If there is such a thing as real-life good versus evil, it may be found in humanity's struggle between reason and dogma.
When wandering tribes of hunter-gatherers established the seeds of modern society in places like Sumer and the subsequent Akkadian Empire, it would blossom into (among others) the civilisations of Ancient Egypt and Rome, bringing to people a life where clean water, hygiene with bathing houses and sewer systems, and general prosperity and happiness became attainable. Along with this came the liberty to contemplate the broader sense of life beyond mere survival, which culminated into the great thinkers of the merchant state of Ionia in what is now Greece, and the establishment of the great Library of Alexandria.
That is when the dogmatic rot began to set in. Rather than the violent destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the Roman Empire, their demise was marked with increasing corruption and reduced intellectual freedom. This is perhaps best illustrated by the adoption of one of the then new branches of the Abrahamic religion, which we now know as 'Christianity'. Rather than a pantheon of gods who were a reflection of fallible human beings, instead it was assumed that there was this singular Abrahamic god who was not only omnipotent, but also perfect and infallible.
Rather than gods as a sounding board for the internal struggles of humankind, this transitioned society into one where dogma and absolute obedience are an absolute given, something which probably pleased leaders, but also coincided with a neglected Library of Alexandria and the slow demise of ancient Rome as a beacon of civilisation and engineering prowess. As the bright flame of human civilisation guttered and turned into a sickly yellow pinprick of light, European civilisation descended into its thousand years of medieval regression. At this point it might have seemed that all hope was lost, and humanity was on its final, dystopian course towards its demise.
Yet beneath the suffocating blanket of dogma and Holy Wars, reason and with it science persisted. From monks tinkering with plant biology to the increasing trendiness among the affluent to 'do scientific experiments', science and engineering re-emerged like new growth after a wildfire. Throughout the Renaissance of the 15th century and subsequent Age of Enlightenment which began in the 17th century, the old became new again, and society began to pick up where the ravages of dogma had left it floundering for over a millennium.
In many ways, today's society is still struggling with the same old questions of the Enlightenment, churning over and over through the benefits versus disadvantages of separating church and state, to question freedom of thought. Not only with religious freedom, but also including the freedom to discard dogma altogether. After all, what reasonable argument can be made for the Roman or Greek pantheon of gods being any less real or vice versa than the Abrahamic god or the gods of any of the world's other religions? Aren't they, when reasonably regarded, not merely allegories and reflections of the human mind?
Throughout history, humankind has rejoiced in the opportunity to convince others of them being wrong on some dogmatic topic. Whether it concerned religion, nationalism, or another topic which seemed so incredibly important and just at the time, dogma has caused untold suffering at the hands of those who were convinced of this dogmatic belief. At the same time, dogma also has provided humanity with something it craves so strongly: a sense of belonging and stability. These are things which are now being threatened more than ever.
When we look at science-fiction stories - whether in book, TV or movie format - they all share a common theme: there is other life, other civilisations out there. Surely the Milky Way Galaxy must be teeming with life, after all? Yet it's easy to forget that, although from a recent historical perspective it seemed natural that explorers would find other humans living elsewhere on Earth, those humans too originally came from a central location on this planet. Many thousands of years ago, the first human explorers were the first humans ever to visit parts of this planet. They did not meet existing tribes, just a world devoid of humans.
Based on everything we know today, from Earth-based telescopes and space probes we sent out into Deep Space, there is no sign that there is other life elsewhere in this entire Galaxy. That would mean that as we find our way outside of our solar system, through Deep Space and explore other solar systems and galaxies, we would be the first one there. There would be no cheerful, aggressive, paranoid or idyllic civilisations and worlds waiting for us like Sci-Fi wants us to believe. No Klingons and Romulans, or Vulcan faster-than-light ships zipping by Earth. Just the complete silence of galaxies devoid of humans.
Amidst this silence, we would find our dogmas falter. We'd have no nationalism (or planetism?) to fight over, nothing to prove, argue or defend. Just empty worlds and quiet, sometimes dark worlds amidst the void of Outer Space. Quiet places that will only reflect our own humanity back at us when we look at them. There is nothing to conquer, no enemy to defeat but our own ghosts. All the comforts and certainties we have established on Earth over millennia are meaningless here.
Will new dogmas arise in this environment? Will reason and science win out at long last? Can humankind survive when it is thrust back out into the wilds like this, to face its own solitude? In some science-fiction works, such as the Gundam series, humanity establishes colonies beyond Earth, followed by those worlds eventually turning against Earth, setting the stage for interplanetary conflict. In this scenario humanity would continue what the ancient Sumerians and Akkadians already did: nationalism, conquering and keeping the bright red flame of dogma burning as it is fed with more blood and more suffering.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for humanity is thus not whether it can establish a foothold beyond Earth and travel among the stars, but rather whether it can conquer its own internal needs and fears, to let go of this infantile desire for dogma, and to work up the courage to look up and see things for what they truly are. Even if it means abandoning comfortable self-deception.
Maya
Saturday 5 February 2022
The end of science, and humanity's fear of being alone
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
On dogma, I believe it comes from cultural or economic disadvantage. Economic disadvantage denies educational opportunities and can drive a desire for simple answers, or worse, a willingness to "other" outsiders - class treachery or "punching down." Cultural disadvantage is kind of like a more strident version of what you posit in your article on gender as contrived by the social order, that gender norms are simply social constructs. Dogmas are exactly that, social constructs, be they religious or fascistic. I sometimes despair at the idea of ideas being "immortal", unkillable, but perhaps we just need to supplant them with culturally relevant, yet better ideas. Put simplistically, reminding evangelical christians that Jesus is attributed as saying, "Judge not others, lest you be judged yourself." But maybe in a less judgie way :D
On alien contact? We've not made contact with alien races for 2 reasons, I suspect. The second law of thermodynamics and culture.
The first one, thermodynamics, while telescopes can pick up remarkably weak signals, the origin points of those signals are stars, any radio transmission from an orbiting planet will be many decibels (hundreds!?) lower in signal level than the nearly always coaxial and always near-coaxial point source that warms that planet. Even detection of planets is not by observing the planet, rather its shadow and the wobbles it might induce in the star it orbits. Thermodynamics has serious problems for a culture finding us, too. Space fairing isn't a matter of loading a ship and sailing to a new star, the energy to cross massive distances, while sustaining life, over enormous periods of time... A civilisation would have to be so advanced compared to us, we would be as bugs to them.
The second factor, culture, will be so vastly different to our own in nearly every potential case of life. We can decrypt a cellphone signal, provided we record it and throw enough computer power at it, but that's because we know the numerical systems used, can look up the encryption algorithms used and speak the language. Radio feels instantaneous to us, but it's latent as all getout over relativistic time and distance. A deep space fairing culture isn't using radio, except maybe to detect obstacles. ("Radar" but they'd probably have less latent, more quantum methods for that, too.) These aliens have evolved in vastly different environments to us, even if we could live in each other's environments, that they won't communicate like us, they will count on a different base, they will think of parity checking differently. We may well be picking up a signal from a nearby "super earth" but cannot recognise it as "intelligent" because we can't recognise _their_ ideas of regularity. Maybe they jumped radio and figured out quantum entanglement before radio and aren't even transmitting in any spectrum we can listen to.
There's no doubt life exists out there somewhere. Run the Drake equation with even the most conservative numbers and there are enough stars in the Milky Way alone to say the probabilities are plausible. Maybe we'll crack the thermodynamic problems and get a signal out that's universally recognizable by intelligent life as intelligent life. We still have to figure out their reply, after they figure out our meaning and intent.
Once I realised this, I was at peace with humanity being alone and happy, in many ways that we are. For what we might do to others and what they might do to us.
Again, thank you for an interesting and stimulating article.
Post a Comment