We are not bred for conflict by natural selection. This is a vast misunderstanding of biological evolution. It has been mandated by a choice we have allowed through cultural evolution. Culture either supports life or death. Conflict, when adapted by cultures, leads to devolution.
Scroll it back on the evolutionary tree. Conflict has roots in competition for food and for mating. Those good at it procreate and survive at the expense of their congeners. We’re nothing special in that respect imo.
I see this as more nuanced than the idea of conflict being inherent in natural selection and competition for resources. And I think the perspective that Caitlin expresses is capturing this nuance. In the short term, the greedy algorithm always works - hence the competition for resources is clearly in effect, short term (or you could say, in human observational timescales) in many aspects of nature.
But it is less clear to me that this is fundamental when you look at the 'iterated game' of nature and evolution over the long term. Over the long term, nature seems to find ways of mutually beneficial coexistence and avoidance of the destructive short term greed that people are so good at. One way of thinking of this is Caitlin's idea that all life / consciousness is really "one" - and therefore the processes that are best for that "one existence" imply an intrinsic preference towards cooperation among all participants, developed over the long haul. This idea is reflected in many spiritual models of the world (karma, dao, etc) that suggest that the greedy, appropriative, controlling, destructive approaches to life will never win out in the end.
I found the work of Alan Watts very enlightening in this regard, it is well worth a listen. Here is an example:
But we don't live in our actual physical bodies as if we experience life in the All-Is-One model. We experience it pretty much as individuals -- it is a limitation of our nervous system -- even though we are biologically interdependent. That's the way we evolved, for some reason -- I would guess as a constraint of information processing. We can fantasize about group mind, but very few of us actually experience it outside of the low bandwidth of language and gesture.
It's true that we don't ordinarily seem to experience existence beyond our body. I think it can feel that way under the influence of certain chemicals or intense meditative states, but the practical impact of that feeling is limited.
However, that feeling can spark the idea of this "better way" of modeling the universe: the belief that the universe is at basis a force preferring cooperation, balance, and "good", because we all have skin in all the games, not just our own. The impact of this idea of existence is not a physical one-ness, but a mindset providing a basis for preferring peace, cooperation, and self-determination in the iterated game of life.
In that sense, 'living as if we experience life as all one" would be not about the experience of group mind, but rather trying to live in balance with nature and other species, trying not to unnecessarily interfere with the course of nature, and working with other humans to reduce conflict and create good through cooperation.
And the key thing that I think Caitlin is suggesting: rejecting those in power who would enslave us and pit us against one another.
Indeed it is. Cf. The greed for our neighbours goods vs the altruism we bestow on our clans and families. This dichotomy is at the heart of conflict. Leadership is needed to mesh them because it didn’t seem to come naturally most of the time,
Evolution, in a step by step process since the first life, manifested the factors that enhanced survival. Of course we are not special - we are alive. My point is that we as humans have an additional layer of evolutionary survival choices supported or endangered by our cultures.
We should have. It will be better answered when our tenancy is longer. It seems like it’s a double-edged sword. Whereas other species haven’t had the capacity to engender existential risk for their own and all other species, we have done created it.
I think you’re right. I am holding out less and less hope. A world leader could still right the ship, but a lot of goodwill would be needed and that doesn’t come overnight.
Oh I 100% agree this is currently a test. Bur human consciousness an experiment? Only if consciousness in life itself is an experiment. Maybe, just maybe, we will not continue to fail so epically!
We are not bred for conflict by natural selection. This is a vast misunderstanding of biological evolution. It has been mandated by a choice we have allowed through cultural evolution. Culture either supports life or death. Conflict, when adapted by cultures, leads to devolution.
Scroll it back on the evolutionary tree. Conflict has roots in competition for food and for mating. Those good at it procreate and survive at the expense of their congeners. We’re nothing special in that respect imo.
I see this as more nuanced than the idea of conflict being inherent in natural selection and competition for resources. And I think the perspective that Caitlin expresses is capturing this nuance. In the short term, the greedy algorithm always works - hence the competition for resources is clearly in effect, short term (or you could say, in human observational timescales) in many aspects of nature.
But it is less clear to me that this is fundamental when you look at the 'iterated game' of nature and evolution over the long term. Over the long term, nature seems to find ways of mutually beneficial coexistence and avoidance of the destructive short term greed that people are so good at. One way of thinking of this is Caitlin's idea that all life / consciousness is really "one" - and therefore the processes that are best for that "one existence" imply an intrinsic preference towards cooperation among all participants, developed over the long haul. This idea is reflected in many spiritual models of the world (karma, dao, etc) that suggest that the greedy, appropriative, controlling, destructive approaches to life will never win out in the end.
I found the work of Alan Watts very enlightening in this regard, it is well worth a listen. Here is an example:
https://soundcloud.com/beherenownetwork/alan-watts-being-in-the-way-podcast-ep-8-man-and-nature
But we don't live in our actual physical bodies as if we experience life in the All-Is-One model. We experience it pretty much as individuals -- it is a limitation of our nervous system -- even though we are biologically interdependent. That's the way we evolved, for some reason -- I would guess as a constraint of information processing. We can fantasize about group mind, but very few of us actually experience it outside of the low bandwidth of language and gesture.
It's true that we don't ordinarily seem to experience existence beyond our body. I think it can feel that way under the influence of certain chemicals or intense meditative states, but the practical impact of that feeling is limited.
However, that feeling can spark the idea of this "better way" of modeling the universe: the belief that the universe is at basis a force preferring cooperation, balance, and "good", because we all have skin in all the games, not just our own. The impact of this idea of existence is not a physical one-ness, but a mindset providing a basis for preferring peace, cooperation, and self-determination in the iterated game of life.
In that sense, 'living as if we experience life as all one" would be not about the experience of group mind, but rather trying to live in balance with nature and other species, trying not to unnecessarily interfere with the course of nature, and working with other humans to reduce conflict and create good through cooperation.
And the key thing that I think Caitlin is suggesting: rejecting those in power who would enslave us and pit us against one another.
Good reminder. Love Alan Watts.
Indeed it is. Cf. The greed for our neighbours goods vs the altruism we bestow on our clans and families. This dichotomy is at the heart of conflict. Leadership is needed to mesh them because it didn’t seem to come naturally most of the time,
Evolution, in a step by step process since the first life, manifested the factors that enhanced survival. Of course we are not special - we are alive. My point is that we as humans have an additional layer of evolutionary survival choices supported or endangered by our cultures.
We should have. It will be better answered when our tenancy is longer. It seems like it’s a double-edged sword. Whereas other species haven’t had the capacity to engender existential risk for their own and all other species, we have done created it.
It seems like a test. Maybe human consciousness was some kind of experiment? One that appears we will be failing fairly soon at.
I think you’re right. I am holding out less and less hope. A world leader could still right the ship, but a lot of goodwill would be needed and that doesn’t come overnight.
No, it will be a long long while before any sort of goodwill will return universally. Guess I want to say it seems darkest right before the dawn?
Oh I 100% agree this is currently a test. Bur human consciousness an experiment? Only if consciousness in life itself is an experiment. Maybe, just maybe, we will not continue to fail so epically!