This article proposes a restructuring of technological know-how in a way that would decorate human fitness, happiness, and evolution towards an extra intelligently adaptive and innovative worldwide society. An approach of reuniting scientific and spiritual values is defined, and a standard plan is recommended for making the transition to a syntropic science that could preclude the crises predicted to arise inside the twenty-first century as a result of each technological evolution and the impact of human civilization on the Earth’s biosphere.
In the December 2011 Scientific American, “Ten World Changing Ideas” had been featured. The tenth idea turned into defined and mentioned by way of David Weinberger in a piece of writing entitled “The Machine That Would Predict the Future.” Weinberger is a Senior Research Scientist at the Harvard Berkman Center and a Co-Director of the Harvard Library Lab. He is likewise the author of Too Big to Know (2012).
“The Machine” in question is definitely a computing gadget being evolved on the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich under the management of Dirk Helbing. Several universities and studies establishments round the arena aid the task, and it turned into as soon as taken into consideration the pinnacle desire to get hold of a €1 billion research to provide from the European Union. Weinberger’s article, but, was subtly critical and may have inspired the EU’s ultimate selection to provide the award instead to 2 other tasks, considered one of them is the Human Brain Project (EU) which is designed to opposite engineer the complete human mind. Henry Markham leads this venture in Lausanne, Switzerland.
When now not placed to use in support of spiritual organizations and moves, technological know-how is a basically secular hobby that is agnostic with regard to religious beliefs. Science, we have to keep in mind, become once a fascinating new method of exploring and knowing the nature of truth.
As such, it turned into appeared with first rate suspicion by way of religious authorities. Following the rigors of Galileo and Bruno, the French truth seeker, René Descartes, rescued both technological know-how and faith through setting up the theoretical foundation for a territorial divide: the Church might rule over the area of the soul. Science might be unfastened to discover the frame, and by using the extension, the cloth Universe. It could surrender Universal Purpose, leaving that to the gods.
This synthetic difference worked for a long time, however like many compromises that satisfy temporal pastimes, it led sooner or later to a few dangerous conditions. Most organized, monotheistic religions became increasingly more depending on a totalizing revealed reality and religion. The electricity of religion-based religions lies at the end of their unifying Absolute Value, i.E., God, an unchangeable price this is held to be greater vital than lifestyles itself and yet, it guarantees everlasting lifestyles. If you doubt this, how might you provide an explanation for the conduct of the Mayor of Greencastle, Indiana, in 1972, while he stormed out of a Sunday school elegance saying, “I might instead see my son die than have him handled through a health practitioner who is a Communist.” Was this no longer Abraham proving to us that one’s perception in God is greater crucial than lifestyles itself?
Science, however, deprives us of willpower to this type of cost. It appears to be pronounced to us that fact is the final value, yet it denies saying so, asserting that human values are outdoor the purview of technological know-how, and the fact is by no means completely recognized. To the quantity that human values are studied through technology, it’s far accomplished from a function of neutrality.
In outcome, technology has become dominated by means of a spread of paradigms of analytic reductionism, narrowly-focused experimentation, null hypotheses; double-blind, placebo-controlled, go-over studies; a Big Bang main to Universal Entropy, classical Newtonian concept, Einsteinian Relativity, quantum mechanics, clinical modeling (always incomplete), and the concept of evolution by natural choice which led at times to famous fixations on “egocentric genes,” “social Darwinism,” and eugenics. In the cutting-edge, secular international, we are bereft of the soothing attachment to an Absolute Value that includes the oxymoronic promise of “life after death,” a charismatic promise that survives by means of stilling the rational thoughts.
Yet within the religion-based societies, as an instance in the Republic of Maldives, the whole thing appears clean, and the aim appears worthy of general determination. In secular societies, it appears the whole thing is tinged with skepticism, doubt, instability, and the capability for fragmentation. Secular societies, especially, generally tend towards changing polarities of primary vs. Peripheral control, inequalities of wealth, and nationalism vs. Both irredentism or globalism. Therein lies each the energy and the weak point of a civilization based on democratic freedoms, an openness to all ideas on the one hand, and on the alternative, to its corresponding struggles, especially, the various emulations of authoritarianism and libertarianism springing from in the undecided, the quasi-democratic context.
OK, we already recognize this. We know we need to stay, to respire, experience, be wholesome and satisfied. It’s so simple, and it is no longer news to mention we need to live to tell the tale. Yet we aren’t-as individuals, large groups, or as a species-acting as though we were fully aware of the fact that being alive, loving and being cherished, experiencing well-being, and playing happiness are what’s maximum vital to us. We have emerged as distracted from our central purpose, our number one organizing precept.
Every complex, life like the system is organized around an Absolute Value, a Universal Goal: X is Absolute if no-X equals no other values. Thus if X equals Life, the absence of X way no-Life, and if there’s no Life there are no values held by using Life. Likewise, if there are not any human lives, there aren’t any human values. The identical good judgment applies to religion in God. If there may be no God, there are not any God-based totally values. If there may be no God but a perception in God there might be ideals and values attributed to a God that does not exist.
We can show that human lives exist, however, there is no evidence that God exists except alleged proofs from human assertions which have now not stood the test of logic. The factor right here, however, is that the evidence from the evolution of the concept of God and that from the evolution of Life itself is that each is evolving toward an Ideal that is an essential and natural organizing precept in all sensible, complicated, and adaptive facts-processing structures.
The religion-primarily based Ideal and the secular Ideal are basically equal however for one foremost distinction: the religion-based, “discovered” Ideal is thought to exist in a timeless nonsecular realm whereas the secular Ideal is projected right into a destiny material realm that may be approached however by no means fully found out. The distinction among a religious realm and an in no way realized fabric realm? They are each an Ideal. The difference lies inside the approach of attaining for the Ideal.