I agree that intelligence ceases to progress but the next stages of "evolution" should be social and spiritual, not biological or cerebral. I would hope to meet civilizations that have transcended social conflicts and whose entire populations are spiritually enlightened. But I would not start to believe that such civilizations must exist just because I hope that they do. The universe was not created for our convenience.
5 comments:
It’s important not to confuse ‘evolution’ with ‘improvement’ or ‘progress, teleological fallacies to which the Victorians were especially prone. It just means that an organism produces more viable offspring
Mr Stirling,
I agree, which is why I put "evolution" in quote marks above. Social improvement and spiritual development are not evolution of species by natural selection and the word "evolution" should not really be applied to both. Exactly this confusion seems to bedevil the discussion between Ivar and Yakow.
Paul.
The important thing to keep in mind is that evolutionary success is falsifiable - in common parlance, it’s a fact. Progress is a judgement of value, and hence subjective - a mere opinion, a matter of taste or preference.
Progress a value judgment? Maybe. Most people would agree that elimination of hunger, poverty, preventable diseases, illiteracy, ignorance and prejudice is good. This remains a value judgment ("good")but nevertheless something more than a mere opinion or subjective taste or preference?
Paul: no, it's merely a widely-shared subjective taste or preference. I agree with it myself, largely -- but that's also a statement of taste.
To illustrate, "murderers should be punished" and "blasphemers should be stoned" are both statements of subjective preference. One is much more widely shared than the other.
Post a Comment