SUMMARY
It is still apparent that a barrier to understanding the essence of humanity is humankind’s propensity to divide itself into social groups within which often unsubstantiated core values define the internal moralities. For the past millennium, religion has formed the core values of many of these groups. It must take some responsibility for the confusion that places science and many groups in opposition to one another. This confusion accentuates differences. Using not only myth and legend, it also perpetuates a deep ignorance of what science knows and what scientists are trying to do. There is a great and immediate need for science and engineering to become the basis of education. This is not for economic reasons but for the future of our culture and our humanity. Despite the propaganda of the misguided and religious conservatives, science is NOT a belief system: it is the language in which reality is written. Religion, moreover, is a developed method of social control that evolved prior to the development of modern political systems. The transparency of science as opposed to the opaqueness of religion forebodes that conflict will continue to occur between them, because both are intolerant: religion of dissent and science of ignorance. Eventually, the establishment of scientific ethical guidelines in the global cultural gamodeme will lead to meritocracy and democracy within the global political system. However, although democracy embodies the fundamental features contained within society i. e. it allows stable groups and mitigates conflict, it lacks the transcendent enforcement procedures embodied in religion: punishment under Rule-of-Law is not as persuasive as burning forever in hell. The conflict between religion and science will likely continue for a long time.
Evolutionary theory has applications in understanding and improving humankind’s cultural gamodemes [political, social, ethnic interbreeding populations]. In particular, it can form the basis for establishing scientifically derived ethical guidelines. Scientific reasoning is the only logical basis of evolving a future global cultural gamodeme; and, for establishing those that will exist extra-terrestrially. Our descendents need knowledge to allow them to understand what they are, both as genetic entities and as containers of humankind’s value. This is necessary in order to see what they might be, and where they might go, in their future. The key lies in a greater understanding of science and our true nature.
Three basic laws derived from examining the natural world apply generally to our Universe at all scales. The Laws of Instability, Actualism, and Combinatorial Outcome appear to operate interactively within complex systems. These natural laws allow scientists to understand the processes operating on Earth as well as elsewhere in our Universe. They are especially applicable to understanding the physical evolution of an evolving interbreeding population. Similarly, all three laws can be used to interpret the development of the cultural gamodeme. For example, ‘combinatorial outcome’ applies to government and corporate policies; ‘actualism’ to militarism; and, ‘instability’ to immigration. Section Two uses these laws to interpret characteristics of the evolving cultural gamodeme. The extension of the laws into the interacting population offers a definite methodology for analyzing and understanding the cultural gamodemes. Moreover, as we examine the cultural gamodemes we often can see clearly the role of feedback loops and self organization that allow specific emergent cultural traits to develop.
Science stands-out in its approach to understanding nature because it strives for one viewpoint for our origin, using the scientific method to determine the laws that govern the material existing within our universe. Many, if not most, scientists would agree that there is no theory for the origin of the Universe, only a set of competing hypotheses. Steinhardt [2003], amongst others, avoids the whole problem of origin by evoking a perpetual iterating inflationary universe. However, there is one acceptable Theory for the development of our Universe after its origin, and this is the Big Bang Theory. The general picture is that science allows reasoning along a variety of logical sequences to deduce all forms of matter and their inter-relationships from the elemental particles, elemental forces and some mathematical constants. Indeed, scientists now understand the history of our Universe back to about 13.7 billion years ago and less than one second after the theoretical starting point. It is only at the initial point of creation that science fails [Planck time and Planck distance], and even at this point there are tantalizing hints that Planck space can be probed. Some scientists recognize this limit as a moving target that one day may be hit. For many science places the concept of god in a true perspective: that which is beyond scientific comprehension; indeed, by establishing how our material Universe works science is the language whereby we understand reality itself..
The origin of life on Earth is a recent event in the history of the Universe, occurring some 3.7 billion years ago. The Theory for its origin is that it was a natural stage in the evolution of chemical systems at the Earth’s surface and occurred within a aqueous medium of neutral pH and some salinity. For the first 1.5 billion years of development, the chemical systems operating were abiological but eventually they became more and more biological. The first critical event was the development of a spherical molecule that acted as a cellular membrane that enclosed chemical reactions. The importance of this was that it shielded the internal chemical activity from the external chemical activity. The earliest cells were the Prokaryotic cells which simply contained specific chemical reactions within a spherical molecule. About 1.5 billion years after this Prokaryotic cell type developed a new type of cell appeared, called the Eukaryotic cell. The Eukaryotic cell was an even more efficient cellular machine because it had internal sites of chemical reactions that were surrounded by spherical molecules [the organelles]. The second critical stage for the evolution of cellular life was the development of efficient and accurate methods of reproducing the DNA molecules: the process of mitosis and then meiosis. The third critical stage was the development of photosynthesis for this allowed the eventually oxygenation of Earth’s atmosphere and the colonization of the landmasses.
The mathematical code that determines the development of organisms, once understood, provided a rigorous basis to heredity. The efficiency of the genetic code, and of the evolutionary process itself, can be readily understood in terms of survival of the adaptive trait. The reason life has turned out to be so adapted, in great detail in some cases, is directly related to the role of the genetic code contained within the physical-chemical structure of the chromosome. It is the DNA that is at the core of adaptive traits found in all organisms and is the key to the nature of living systems. It controls the hereditable characteristics and thereby the physical appearance of the organism. Mitosis, meiosis and protein synthesis from the DNA molecule are all finely tuned methods of replication of cellular material. The diversity in an interbreeding population [the physical gamodeme] is primarily the result of chemical changes that take place during mitosis, meiosis, and protein synthesis. Chemical changes introduced during mitosis and protein synthesis are often the main culprits responsible for somatic cell aberrations, but those that occur during meiosis affect the germ cells and may manifest themselves as trait changes in the subsequent ancestor-offspring lineage. That scientists can generally understand the origin and development of living systems today is definite. Moreover, details are being added daily to fill in the gaps in knowledge. Even a superficial survey of biological news on the Internet will find at least one new discovery every day that confirms the evolutionary process as a fact i.e. a failure to reject the hypothesis.
The variation displayed by a gamodeme is due to exactly the same cause as that which influences the development of the individual. There is, of course, a more extended variability in the gamodeme than in a single individual. Because individuals in a gamodeme do not inhabit exactly the same specific environment the environmental pressures on the gamodeme are more varied than the environmental pressures on a single individual. The precise environment is never the same but is changed by such factors as food supply, crowding and temperature. However, the majority of the adults are similar, because they have adapted themselves to the same general conditions and only a small number show extreme variability. As a generalization it can be said that a characteristic trait is one that can successfully exist in the population under the prevailing selection pressure. A dominant form in the population is one that has a more lenient selection pressure imposed upon it than on other individuals that are less common in the gamodeme.
All species are based upon the interbreeding population [gamodeme] that provides a unison of traits that allow a coherent group to be defined. Biospecies are based solely in the ability to interbreed, and paleospecies are based upon morphological traits that are preserved in the fossilized record of life-forms. The fossil record in particular indicates that evolutionary change occurs at different rates on different lineages so that at the extreme some organisms evolve slowly, whilst others show apparent evolutionary jumps in a few generations. The general cause is the level of selection pressure, acting primarily through the environment, culling out some varieties and allowing others to survive.
The ancestor-descendant sequence that is the phylogenic lineage takes place by the changing environment gradually drawing out different characteristics from the gene pool. Additional variation is provided by gene mutation. It should be remembered that in a large proportion of organisms, the reproductive rate is enormous. For example, an oyster may lay 6 - 9 million eggs at a single spawning. Many of the early deaths in such a mass may be random and accidental but the vast majority of organisms die because of an inability to adapt to the environment: whatever that selection pressure may be. Those forms that find the selection pressure lenient will survive. The amount of variation from the ideal type will depend on the harshness of the selection pressure operating in the particular environment. In the next generation, assuming a similar or an increased selection pressure, the characteristics that were selected by the environment in the ancestral population will assume a greater prominence. With succeeding generations there is a gradual shift in the morphology of the population in the direction of better adaptation to the environment. When selection pressure decreases a greater variation can be displayed and different environments can be inhabited. Isolation of the variant in a new environment away from the main genetic pool can cause, in time, the new population to differ radically from the ancestral population by reproductive isolation and continued genetic drift.
Phylogenies can be studied directly by examining fossils in successive sequences of rock strata and this has provided to overall understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. Neontologists are able to refine these lineages by measuring the degree of molecular change in the chromosomes. When organisms are compared in this way, they can be placed in position along a relative time scale. This time scale can be calibrated with the geological time scale to provide a level of absolute time. Understanding the rate of mutation has allowed an absolute time scale based on molecular change to be established. This relies upon the assumption of the constant ‘molecular clock’, to impose a time relationship amongst organisms. Even though the molecular clock is not as precise as one would want it to be it is important to remember that precision in temporal location is not critical to understanding the phylogeny, which is more dependant upon relative position along a phylogenic line.
The evolution of humankind is based upon the fossil record, which unfortunately is poorly preserved because most individuals died on a terrestrial surface and were readily decayed. There are sufficient remains to conclusively show that humankind’s lineage is part of that of the Old World monkeys and Great Apes. Despite the vagueness of contemporary hominoid taxonomy and systematics the Dryopithecus – Australopithecus - Homo lineage can be established and within Homo a sequence of species can be delimited that lead to modern Homo sapiens. Modern molecular biochemistry using genetic sequences has confirmed the evidence from the fossil record and allowed determination of the origin of Homo sapiens as a novel form migrating out of Africa. Our species Homo sapiens is at a juncture beyond which lies a final understanding of the processes that control the traits of its gamodeme. Humankind is now faced with the critical decision of what traits should be maintained in our future phylogeny. These decisions will create moral dilemmas to many groups because it relates to efforts to develop human - chimera hybrids, human – robotic hybrids and conscious robots. A human robotic hybrid Homo roboticus, along with Homo sapiens, will explore the outer limits of the Solar System. Eventually, understanding consciousness and how it is formed will allow an entirely new genus/species to be developed as Robotico earthensis, with a manufactured consciousness within a manufactured body. At this point, perhaps 300 years in the future, Homo’s destiny as a galactic species will have been fulfilled. Much of the knowledge needed to design Robotico earthensis necessitates an understanding of both the origin and the development of living systems. Scientists are rapidly moving towards a complete understanding of these phenomena and possibly within a decade will be able to create a mammal from basic materials. Understanding how living systems develops from DNA to a fully developed organism; and how to incorporate novel traits into the genome will solve the problem of exo-hystera genesis and the construction of artificial wombs. Once the surgical problem of connecting a functional brain via the brain stem to a donor body is solved the scientific fundament for monumental extensions of humankind will be in place. The developments will allow human chimera to be developed to inhabit Earth’s oceans, exist in methane atmospheres and other hostile environments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within a framework of the human dimension the evolution of social conditions points to some important characteristics of the cultural gamodemes.
-
Cultural gamodemes are an expression of the coherent nature of life on Earth and have an intimate relationship with the material world. The emergence of culture is an evolved trait of humankind.
-
The Laws of Instability, Actualism, and Combinatorial Outcome, apply to change in the cultural gamodeme.
-
The Earth as a system is quite autopoiesic in that it is organized as discrete self-regulating networked entities i. e., from a cell or mineral to an ecosystem or cultural gamodeme. These entities are essentially closed in the dynamics of their internal production, but are open to the flow of materials, ideas, etc through them.
-
Efficient performance is a social trend that has adaptive value. It is probably the reason that religion has evolved within all cultural gamodemes.
-
Adaptation by individuals to the cultural norm of the gamodeme is natural but depends upon the level at which the selection pressure is set. The democracies, normally tend to operate under lenient to normal selection pressure. This allows divergent views to simultaneously exist, by both individuals and sub-groups. In general these views do not harm because most have little or no lasting social value. Occasionally a mutant idea can initiate a paradigm shift and rapidly alter the tempo of social change e.g. free enterprise, Marxism, Christianity.
-
Archaeosociety seems to have been driven by an adaptation of humankind to the hunting-gathering way of the pack. This became the cooperative basis of a cultural gamodeme. The initial hunter-gatherer populations did not directly control the major events in their evolution. Population size and resource management, were critical constraints dependant upon external factors. The opening-up of adjacent environments for habitation and resource acquisition was essentially random as far as the hunter-gatherer society was concerned. With assumed sizes of individual groups less than 100 persons the population density was low and the level of social organization needed to maintain the basic needs of the group were minimal. In archaeosociety conflict resolution was probably the prime role of social control procedures.
-
The change from archaeosociety to protosociety was a natural stage in societal evolution as the selection pressure, applied by population density, increasingly took effect. A pecking order, based upon threats, assassinations, graft, gifts and tributes established a form of ‘Law and Order’ that satisfied the common populace: or at least controlled it by the fear of violence.
-
Development of the protosocietal stage saw a greatly increased population density that accompanied the recognition of the efficiency of fixed agriculture as opposed to following the game trails. As localized centers of population formed in these agricultural communities developments were quite similar to those we see in the extension of metabolic pathways in cellular life but with the end products being availability of food, sexual partners, shelter, protection and companionship within an enlarged kinship framework [the five basic needs]. With the domestication of crops and animals protosociety improved radically the method of obtaining resources and handling them. The main discriminant of protosociety is the level of social organization within each cultural gamodeme, as rules based primarily upon kinship, to ensure the five basic needs. The rules were necessary for conflict resolution as population density increased and individual and/or kinship groups sought a greater access to resources. Organization relied on developing religious belief to ensure compliance with group needs: a strategy which presumably originated in archaeosociety with the development of the early shamans.
-
Protosociety involves independent groups established essentially as fiefdoms. Local war-lords, chiefdoms and tribal leaders characterize this stage of social development. City-states and even the imperious Vatican of the 14th century are the height of this stage of organization. The main interaction between these independent groups is war and their evolution progressed as new ideas spontaneously arose within the local gamodeme or were imported from other cultural gamodemes.
-
Eusociety evolved as the City-state changed into Nations with religion forming the axis around which social control developed as ‘law and order’. Internally, Eusociety has often engaged in cultural [ethnic] cleansing to unify its national borders. However, the important characteristic of eusociety is that it attempts to establish collaboration between units based upon mutual benefits. Competition with other cultural gamodemes, as a means of expansion and the control of resources, consolidated Nation-states. Although war evolved in sophistication it remained fundamentally a way of getting additional resources and depriving the competition of resources thereby subjugating them. The prominent role of the acquisition of material resources in eusociety points back to five requirements the individual expects from society. The government is given a mandate by the people to provide for the individuals basic needs.
Earth is progressively developing a global Eusociety; and, currently the best political basis seems to be an institutionalized representative democracy within a free enterprise economic system in which the market-place-of-ideas dominates. This is the basis of the system of liberal institutional democracy that the USA pursues globally. The market-place-of-ideas philosophy played a pivotal role in developing modern representative democracy because it created a political system that supports the rights of the individual, often over and above the rights of the group.
Within the individual cultural gamodemes a shift in the social condition commenced in the early 1500’s with the rise of merchant enterprise and capitalistic ideology. This saw the beginning of individual freedom and rights that accompanied the rise of national market place economies: especially in Western Europe. The growth of individual rights blossomed with extended education allowing ideas and knowledge to become part of the market place. This fired the Industrial Revolution which changed the tempo of the adaptive process acting within the cultural gamodeme. It brought with it a reinforcement of the idea of competition, financial reward and free-enterprise. Competition for resources remains a major driving force in social adaptation today.
The destabilizing influences on modern eusociety are primarily associated with population growth and density; the influence of corporate ethics on government; internal conflicts caused by ethnicity, religious morals and an inadequate legal system; and, gamodeme wars viewed as external conflicts. The solution to these ills requires a greater adherence to scientific principles. Corporate interference, increased population density, and the penetration into government by organized belief systems, are all problems that are threatening representative democracy. They will have to be addressed severely in the immediate future if totalitarianism is not to finally take over global government. Strong social regulatory control within a global representative democracy, that represents the people, not corporate or religious organizations, seems to be the best solution to avoid a future social tragedy. Allowing the market-place-of-ideas to flourish, without excessive government interference, could allow a sustainable cultural gamodeme to successfully evolve.
With mass communication and global mixing of the population by emigration and immigration the specter of cultural uniformity looms. One of the frightening aspects of the ethno-cultural gamodemes as they relate to diversity is the manner in which they are all becoming dangerously close to fascism, as political tolerance narrows. The rapid implementation of control of resources by private corporations, the concentration of wealth within the hands of a limited number of individuals, and the control of global information are the signs. These are characteristics of the fascist states of the last century. This impression is reinforced where increasing regulation governing the lives of individuals, and constricting freedom of expression, are recognized. Corporate World may succeed in controlling Earth if a people-oriented regulatory system is not implemented. Education and a reduction of population pressure, both led by technological developments, are the essential keys to progress. Genetic intervention will become prominent in future society and be of particular use in extending the environments into which humankind and our humanity will migrate, both on Earth and elsewhere. Paying more attention to the core of science and technology is critical but it needs to be recognized that an outer layer of education will form the basis of any sustainable and successful future political reality. The structuring of society in a fair and equitable manner can only be based on a global commitment to the Principles of Meritocracy. In constraining population pressure to establish a harmonious Earth System the question of excess individuals must be faced – at least in the short term. This will involve issues such as euthanasia, eugenics and genetic intervention into aging and life extension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic problem facing humankind’s future is that having expanded into most habitable areas of Earth Homo sapiens is seeing an increased selection pressure due to population growth. This impinges not simply on humankind itself but upon the entire Earth System, because as population density increases so does the demand for space and resources which impacts upon the rest of the Earth system. There are some real solutions to the breathing-space problem for those who remain on Earth and perhaps the physically easiest is population restriction. Secondly, genetic modification could allow humankind to migrate into other parts of the Earth System such as the oceans and frigid polar and alpine regions. Thirdly, modifications can improve the cellular efficiency of the human machine, by controlling the birth, adolescence and aging process. However, moving outwards to a colony on the Moon and eventually the complete colonization of Mars is clearly what Homo will do in the near term future [300 years]. Eventually humankind will explore and inhabit the entire Solar System. Beyond are other stellar systems and even other galaxies, and it is hoped that our descendents will carry humanity to the far reaches of Space. Our future descendents: Homo roboticus, Robotico earthensis and ultimately Robotico’s own offspring Robotico roboticus, will be the carriers of the banner of humanity.
Exploration of our Universe will cause added conflict between religion and science. Nevertheless, the current relationship is a transitional stage in the evolution of the global cultural gamodemes, because the belief in a supernatural interfering God can be placed within a framework of evolutionary development of all cultures and will eventually become insignificant to humankinds progress.
Science can conceive our Universe as a logical construct. Such an concept relies upon the idea of ‘that which creates’. Religion has that creator as an interfering God; science has ‘that which creates’ as a non-interfering 'entity' that created our Universe. The burden to logically prove that God exists, is on the shoulders of the theists, which they have never done. The Null Hypothesis that God exists is constantly falsified i.e. there is no scientific evidence and thus it is a poor hypothesis. Moreover, IF it is accepted that logically a negative hypotheses can be falsified, then scientifically, the Null Hypothesis that God does not exist has never been falsified i.e. it is a well established Theory that God does not exist
In the words of Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical Universe is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So, naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God". The differences that are generated by a belief in one or the other hypothesis are immense in terms of how conscious beings have, do, and will interact with our Universe, and how cultural gamodemes behave.
