mankind these days. Many other "witnesses" are needed. The scientific basis of contemporary Social Darwinism is neo-Darwinism, and that, fortunately, is just about finished. I anticipate a major restructuring of evolutionary science within the next decade and expect that an integrated, holistic theory will replace our current orthodoxy. Personally, I'm endeavoring to establish an alternative to Social Darwinism, which I call Social Fractalism. Q - “My understanding is that Social Darwinism disappeared a long time ago. Yet, you say it’s our dominant ruling paradigm. Explanation?” —Carol Hill (Pennsylvania) [7 Jan. 05] A - “Social Darwinism” is a term coined in the early thirties to describe social theories based in whole or part on the tenets of classical Darwinism. In conventional history, Social Darwinism is considered an intellectual movement that had pretty much run its course by the end of the 1920s. For instance, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this to say: “Social Darwinism is of no more than historical interest. It is rightly regarded as philosophically naïve and, moreover, as concerned with questions that are not of contemporary interest….” This assessment is far from correct, if we regard Social Darwinism in its broadest sense, as not just a label for the work of certain intellectuals associated with the formulation and dissemination of Darwin-based social theory, but a term describing all social theory deriving from both classical and neo-Darwinism. As the philosophy encyclopedia observes, “Today, Darwinism no longer provides the focus of philosophical investigation, largely because so much of it forms an unquestioned background to contemporary thought.” What does that tell us about the influence of Darwinism on modern thought in general? It’s immense. The life vision of Social Darwinism may be described in these terms: “Life is war, an incessant struggle of each against all. Victory is survival. Survival goes to those able to accumulate, and employ on the field of battle, the greatest number of advantages. Even a grain of sand can tip the scales in favor of one or the other competitor.” Is this definition overly simplified? I think not. Witness the views of a few of Darwin’s followers: “T.H. Huxley said that all the molecules within each organism were competing with each other. August Weismann suggested that particles of germ plasm were in conflict with each other, so that ancestors who had contributed them could be seen as struggling with each other as to which should be re-created. Wilhelm Roux developed the theory that the organs were struggling with each other for nourishment, kidneys against lungs, heart against brain.” [From DarwinRe-Tried, Norman Macbeth] The link below will take you to an essay originally published in Avoiding Extinction (1995). This essay, which explores connections between Social Darwinism and the Nazi race purification program, is offered as additional evidence of the highly destructive effects of Social Darwinism. Q - "I find your claim that 'war is AIDS' rather interesting, but baffling. Please explain." A - Every organism has a self-defense mechanism of some sort or other, the simplest being flight—the ability to flee. If the lower organisms had a lexicon, "war" would be defined therein as "the aggressive exercise of one's self-defense mechanism(s)." No one questions the right of life forms to defend themselves, which is why the war propaganda of man is usually couched in the rhetoric of defense. It's interesting that in the lexicon of the Hopi people, "war" retains, more or less, its original, nature-based meaning. For the Hopi, to war is to deal with a threat to the tribe. If the tribe faces the threat of severe drought, for instance, he or she whose prayers bring the rain is the warrior of the moment. Historically, for Western peoples, war acquired quite different meanings, meanings based upon a number of foundational paradigms (visions of life). Western civilization is divisible into three paradigmatic periods: the Greco-Roman, the Judeo-Christian, and the Darwinian. In the first period, war was understood as an entertainment for the gods. According to the literature, the gods of the Greeks and Romans were very interested, and often involved in, the wars of man. Those who proved valiant in battle were recognized and honored by the gods. The really great warriors got to become constellations. So... in the time of the Greeks and Romans, war became far more than a matter of self-defense. It came to be regarded as a means of winning the favor of the gods and of gaining great personal fame and fortune--fame for sure and fortune maybe. Coincidental with the spread of this view of war, we find the rise of empire building, i.e., imperialism. As the gods love war, the paradigm implies, they would really love a war to conquer the entire world! In the early Roman Catholic phase of the Judeo-Christian period, war acquired yet a new importance, as a means of defending (and extending) the faith. "Holy War." We need not wonder what the teacher who said "My kingdom is not of this world" would have thought of the Crusades and the centuries-long Inquisition. In the present period, the Darwin paradigm reigns. This paradigm tells us that life is an incessant struggle, a war of each against all. As the world is full of enemies, active and potential, civilized men and nations must wage a more or less continuous war if they are to survive. As Dr. Bruce Lipton has said, the Darwin paradigm leads to the insane proposition that "We must shoot everyone else around, and who's left standing wins." Interestingly, George W. Bush seems to personify, as war leader, the rationalizations for war provided by both the Judeo-Christian and Darwinian paradigms. Writes Patrick J. Buchanan with reference to Bush's declaration of war on terrorists throughout the world: "Using rhetoric that hearkened back to Christ Himself in the New Testament: 'He who is not with me is against me.' Bush divided the world: 'Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.' And, as foreign policy scholar Andrew Bacevich writes, 'From the outset, President Bush looked upon that war as something of a crusade and he himself as something of an agent of divine will.' " [from Where the Right Went Wrong] The Bush (neocon) doctrine of pre-emptive and preventive strike is derivative, clearly, from the worst sort of Social Darwinian political theory. Bush is often dismissed as a "cowboy." I see him rather as a mirror of certain basic ideas about war that underlie modern Western civilization. If you like not what you see in this mirror, it's time you started contributing your efforts to the work of deposing the Darwin paradigm and replacing it with a people and Earth-friendly paradigm. As to the idea that "War is AIDS": The biology of Dr. Bruce Lipton indicates that we humans are components of the innervation (nervous) system of the planet. What is termed the immune system is a sub-system of the innervation system, which suggests that we are, among other things, the immune cells of the planet. The name we give to that condition in which the immune system attacks itself is "auto-immune disease," or AIDS. Thus I say "War is AIDS." Our problem is not with not natural war, the aggressive but not necessarily violent confrontation of a threat, but with wars that stem from belief systems which call for the destruction of humans regarded as "enemies" of (take your pick) God, the State, mankind, civilization, strategic interests, manifest destiny, etc. In other words, our problem is with paradigmatic war, war based on the self-serving doctrines of religious, political or pseudo-scientific zealots. Recommended viewing: The film "Shaka Zulu" offers a fascinating depiction of the transitioning of the Zulus from natural to Western-style war. Q - “Yours is a very interesting site indeed. I remember how frustrated I felt two years ago when I was studying History of Science with the OU [Oxford University] and there was a general dismissiveness of Alfred Russel Wallace, whom I admired very greatly for his vision. Indeed, I wrote an essay on him but sadly had to keep within 'accepted' parameters of objective discussion, keeping my opinions to myself. Do you suppose a re-examination of Wallace and his contributions to science will be soon underway? —Thalia Vitali (England) [Feb., 2005] A - Yes, I do. A renewal of interest in Wallace has been evident since at least 1980, the year in which Arnold Brackman published his fascinating book A Delicate Arrangement—The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. In Over the Bones of the Dead, I take the view that an authoritative definition of classical Darwinism would have to include not only the natural selection hypothesis of Darwin and Wallace, but also the intelligent design hypothesis of Wallace. I've posted your essay in PDF format, which some of our readers may enjoy. Thank you. Q - "Thank you for your interesting critique of the GMO industry in Over the Bones.
What's position on stem cell research?" A - Let me refer you to what I regard as the best available book on the subject—Wesley J. Smith's "Consumer's Guide to a Brace New World" (Encounter Books, 2004). Smith strongly supports ASC (adult stem cell) research, as the work done in the field to date has produced some very positive results. "Adult stem cell and related therapeutic approaches are in numerous clinical trials or used for the treatment of cancers, autoimmune disease, anemia, bone and cartilage deformation, corneal scarring, stroke and skin grafts. Genetically modified skin cells, altered to produce nerve growth factor and implanted in the brain of eight Alzheimer's patients in an early human trial, appeared to slow the mental decline by half." (160) Smith make a very compelling case against the obtaining of stem cells by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the primary form of mammalian cloning. SCNT is accomplished by removing the nucleus from an egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell. "The genetically modified egg is stimulated by an electric shock. If the cloning succeeds, a one-celled cloned embryo results and embryonic development proceeds in the same way as in naturally created embryos." (177) SCNT is the sine qua non [indispensable thing] of the "transhumanists," an influential group of scientific and social theorists committed to the Frankensteinian dream of improving the human species through genetic engineering, robotics, nanotechnology, etc. Smith recommends that the U.S. follow the lead of Australia, Norway, Germany, France, Canada, Taiwan—and ban SCNT. "The time to stop the transhumanist agenda isn't when it's being put into effect, but now, before it is able to get off the ground. And the surest way to accomplish this task is to place all human cloning under a ban." (141) In the near future, I'll be posting an article concerning the transhumanists, to be titled "The Stem Cell Controversy - Connecting the Dots." Look for it in the articles section of this site. Q - "What is biofractal evolution?" A - Please refer to the mission statement on this site. Q - "I regard your idea that "democracy doesn’t exist" as really far-fetched. I can’t imagine what you’re driving at. Comment?" A - Democracy means, literally, rule by the lower classes. When I survey human history, I don’t find any nations that are, or were, ruled by the lower classes. Thus I say that democracy, as defined literally, doesn’t exist. Clearly, the literal definition is inadequate. When faced this sort of nomenclatural challenge, it’s always a good idea to research the specific historical event or events that gave birth to the concept in question. I did so, and the result was an article titled "Solon’s Republic—the First Democracy." - On the basis of my reading of the reforms of Solon, I’d suggest that a democracy may be defined as a political system based on the rule of law, as opposed to rule by persons or groups—one fair law that applies to all, as opposed to one law for VIPs and another for the common people. What am I driving at? If one accepts the definition I propose, it becomes sparklingly clear that perhaps the greatest internal threat to a democratic nation is a leader who sees himself/herself as above the law. That’s one point. Another is this... - The emphasis on equality in democratic political philosophy is in alignment with the "oneness" theory of universe (the all are one, the one is all), and thus I regard democracy as not the optimal form of government we presume it is, but the precursor to the really optimal form, which I term "holocracy." Definition of holocracy: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people. "Yes, I know... those are the words of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was being prescient when he came up with that definition, which didn’t really apply to the system he inherited or the system we have today. It does apply to the system we will have when "scientific holism" becomes the generally accepted life vision paradigm on which our civilization is built. Q - "Do you understand the difference between a republic and a democracy?" [This question was asked in response to my article titled "The First Democracy … Solon’s Republic." Attached to this question were fifty pages of writings, by Ron Paul and others, expressing the view that the United States was established as a republic and not as a democracy, which some of the writers view as synonymous with "mobocracy."] A - Allow me to reformulate the question just a bit: It is possible to speak of a republic and democracy in the same breath?—as if they were in some sense kindred concepts. My answer to the question is yes, and my reasoning is as follows… - Historically, there are two major political philosophies, one supportive of rule by the few (theocrats, monarchs, nobilities, aristocracies, etc.), the other supportive of rule by the many. The first philosophy may be labeled aristocratic, or elitist if you prefer; the second philosophy is, of course, democratic. The “demo-“ part of the term democratic derives from the Greek word for the people in the general—the demos. - In modern times, the term republic means simply a form of government having a chief of state who is not a monarch. Usually, that chief is called the "president." - So … yes, Ron Paul et al are right. The United States was established as a republic. But … to the degree they regard democracy as antithetical to republicanism, they are not correct. The United States was founded as a republic in the tradition of democratic political philosophy. Indeed, the idea of “republic” is a major concept within the said political philosophy. - By convention, we have come to call governmental systems based on the democratic philosophy "democracies." Q - "Several
questions have come in regardiing the article
"Future Tech A -
1) Please refer to the Sciences section of my
website, in particular the sub-sections Q - "What's the difference between your gift book ["Avoiding Extinction", see Bookstore] and "Over the Bones of the Dead?" --Sandra L., Phoenix A - In many ways, "Over the Bones" (OTB) is an evolution of "Avoiding Extinction" (AE), which was first published in 1995 and then re-published in 1997 as part of my major work of the nineties--"Ark--Surviving the Flood of Disinformation." It contains many more pieces of the evolutionary science puzzle than I had back in the mid-nineties. But also, it should be said that that certain issues, such as the population non-problem, are handled in greater detail in AE. I decided to make a gift of AE at the urging of the British author Cy Grant, who said it had a great impact on his thinking and ought to be out there. Get Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can download it for free here: |
||
