On humanity's extinction

Most of us (including me) most of the time, don’t give much thought to the possibility of human extinction. It’s not long ago that I would have considered the thought that our species could disappear like the dinosaurs, absurd. There’s nothing like a virulent pandemic that travels around the world swiftly and in ever-increasing strength to disavow us of our complacent smugness on the subject. We know that the entire population that lived on earth 150 years ago is now gone, extinct, so we have no trouble accepting that individually, extinction is our lot. But as a species??

That humanity is at the apex of creation seems to be the message of the Christian/Hebrew Bible. It makes sense there because it envisions all creation (earth, people, animals, plants) as being part of an intelligent design by an omnipotent designer whose creative work progresses in complexity and “god-likeness” till Adam—the everyman—appears as caretaker of a finished design. The meaning of humankind in this allegory is all bound up in allegiance and obedience to an omnipotent, omniscient God. Possible extinction of humanity is hinted at in the story of the flood, but care is taken by God to preserve the species through Noah.

Evolutionary Biology approaches meaning in a much different way. Practically speaking, the human species is accidental, the result of millions of years of evolution from far more modest species. In science, human existence has no more intrinsic meaning than that of any other species. Meaning is adjudged by behaviour, and the core human behaviours support survival and reproduction. In other words, every human is born into an obligation to enhance, preserve and defend the continuation of the species. That is humanity’s core meaning; subsidiary meanings follow of course, but the core is the foundation of all. Not by design but by accident, many have said in one way or another.

The question is, of course, whether species survival/extinction matters? Maybe we ought to consult the Dodo bird, the dinosaurs or the woodland caribou before deciding that.

Below is a list of some existing conditions that tend (in my mind) to make the extinction of humanity at some time a distinct possibility: (The links lead you to further reading on the point being made.)

·        Considering the various creatures inhabiting earth, humans are among the most vulnerable. Whereas, for instance, most mammals have adapted to environments that are very hot or very cold—or both in turn—humans’ range of temperature tolerance is very small.

·        For the best ratio of population-to-resources, humans find themselves overpopulated in many parts of the globe. The feeding of the entire species, all the time, has become a complex problem and millions of human children are given birth only to perish through malnutrition.

·        Rather than adapting to environmental conditions, humanity has bent its creative resources toward altering the environment to match its needs and wants. This makes human life vulnerable when rapid changes in environment outstrip humans’ ability to maintain a sustainable balance.

·        Although humans are social creatures, cooperation on—for instance—preserving its common planet-home is made impossible by a failure to evolve from competitive, tribal loyalties toward species solidarity.

·        By now, adversarial systems of behaviour are practically built into the DNA of human nature. The scientific knowledge that humanity is one—and only one—species has not substantially changed behaviours arising from us/them, me-first-and-only assumptions. Our justice systems are adversarial, the party system of government in a democracy is adversarial, business and commerce are competitive, if not exactly adversarial.

·        Caste systems may perish legally, but they persist socially. Driven by economics (haves and have nots), privilege (kings, dukes, celebrities, ethnic majorities/minorities), accident (lottery, stock market luck, being born into a place of abundant resources or not), racism (black/white difference) or educational opportunity (university graduation, high school graduation, school dropout, no educational option period), our imagined or real statuses make broad cooperation across castes very difficult.

·        Human vulnerability to disease has always been a worrisome threat to our existence. Although considered generally to be at the top of the food chain, insentient life forms may be increasingly able to make humanity part of their “diet” through slow but steady evolution, including renewed ability to bypass human preventatives and treatments: viruses, bacteria.

·        The evolution of deadlier and deadlier technologies of destruction and killing play into the dark side of human nature, a perpetual temptation to settle conflict by force rather than by compromise.

·        The role of religion in dividing people into “us and them” exacerbates and strengthens the barriers to cooperation.

·        Human reluctance to accept change and the countering of science with alternate imagery and theories of conspiracy means that demonstrable fact and scientific theories are demoted, the anti-fact and pseudo-fact are exalted. Striving for consensus in such an environment is difficult.

 There are just too many conflicting interests and divergent political/social viewpoints to allow us to build a workable consensus around human survival/extinction. W.B. Yeats in A Second Coming sensed something about the hopelessness of the human condition in the lines: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst /are full of passionate intensity.” If the best among us lack conviction while the worst are full of passion, we are indeed sliding down a slippery slope. Given this, there seems to remain only one hope for humankind: those who believe that to revere creation and to behave toward others as they desire to have others behave toward them, those “good people” will have to learn to be as passionate as the deconstructors, the activists opposing the rule of law, public order and common ethics.

As a Christian, I believe that the record of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ provides a viable model of what humanity needs to become in the interest of its own survival. Other sages in other times and in different languages have iterated a similar message; we know this by the fact that the Golden Rule is common to the philosophy of so many cultures. That much of the body of believers reads scriptures for the saving of the self instead of the saving of humanity only adds to the divisions while discarding the core: love your neighbour as yourself.

A useful metaphor:

All of humanity is riding on one enormous ocean liner. The “love your neighbour” people are the crew; they not only know the route and the hazards, but are bent on the safe arrival at destination of all the crew and passengers. 

But some of the passengers distrust the crew and spread stories of their imagined intention to transport them to a place where they can be made slaves while most pay no attention to the conflicts arising among them as long as the bar and the theatres are open and the crew keeps bringing food. But the crew is honour bound to deliver the rebellious, the liars, the indifferent safely to shore along with the “love your neighbour” people. Either this ship will reach shore through the sheer work and determination of the crew, or mutiny will put in charge those bent on displacing the crew, resulting in the ship  running onto the rocks and all the passengers and crew perishing.   

e

 

Ibsen, Paul and the 85%

“The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right.” Henrik Ibsen

Groups holding a minority opinion often cite the first half of Ibsen’s quote … and omit the second half. It’s a kind of proof-texting pseudo-support for a minority point-of-view, while Christians would more likely quote Paul in Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That too would be proof-texting in support of a point-of-view.

Canadians re-elected a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau recently and in so doing, made his party the majority, hence the government as defined by our constitution. About 85% of Canadians voted to support the majority party government’s urging to be vaccinated. That the majority governments in Canada and the provinces got things as right as possible, history will judge. I daresay that stumbles by governments will become glaringly obvious when we look back.

If we think of the unvaccinated in Canada as the minority opinion, judging by their choice, that would logically be about 15% of Canadians. If we think of the numbers of truckers who are and are not vaccinated, the 85% to 15% ratio probably holds as well. I have to wonder if 15% of us are born with a gene that inclines us toward obstruction, non-cooperation with authority, and that where competing viewpoints become significant and emotional, we’ll generally fall out with that 85% to 15% --- proportionally. (Keeping in mind that I, too, fall far short of the glory of God and could, therefore, be wrong.)

Point is: Ibsen and the Apostle Paul agree: majorities and minorities will generally be shown in history to have failed to embrace their best; both are made up of individual humans who are bound by nature to mess up. Science is fine, but on COVID, it’s frantically playing catch-up to the virus, social media are spouting constant streams of misinformation to which individuals attach themselves depending if they have 15% or 85% genes … euphemistically put.

My advice to governments, 85%ers and 15%ers; stay knowledgeable as you can so unnecessary mistakes are avoided. To governments, try harder to emphasize what is allowed rather than what is forbidden, but stay on course to end the pandemic. To anti-government protestors on this issue, it’s your right to do so but never forget the Golden Rule that says that when we do unto others what we would like done to us, we come closer to truth than we are now. In this case, don’t put your fellow citizens in danger on the highways.

Finally, nothing I've said here is useful unless we learn to say, "I don't agree with you, but I could be wrong," when we want to say, "You're a blathering idiot! Get lost!" Or we learn to say words like, "I'm sorry," or "I don't really know," or "You were right about that and I was wrong," 

Why do we all try to pass ourselves off as bathed in the glory of God? We're not. Unless you actually are; I'm not. To you, then, I say, "You were right and I was wrong. I'm so sorry!"