Evolution if true, leaves us in a very strange position. Accourding to the theory all living organisms are only about one percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth. Even if we blaim the death of most species that have ever lived, on varied environmental circumstances, we still have to account for that percentage of extinct species that owe their death to us, -all presently living species including homo sapians-. If the surviving organisms, at present, owe even a part of their existence to organisms that were in one way or another sacrificed for us, -all presently living organisms including humans-, then how are we to consider ourselves and the ethics of this situation? Are the surviving species on this planet winners or killers or both? It seems more like the living creatures today are like an island full of pirates counting their booty and kicking the bones of the victoms aside without a care in their minds about what is really going down here. An island called Earth where all the crooks that roam the dark surface have at least one species, homo sapians, that realizes just what is happening here. -murder, theivery, harm, etc...- There are many wonderful things that have come from this billions years war on this planet. But: the downside should not to be ignored let alone used as a justification for unconcern and gouging of one another's material goods, positions and circumstances. 100's of thousands of criminal species can be turned around by one species, the most ruthless of all of them, the one who may gain the power to make these imagined goods and bads into real morality. The one who thinks that there is such a thing as right and wrong and decides to create these -things-. We need to begin this acceptance of our evil selves by redifining a few terms that have dangerously proliferated through culture over the last 300 years. There are many of these and one of them would be the concept of the value of life. It's not enought to condem the scientific glorification of this catastrophe but even the pro lifer can seem hypocrytical if, when speaking about the sanctity of life holds a dead animal in his or her hand, in the form of a burger or dish.

The buzz words of the new COMPLEX outlook are; out of control, no bosses, no one in charge, etc... Complexity guides itself and people now are gladly putting themselves under a new and improved anarchy, which is reaching most portions of society in a ruthless interpretation of the problems in the world. A convenient position taken, by some of it's adherents, when groups or individuals suffer; that it must in some way be their fault and their responsibility. There is some control down at the local levels where individuals are visible; in a corperation, town, or gatherring, etc... but when the progressivly higher levels are observed, some of this identity seems to dissapear. In these mid levels there are no real voices, only trends and statistics and abstractions, which pull us along as a herd so tospeak. In whatever type of system, these incentives seem to be the most profitable, harmonious, or efficient. There are, after taversing these, void of any control or leadership, levels, positions in our societies where leadership and guidence seem to emerge. The responsibility is great for the people, or componenets in other types of complex systems, in these positions. But do they really offer any control? Is there such a thing under the dominion of complexity? Components in these positions do end up taking alot of blame for events that otherwise would seem un-interpretable. Adam Smith spoke of an Invisible Hand that guides the forces of the market. Supply and demand, what people want will be the determining factor of which corperate enterpeses make it or not, economically. This comparison is one of the best examples of how complexity can get out of hand if not regulated to some degree. If products sold can harm people there should be something to check the selling of thoses products, -not some invisible?? entity!!- hence governmental regulation. But the hand cannot be seen except for trends and statistical regularities that can only give the chances that such and such may be the case- this is what controls us? Consider this invisible hand for a moment. A hand is part of what? A body. A part of an organism. The hand in this example does things in a clear way but the hand that Mr Smith spoke of probably had religious conotations of a "guiding consciousness". We today on the -otherhand- have abstracted any supernaturalness out of this force and have turned it into some sort of device. If there really is no one in control, would it be improper to call the beast we ride upon a -Headless Horseman-? So this headless horseman thunders along and performs actions with an invisible hand -not a very comfortable concept since we are doing the riding here-. We cannot predict acuratly what the next action of the hand will be nor can we see in what direction the rider is looking. The dust flying up from the heals creates a smoke screen a confusion a distraction and we forget to notice that we are the horse and have given ourselves up to chance and variability.

This page is hosted by Get your own Free Home Page