We're much too wonderful to be guilty of error, aren't we?

Me ranting in response to an article and commentary about "Dr. Doom" in Inside Higher Ed:

"ClioSmith's implication that all human institutions are as natural as elk-matings (and therefore, presumably benign and wholesome) is specious. Behaviors (including aspects of human culture) and physiological characteristics may indeed be the product of evolution -- but the conditions under which they evolved may no longer exist, rendering what was once a successful adaptation a suicidal proclivity. That is, in fact, what some have argued more eloquently than I can about certain aspects of modern humanity, especially the Ponzi scheme of growth-requiring economic systems, overdependence on positivistic science, etc. Some of these behaviors might have been advantageous when there weren't quite so many of us. They aren't any longer. So will we use our vaunted intellects to adapt, or will we let the hammer and anvil of natural selection do the job?

"What IS it with the crowd who can't tolerate the notion that humans and their institutions might be flawed? Especially when they are often the same ilk who cleave to the doctrine of original sin? Must our self-depictions be ever-optimistic? Can we not stand a modicum of humility, or must any criticism be met with accusations of misanthropy and self-loathing?

"And about stewardship of creation? Even if you don't give a rat's ass (vulgar pun intended) about the rest of the life on this planet, attending to our behavior's impact on the environment is surely worthwhile from a position of self-interest. If nature tanks, we go along for the ride."

No comments: