I — Systems Are Living Beings
You are not you.
You are the world and the world is you.
When we think of a system, we tend to imagine a ‘thing’ composed by many parts that somehow work together to achieve a certain outcome. For example, a car is a system made of many individual pieces such as the engine, wheels, doors, or seats, that can move from point A to point B at the driver’s will. However, the notion of a system is just a mental model we create that allows us to categorize the world for practical purposes. If we take a more holistic approach, we realize that the vehicle uses oxygen to burn gasoline, but we don’t consider the air around us a part of the car despite not functioning without it. Every singular system is composed of many other small systems or is itself a part of a larger one. And they all follow the same rules, repeating themselves over and over again. If we go to the most fundamental level of physics, we observe that we are all made of the same quantum fields and atoms obeying the same fundamental laws. In a sense, our reality is merely an infinite reiteration of the same phenomena.
Mandelbrot coined the word fractal in which beautiful complex patterns emerge from the iteration of the most basic of equations. Complexity emerges from the very simple, which begs the question, how can there be so many diverse systems in the Universe if we’re made of the same matter under the same rules? Many scientists will answer that it has to do with randomness, probability, relations, or different initial distributions. And yet we can’t help feeling this is somewhat unsatisfying. Despite being able to accurately describe the current state of a system, for the most part we cannot control nor predict its evolution, especially open ones i.e., the weather or a national economy. We can reasonably understand the observable variables, but the unobservable ones are beyond our reach, and they always may be. Rigorous science can only work with the quantifiable and therein lies its limit.
One aspect of a system that is hard to quantify is its ‘instinct’ to survive. Though entropy is continually increasing in the universe, every system apparently contradicts this tendency by attempting to increase or maintain its internal order. When it cannot maintain it, the system collapses and ‘dies.’ The use of biological vocabulary is not a coincidence since every living creature is a type of system that is able to maintain internal order. And still this analogy can take us farther. Like individual humans who will themselves to life, so do distinct man-made systems such as fashion trends, businesses, ideologies, nation states, and even Humanity itself. As if gaining a life of their own, these abstract entities show remarkable similarities to biological organisms and their life cycles share many characteristics namely birth, growth, maturation, and death. Some are benevolent, others destructive, and many are neutral. However, man-made inventions will not hesitate when choosing between their own interests or ours if given a choice, even benevolent ones. For example, a government cares more about its own needs than the needs of those it governs. Any abstract system, like a living being, wants above all else to perpetuate itself, even at the expense of its parts, either through living longer or reproduction. Like any offspring, they gain a will of its own are very much alive, inheriting our virtues and flaws. For the purpose of this text, a system represents one individual will independent of its parts.
We need systems to survive. We cannot conceive a society without the relationships and cooperation between its individual members. The problem arises when we allow them to overpower us and bend to their will. As conscious beings capable of creating our own rules we face a unique challenge compared to other living creatures – how to align our interests with that of our systems. And for that we should look to Nature, our creator, who, through evolution, made us what we are today. For if we look at our creations as living beings, numerous contradictions, manipulations, subjugations, and mistakes we suffered throughout Human History become readily apparent.
II – Rule of The Weakest
Wolves didn’t become dogs because of Natural selection but Mankind’s.
In the same fashion, modern Men is a result of Civilizational, not Natural selection.
For the majority of its existence, Homo sapiens have been hunter-gatherers who, thanks to natural evolution, developed remarkable cognitive and physical abilities suited to that lifestyle. Back then, life was hard and survival rates were low, especially during birth. It is likely these men and women were more well-rounded individuals than our current counterpart since, when living in smaller groups, specialization is less of an option. In addition, individuals were on average in better shape, more present, independent, equipped with impressive survival skills and in no way cognitively inferior to us today. And yet, it was these same humans that choose a different path. Life in the wild was ruthless so we were tough, but then destiny gave us a way out.
Around 12,000 years ago something incredible happened – we invented agriculture, allowing us to become settlers which became the dominant way of life we see today. From there many technological advances followed suit: writing, tools, transportation, communication, energy transformation, to mention only a few. At this point, we became the de facto rulers of the natural kingdom, not because individuals were smarter or stronger but Humanity as a species did. Through accumulation of knowledge and resources it became possible for individuals to flourish and specialize to their strengths as if giving room for our genius to reveal itself.
However, there are as many downsides as upsides from this shift resembling a Faustian bargain. Humanity became powerful at the expense of the individual. Much like the eukaryote cells in our body who specialize and submit to their roles, so did our ancestors when transitioning from a hunter-gatherer to a settler society. We sacrificed our well-roundedness and carefreeness for the many duties and obligations a society needs to survive and function properly. Once this system started rolling, it was impossible to stop. Still, most people today, including myself, would argue that the trade-off was and is a clear net positive.
What many would also agree is that we are hitting diminishing returns from this transition. Though it may seem a long past era it is obvious we haven’t fully adapted to our sedentary lifestyle. For we are still hunter-gatherers at heart and if we can’t be on the move physically, we do so psychologically, creating many evolutionary mismatches. We now turn to artificial systems provided by society to compensate, and in turn, these systems slowly but surely began to dictate how we should live. For example, obesity is the result of the inability of the human mind to deal with excess food available in the modern world. To counteract this, we come up with diets, lifestyles, pills, or sports that allow us to better manage this abundance. Entire industries depend on this mismatch. Or take sloth, once a useful trait that allowed us to better pool our energy reserves only using them when deemed necessary. But society doesn’t like idle hands and minds for it might undermine its own authority, plus the opportunity cost of bodies not working on the perpetuation of itself. Once again, we created more systems to better accommodate this mismatch: religions that condemn laziness, salaries, or cultures that demonize leisure time. These in turn created more systems that allow us to cope with constant work such as infinite entertainment and addictive substances.
Unintentionally, we shifted some of the responsibility from natural to artificial selection. Now Nature isn’t the only one dictating who is to live and die, society has something to say too. We now take care of the weak and powerless because it is the right thing to do, not because it is necessary. Ironically, this was essential for society to thrive because taking care of those of lower status solidified a hierarchical structure that was not present in the more egalitarian hunter-gatherer organization. It’s not that Society doesn’t want to eliminate poverty or hierarchic power structures; it needs them to function properly. This became only more apparent with the demographic growth seen in the last few centuries where despite production capacity and technological prowess being at an all-time high, so is inequality in a world of winner-takes-all nature. It is Civilization that perpetuates inequality by simultaneously taking care of the weak and keeping them as such.
As individuals, we benefitted greatly from a settler’s lifestyle, but this living system we call society benefitted even more at our expense. We’ve never been as powerful as a species, but also never been as weak and vulnerable individually. Next time there’s a power outage observe how much your life depends on these cables you barely understand connected to your home. For every large system prefers its members weak and controllable, and during the last 12.000 years it has been relentlessly selecting these traits through politics, religion, culture, war, and many other methods. Notice the trend for historical events and technological progress to select for ever larger, centralized, hierarchical, and bureaucratic institutions at the hands of a few who are put into power. This artificial selection imposed by Civilization eventually leads what I call Rule of the Weakest, a phenomenon that isn’t exclusive to the world of Men as it happens in Nature too.
Humans exhibit what we would call prosocial behaviour which “is a social behaviour that benefit[s] other people or society as a whole.” Traits such as empathy and altruism are hardwired into our genetic code. Either because it serves our individual interests or out of pure kindness, we all like to help and contribute to a common cause. This is typical of most mammals. If we take this prosocial behaviour one step further, we get eusocial behaviour, “distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one cast usually lose the ability to perform at least one behaviour characteristic of individuals in another cast.” Such societies are mostly seen in arthropods (bees, wasps, ants) and even on a few mammals (naked mole-rats). The more organized a society becomes, the more it emphasizes inequality and strong hierarchies. From a modern point of view, many would argue these societies are more advanced than our own and marvel at the dystopian organization of a colony of ants. What they fail to see is that in order for such an organization to exist things like individual rights and freedom would have to be totally annihilated in favour of a rigid and stale hierarchy. In fact, it makes more sense to think of an ant as a limb of a body rather than a single creature, similar to a skin or blood cell of a human. This was natural evolution’s way of making sure these life forms would survive. In these cases, Darwin’s survival of the fittest evolves into a Rule of the Weakest in which only those who are willing to fully submit to a stronger whole survive. Even the few supposedly in charge are only kept in power as long as they serve the system’s interest which are different from its members. Worker bees do not hesitate to kill their queen bee if she is deemed unfit. One may draw parallels here to a monarchy, but the difference is as subtle as it is impactful. In a monarchy those who follow the king/queen do so because the ruler is viewed as legitimate, meaning it’s the ruler’s figure that unites a population, hence its dynastic nature. In an eusocial society, who the ruler is indifferent as long as it is capable of performing its function. The queen bee is as much as a slave as the workers. The whole is omnipotent and determines every individual action. It is no coincidence then that in an eusocial society one of the exclusive abilities of the ruling class is the right to reproduce, ensuring a continued standardization and behaviour of the population.
Though we are far from such a fate, it is undeniable that the stronger a species as a whole is, the more it selects for members that are easily bent and subdued. What humans did to wolves is what Civilization is doing to humans. Wolves are predators with a wild nature not suitable as pets or shepherds, so we began to select and breed those of a tamer character and reduced size, eventually evolving to what we now call a dog. Most dogs wouldn’t survive a week in the forest alone but since they serve a new master, from an evolutionary point of view, they are more successful than the wolf by becoming one of the most common species on earth. Likewise, Civilization prefers humans that follow rules without question, with lower ambitions, and more dependent on the established order for it forces them to perpetuate it.
A healthy man-made system is one where the interests of the system, its elite, and those who are governed coincide. We are mammals who need to balance between individual freedom and social stability, a harmony we are yet to figure out: Left vs Right; King vs President; Capitalism vs Communism, Democracy vs Autocracy. Different political systems attempt to solve this balance issue through different mechanisms. One side of the spectrum values the individual while the other values social order. However, the same problem inevitably arises – even the very systems supposed to protect us from themselves reach a critical point in which the interests of its members are replaced by those of the whole.
III – When the System Serves Itself Instead of Its Parts
Strong individuals lead to diversity.
Weak individuals lead to standardization.
How can we tell if the balance of power has flipped from the members of a system to the system itself? It is hard, if not impossible, to quantify this shift, but a bird’s eye view can help us detect tendencies and critical points. View them as guidelines rather than hard rules:
Scale Matters
There are always limits to growth and there’s a reason Nature doesn’t grow endlessly. However, human desire is insatiable, and we pass on our greed to our creations. One marker of an unsustainable system is its perpetual need to grow. There are two issues with this voracious appetite: first, a system is inevitably constrained by the availability of physical resources which are never infinite; second, notwithstanding resource availability, what works on a scale is unlikely to work on another. Physicists know this too well as they’re still searching for a great Theory of Everything that is able to conciliate the rules of quantum mechanics (scale of atoms) and general relativity (scale of planets). The universe does not scale in a linear fashion.
When we try to scale a system, let’s say a small business, from a local to national level the rules of the game change. Logistics, bureaucracy, regulation, consumer preference or costs alter the structure of the enterprise. If the business successfully scales, chances are it is unrecognizable from its initial stage. The reverse also happens, businesses that work on a larger scale won’t function on a smaller one. Venture capitals invest in many companies that are not profitable until they achieve mass adoption e.g., Facebook.
Scale transition can help us identify if the system is serving itself instead of its parts, especially artificial ones. Since many of these are not tested by natural selection until it is too late, they can grow to monstrous sizes and become what is now known as “too big to fail.” i.e., banks. Their dismantlement would be too costly for society and thus we postpone the pain. Any system that cannot maintain itself except through growth should be allowed to evolve or die but not saved at the expense of its members, otherwise they become parasitic.
As a general rule, be suspicious of things that are too big for they care more about themselves than its members. Aggressive growth, as opposed to organic growth, is to be viewed as a system in a scale transition with self-serving intentions until proven otherwise. Furthermore, look for systems that place limits and supervision on themselves such as constitutions or courts. Lastly, as a rule of thumb, it is easier to spot corruption on a small system than a larger one for the simple fact it is easier to fool people in a complex environment than in a simpler one. It is difficult for me to know if a minister is following through on a country wide program but easy to notice if my local mayor isn’t, for I can directly see the lack of results.
Flow of Information
This is another way to understand how centralized a system is. Information can flow from the top of a hierarchy to the bottom or from the bottom to the top. The more top-down a system is the more it is centralized, and the more it is bottom-up, the more it is decentralized. In theory, a communist state is top-down heavy where the government controls most of a citizen’s life, and a democratic society is more bottom-up driven as individual’s preferences and consumption determine what policies should be created.
A decentralized system is more robust than a centralized one for it allows emergent properties to blossom. When information goes from the bottom to the top, there is I) no central point of failure, meaning it is harder to destroy the system; II) better testing, since information that is filtered/verified all the way to the top of the chain is more likely to be signal instead of noise; III) more innovation, as instead of relying on a select few at the top to be innovative, the system is capable of absorbing the best ideas independently of its hierarchical origin, and the old is allowed to die if no longer relevant. Empirical sciences are a good example of a decentralized system, as from the uncountable hypothesis that emerged only a few survived and are continuously challenged.
In a Western society, one could hastily conclude that all systems should be decentralized, but it’s not so obvious as there are important trade-offs to be aware of. A centralized system usually sacrifices resiliency for speed and efficiency, and vice versa. In addition, we can have a decentralized system with top-heavy nodes and a centralized system with decentralized processes. There are use cases for both approaches.
To understand if a system is serving itself or its parts there are three useful prisms that we can look at:
⦁ The scale on which it operates — a small system tends to be centralized and that can be a good thing for it needs to evolve fast to survive. For example, a small company has to pivot quickly to adapt to changing market conditions and a decentralized nature would probably be more harmful than good. It is only when a system grows that decentralization gains importance as leadership cannot realistically deal with the exponential complexity.
⦁ Time-preference — since decentralized systems tend to be slower there are cases where a centralized nature can be better, even at large scales. In an emergency such as war or natural catastrophes, it is required to move an enormous number of resources quickly and that is only possible through centralized command, hence the very strict hierarchy we witness in the military. On the other hand, if the goal is to build a system that is meant to last, a decentralized approach is almost always preferred.
⦁ Risk management — with how powerful and dangerous technology has become it would be naïve to leave these systems at the hands of the general population for the simple reason that there is no room for error. Nuclear or biological weapons catastrophes can lead to mass extinction. Since we cannot risk such disasters even once, its access should be severely limited and never in the hands of one person. In this case, the system is centralized in nature (only a few can access it) but with decentralized components (one person alone cannot manage it).
Silver vs Golden Rule
The Silver Rule (SR) states “do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you”, while the Golden Rule (GR) says “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In short, SR is negative in nature and GR affirmative. When designing any artificial system, it is best to follow the SR as it deals with individual initiative considerably better. You want people to act freely as long as they don’t cause harm (SR) instead of having individuals act as the system ought them to (GR).
For instance, think of two persons: one follows the GR by treating everyone with respect and the other follows the SR by not disrespecting anyone. The former is more likely to be misunderstood than the latter for the definition of respect is different for everyone. In other words, it is more likely to be disrespectful by trying to be respectful than to be disrespectful by trying to not disrespect someone. Not everybody likes to be greeted with a hug, but you can be sure no one likes to be greeted with a slap.
Even from a mathematical point of view it is much easier to prove that a theory is false than to prove that it is correct, for it simply takes one example to disprove it while you need many to prove it. Or take the Ten Commandments from the Bible, the vast majority are written in the negative sense ‘Thou shalt not.’
We can apply this lesson when analysing a system. We don’t have to figure out what works, only understand what doesn’t. This is why the consulting industry is able to exist for they know that there are infinite ways a business can be successful compared to only a few ways to go bust. A good consultant will focus on the latter while letting the company do what it does best.
Let us ask ourselves the question once again: how to know if the system is serving itself or its parts? Extrapolating from the previous paragraphs, it becomes obvious that if a system enforces the GR chances are it does so for its own interest for it standardizes behaviour and monopolizes power. When a new law is passed, every policy maker and citizen should look at its nature and question “does it force people to behave a certain way (positive) or does it limit certain actions (negative)?” No matter the amount of data, resources, or power a man has, no one has the wisdom to know what people should do and the consequence of their actions. However, experience can accurately guide us on what we should avoid. Individuals should be positive – life affirming – while systems ought to be negative – constraint enforcers. It’s this tension that allows for a healthy balance.
Level of Consciousness
Despite the mystery surrounding the consciousness topic, for the purpose of this text we’ll assume it is the degree to which a person is aware and in control of herself and her external environment. When communicating with other human beings, the most important factor in our level of consciousness may well be how many other humans we interact with. In fact, it seems there is an inverse relationship between our level of consciousness and the number of people around us:
⦁ Solitude — usually marked by self-reflection and a high level of awareness. It’s when the individual is most free.
⦁ One on One Interactions — the best way to create intimacy and connection with another human being. Both people are highly aware of themselves, and at the same time mindful of each other’s experience.
⦁ Small Groups — characterized by common interests, goals or relationships. Here, we start to notice the presence of a group consciousness. While individuals are still mostly themselves, the group dynamic changes their beahviour and we might witness a different personality from the same person we previously had a chat with in a more private setting.
⦁ Large Groups — in this case the group consciousness takes a clearer shape and dominates the member’s thinking. Individuals begin to lose their sense of selves and don’t question their own actions. Emotion rules over logical thinking.
⦁ Crowd — a special case of a large group in which the remaining individual’s awareness is forgotten and people act as one single entity. This single consciousness is powerful with a strong emotional pull, however, it’s also characterized by a low conscious state with little to no regard for the individual’s wellbeing. Human lives turn into statistics.
The level of consciousness can be interpreted as a special case of scale transition though with its own nuances. Consciousness is impossible to quantify and so we cannot come up with hard numbers for an ideal group. Things become more complicated when we realize an individual’s consciousness is never isolated from it external environment and a qualitative evaluation is the best we can achieve.
Another differentiating factor is that, theoretically, individuals with a solid sense of self cannot be manipulated by the group, at least as easily. The constraints here are not physical, like in a business, but psychological. A strong will is the crowd’s worst enemy — nothing irks it more than those who do not conform and it will brutally attempt to bend them. This is why it is important to build a society that not only keeps itself in check but also creates strong individuals who understand that society’s sole purpose is to serve individual life for, ultimately, it’s the only life that exists.
That is not say that all crowds are bad or dumb. We’ve been practicing community wide rituals since time immemorial and they can serve useful roles such as healing, communion, or sublimation. Traditional festivals, sports, music concerts or religious gatherings maintain our society stable in a healthy way by channelling our energy in a constructive direction.
What we need to ask ourselves is if the crowd that is gathering does so to benefit the individual, or does it want to perpetuate its madness? When in a large group, attempt to truthfully answer these questions:
1. Is the crowd premeditated or organically assembled? Planned large scale events tend to be organized when its leaders were in a higher conscious state. Organic mobs are wild, unpredictable, and dangerous.
2. Would you take the same actions if you were by yourself? Though nobody is immune to others, you should be able to recognize yourself. Remember, cowards and bullies like to operate under the protection of the crowd.
3. If you’re with people you know, do you still recognize their behaviour? If not, chances are the crowd’s consciousness is in full force and it’s up to your personal judgement to assess the situation.
Bringing It All Together
These guidelines may help us understand the main reason covid-19 vaccines were never mandatory in the Western World despite many attempts to enforce its obligatoriness.
First, it was a measure taken on a global scale greatly increasing its systemic risk such as unintentional side effects. Secondly, it was a centralized solution made by a few to be applied to everyone (unjustified since at that time we knew it covid-19 wasn’t a life-extinction threat). Thirdly, it forced people to take a certain action instead of constraining action. The first rule of medicine is “first, do no harm” or “primum non nocere.” And fourthly, our level of consciousness was low, fear and panic were the dominant forces during the pandemic to which the media greatly contributed with. Emotion, not logic, was behind the push.
From this perspective, the bigger beneficiaries of a mandatory vaccine would be the pharmaceuticals who would profit even more and the governments who would exert more control over its population. It’s not that you shouldn’t take the vaccine, but that no one should be forced to.
It is Important to note that no system is to be viewed in isolation but as interconnected. Systems evolve and change constantly, and we have to balance our actions within their sphere of influence. Nothings lasts forever, being it an institution, country, or religion, but we can be sure that they will do everything in their power to survive. Knowing this it is important to realize the direction our systems are trending to and judge if they’re still serving their original purpose and if that purpose still has a reason to exist. We often think of new systems and rules that should be implemented but forget that many aren’t compatible with the current ones. How can we know if Civilization is following the right course?
IV – Change is Inevitable, Progress is Not
Modernity converted strength into money,
heroism into populism,
and artistry into nerdiness.
Human Civilization, as it stands, cannot escape the paradox that it was built by nomads. Thus, it creates an ever-present dissonance between our physical and psychological needs. Since we no longer need to be always on the move to find resources, our physical demands are met, and yet, no society lasts forever for the mind still wanders. It’s not that Humanity hasn’t tried to invent eternal systems but they all inevitably fail due to poor design, internal or external circumstances, and if nothing else, because human beings cannot stop desiring for more or different things. Even if we were to build a perfect society, our nature wouldn’t let it stay that way, and we would eventually reject it. Unless we change our nature, we will always change. That is the only unchanging fact.
That is not to say we should abandon ourselves to all kinds of change by yielding to fatalistic pessimism or naïve optimism. Both attitudes lead to inertia, for pessimists think all effort is useless while eternal optimists are not incentivized to act. At the same time, we must learn not to conflate progress with change. The world is getting smaller, weapons are deadlier, and we’re running out of leeway to experiment with societal transformation. Technology is advancing every passing year but it is not at all obvious that we benefit from it. Entertainment is more engaging than ever but does it lead to a more pleasant life, or more addiction and escapism? Never have been so many social media users but does that translate into more fruitful debate or blind division? Never has been so much food available but are we healthier? More resources do not directly translate into more wellbeing, there needs to be a conscious choice to use them and not be used by them. The great beneficiaries of unconscious action or inertia are the systems themselves.
It seems we are reaching a crossroad: on the one hand, we can submit to the power of what we created and morph into the systems that wish to rule us. On the other hand, we can transcend ourselves to become stronger, smarter and wiser individuals. This path has been treaded once by Life itself and Humans are destined to do the same. What’s not certain is the outcome of such road.
Artificial Selection is but a fractal of Natural Selection — it is both a repetition of itself and an evolution, akin to a spiral. One evolves through DNA/RNA and the other through mimesis (humans imitating one another), the same phenomena through different mediums.
A “prokaryote is a single-celled organism that lacks a nucleus, and other membrane-bound organelles,” meaning they lack the structure and organization present in their eukaryote counterpart, who possesses a well defined one. The leading theory of how the first eukaryotes came to be — symbiogenesis — states that the first eukaryote cells appeared when two prokaryotes merged into one being. The smaller prokaryote was engulfed by the bigger one but remained undigested, contributing to new functionalities in a synergistic arrangement. This also marked the appearance of a pronounced nucleus which acted as the ‘brain’ of the eukaryotic cell controlling its growth and reproduction, thus creating a well defined hierarchical structure. Furthermore, the absorbed cell ceased to be a free-living prokaryote and became “a sort of permanent houseguest.” The same parallel can be made between hunter-gatherers and the first human sedentarists. The former lived in more egalitarian societies where leadership depended upon circumstance and wasn’t as clearly defined, while the latter needed more structure and permanent leadership for its community not to disintegrate. The first proto-villages acted as the nucleus of sedentary settlements and hierarchy was the great stabilizer for them to properly function.
The next important step happened when the simpler eukaryotes began to develop and multiply greatly increasing in size and complexity. This was made possible as the inner workings of these cells — now stable and organized — allowed for an increase in specialization of its constituents, effectively scaling in ways not possible for their prokaryote predecessors. Plants and animals are complex organisms, a result of specialization of eukaryotes who could now evolve in the most creative and unique ways. Complex societies, such as empires, nations or large cities, are also a byproduct of specialization as its habitants could focus on what they did best or was available to them, increasing not only their output but also the total size of the pie — true wealth creation.
The final steps of the diagram represent an evolution so distinct that they deserve their own category. On the left side, the evolution from complex organisms to Homo sapiens is notable because, despite sharing 99% of the DNA with other primates, humans exhibit qualities and behaviours unmatched within the animal kingdom. Much has been argued about what makes us so different from animals, and from my own perspective two things stand out: first, our consciousness gives us the capability of self-awareness and reflection of things past and of what is to come, in addition to being able to travel within an imaginary realm; second, a superior intellect giving us an advanced degree of reasoning and problem-solving skills. It is the combination of these two that makes us so special. Other animals also possess a combination of consciousness and intellect, but Homo sapiens seemed to have reached a ‘magic’ threshold unlocking new potentialities not available to other forms of life. The parallel of complex societies to transhumanism is one that is happening now and is yet to be definitive. Transhumanism is a movement that advocates the merge of humans with technology, enhancing our capabilities and surpassing our human condition. Ultimately, transhumanism aims for the final goal of “singularity as the point at which artificial intelligence surpasses that of humanity, which will allow the convergence of human and machine consciousness.” It would mean the final shift towards the system itself — Civilization — that would remove all that is inconvenient about humans, namely its nomadic nature and individual will, as seen in an eusocial society. If such transition were to happen, this new species of humans would be to us what we are to a bacteria, thus unleashing a new paradigm in evolution. It would appear that for great progress to occur within the eukaryote realm there needs to be a trade-off between individual freedom in favour of a stronger whole.
Lastly, regarding the blue arrows, hunter-gatherers are not to be seen as an evolution of Homo sapiens, but the same beings viewed from a different perspective, one through artificial selection and the other through natural selection. What triggered this new paradigm was mass cooperation — the willingness to work with others for a common goal, even sacrificing some self-interest. According to Richard Wrangham, compared to our ancestors, Homo sapiens show signs of domestication such as reduced brain size, lack of aggression and female behaviour. It is hard to imagine a thriving society if it weren’t for the reduction of extreme alpha male behaviour since this type of males refuse to share power and violently eliminate all competition. Real progress is as much about obeying as it is about commanding. As a result, the combination of superior consciousness and intellect, plus the willingness to cooperate, ushered a new age for Humanity, one that would also put a heavy burden on itself as we are now responsible for our own evolution.
V – Transhumanism
Inexorable, merciless, relentless – the thing marches on
Known to all yet no one has ever seen nor touched it
Nosy, noisy, pervasive – of this great system we are fond
“Oh, mighty Civilization, for you everyone shall submit!”
Assuming we survive mutual destruction long enough, Homo sapiens will have a choice to make. We can submit to the systems that have been shaping and transforming us over the last ten thousand years, losing our individual will to a single, omnipotent consciousness who is to determine what’s best for us based on its own interests. In other words, Humankind, an entity you surely have heard about but never actually met, is to triumph over humans who you do actually know. Or. We can evolve in the opposite direction, in which we become strong and wise enough to command our own inventions. A world where Humankind exists to serve you and me because, when all is said and done, we are real and humankind is not, it’s just another system we created.
Nietzsche’s Overman versus Immortal Man
Even though it may appear Homo sapiens have conquered their environment, we are still subject to natural selection and need to keep evolving if we are to survive. Transhumanism is not an option at this point — we have become too powerful to ignore our impact on this world and ourselves — it is a necessity. Having said that, I envision two types of transhumanism:
I. The Immortal Man
The Immortal Man above all else desires power and no sacrifice is too much. At the root of this desire is fear, for the Immortal Man refuses to accept death and is obsessed with it. Naturally, his god of choice is science, the only one who can promise him eternal life through technology. Every child goes through the pain of realizing that one day he is going to die, a traumatic event that it had no choice to accept. But in the quest to become immortal we no longer feel the need to accept such fate, on the contrary, our energy is renewed for science tells us that theoretically one can live forever. Now, we don’t need to overcome the pain of being mortal and work on ourselves, we just need to work hard enough to discover the secrets behind biology.
Consequently, the Immortal Man rejects his own body — the source of all weakness and, worst of all, the reason for his mortality. We are starting to see this rejection already, for example, the normalization of plastic surgery is the concession that our bodies are not enough, they need to be artificially enhanced. Or take the dependency on pharmaceuticals, representing the lack of trust of we have of our own body self-regulation and wisdom. Science knows best and it can manage the chemicals in my body better than itself. By separating the mind from the body, the immortal man wants to get rid of that that is transient and imperfect, therefore rejecting its own humanity.
In fully trusting its rational and conscious mind, the Immortal Man makes a system out of everything. All things involved within the human experience are to be regulated, optimized, rationed, and people become numbers to be supervised. Its great mind cannot tolerate the unconscious and the unknowable for that would not only ruin his perfect and eternal creation, but would also bring to light the fact that he isn’t smart enough. The Immortal Man has an arrogant nature for it aims to be omniscient and omnipotent, the only way his envisioned creations can work without possible failure. Ultimately, the Immortal Man wants to be God, an adolescent’s dream.
His head is turned towards the Heavens where everything is perfect and eternal. It is no coincidence that this type of Man is an archetype of the Western World, which in turn is heavily influenced by Christianity who promises eternal life and separates the soul from the body. And so a new breed of Men is brewing, one with Christian values but without the limitations the human body. To the Immortal Man it is no longer enough to follow Jesus Christ, now he wants to be Jesus Christ himself — perfect and eternal.
II. The Overman
In the opposite direction, we have Nietzsche’s Overman, whose head is not turned towards the Heavens but to the Earth. Like the Immortal Man, the Overman wants to transcend Homo sapiens but through overcoming instead. It does not avoid death and suffering like its brother but cherishes it for he knows they are the great sparks of life. He understands the opposite of life is not death but apathy. The Immortal Man doesn’t realize that eternal life only leads to cowardice for life becomes too precious in his own mind. To the Overman, life is not the end goal but will to power, the capacity to conquer oneself and its environment, risking his life in the process, not because he doesn’t value it but precisely because he does. The Overman is the adult who truly conquered death to the Immortal Man’s adolescent who runs from it.
As a result, the body is not something to hate or resent but the source of one’s strength. The Overman does not separate the mind and the body, on the contrary, the mind is as strong as one’s body and vice versa. For this reason, it doesn’t create an idealized human image because every “imperfection” or “flaw” one may possess is proof that a person can overcome himself. It’s not uncommon to hear about sport’s professionals who overcome some type of physical disadvantage and take their game to a superior level. Where the Immortal Man sees a limitation to be eliminated, the Overman sees a challenge to be conquered. The former’s reasoning taken to its logic conclusion leads to eugenics due to the creation of an idealized body standard, while the other promotes diversity by defying people to truly be themselves no matter what that entails. One avoids suffering at all costs, the other uses it to his benefit.
To fully embrace suffering, it is necessary for Men to welcome the unknown, the irrational, and the unconscious in order to accept that he is neither omnipotent or omniscient. Ironically, it is the true rational man who understands the limitations of its rationality and doesn’t fall in love with his own brilliance. He knows he doesn’t know and has no choice but to trust in his instinct and body. Many famous scientists where religious and are indebted more to their gut than their brain. Nietzsche’s favourite deity was Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, a substance that “could ease suffering, bring joy, and inspire divine madness.” Already in his age, Nietzsche felt society was lacking a predisposition to revere this mysterious power, in favour of his brother Apollo who represents harmony, order, and reason. The Overman is the middle path between religious fervour and intellectual arrogance, the child of Dionysian spirit and Apollonian mind.
At first glance, the Overman is at odds with Christianity even though one could argue Jesus was an Overman himself. Nietzsche respected Jesus Christ immensely and his problem was never against Him, what bothered him was Christianity as in the system built around the figure. Personally, I will argue the next breed of Men is incompatible with Christianity in its current form, and the Church needs to evolve if it is survive. Eventually, it comes down to the Afterlife — the promises made by the Church about it are not enough for the Modern Men, for he no longer looks for the grace of God in heaven but for the grace of God in this terrestrial life. It is not about believing in the Afterlife or not, it is about using it as an effective means to direct and guide people through this transient life, as the promises of hell and heaven are no longer persuasive enough for the upcoming Transhumanist. In fact, the Overman is a bridge back to religiousness — one that is focused on a terrestrial world but open enough to the transcendental mystery of life. The Overman retains its individuality and is not to be submitted to the religious system he lives in, instead using it as a guide for a fulfilled life, whereas the Immortal Man deifies science and surrenders to its mechanisms abandoning oneself in the process.
Teleology is a Gamble
Despite sharing the goal of surpassing Homo sapiens, the Immortal Man and the Overman’s methods and results are contrasting. Since the Immortal Man trusts his rationality completely, he is to take a systematic top-down approach until he obtains what he wants. It can be said he takes a teleological dogma, in other words, things are to be shaped according to a purpose, his own deliberate purpose. Natural evolution works precisely on the opposite manner, it tinkers and experiments until a successful adaptation is established, thus creating an illusion of purpose. Due to human’s tendency to think in causal terms, the order of the events is conflated: a purpose does not shape mutations, it’s the mutations that shape a purpose, otherwise we would be confusing future with past events e.g., giraffes didn’t develop a tall neck to reach for tall trees, rather, giraffes with taller necks happened to be better adapted to their environment.
In varying degrees, humans are teleological creatures, taking action in cause and effect terms, and it has been serving us well throughout history. However, most of our artificial systems are also teleological and increasingly influential. As we’ve seen before, scale matters and individuals and systems need to follow different principles. Individuals are necessarily teleological and their actions are ruled by their own interests, whereas good systems ought to be evolutionary, meaning they don’t have a specific purpose but allow for a purpose to emerge under certain conditions. This is why true capitalism works well, individuals are free to take the actions they deem best while the markets, akin to natural selection, are responsible for filtering what doesn’t work. The markets do not have a goal, they simply let the fittest participants thrive through supply and demand. On the other hand, communism is purely teleological, where a central government is to purposely determine what is and what is not to survive in the market. Capitalism is not free of this mistake either, in this case, instead of a teleological government, we would have a teleological market whose purpose is to grow endlessly, promoting all types of self-imploding behaviour, e.g., Ponzi schemes and economic bubbles. Any system we create is automatically under the stress of Artificial Selection, but we must not forget that this is only a subset of Natural Selection and not thoroughly as tested. Many businesses went bust with covid-19 despite being perfectly adapted to Civilizational pressure. Natural Selection always has the final word and we would be wise to remember that.
This is the gamble the Immortal Man takes — it wants to architectures the whole world in order to accomplish a predefined goal. The problem arises when the goal is not suited for survival, and by then, given its power, it will probably be too late to go back. The first error the Immortal Man makes is assuming it is possible to know what is the best solution for his situation. As we’ve seen before, you’re statistically much more likely to know what not to do instead of what to do. The second error is to assume his environment is static. Even if the solution were to be correct at the present time, nothing would guarantee that solution would be good enough by the time it is implemented. Both the being subject to evolution and the environment are dynamic, making it impossible to predict what is going to be suitable in the future. The third and final error, assuming a timely and perfect solution were to be realized, is that all progress would necessary be halted and fought against for it would disturb the delicate balance of the magnificent system designed. It would be the consummation of Huxley’s Brave New World. Paradoxically, such a stale and utopic world would be worryingly fragile and susceptible to any external threat for it would lose any capability to evolve and adapt.
The Overman, on the other hand, by accepting his mortality knows his limits. Therefore, the only thing it tries to transcend is himself, not the world, for that would be pure fantasy. He is teleological too, he can’t be anything else, and like any man, he attempts to impose his will upon this world. The difference lies in the humility of knowing he is not God, neither does he want to as no man can handle such burden. He only needs one truth — his truth — the only one it will ever be able to achieve. He does not look for a reason to live for he is alive. He does not despair to nihilism for he sees a destiny to be fulfilled. That is how the Overman is able to conciliate his teleological mind in an evolutionary and purposeless world.
Bibliography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosocial_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality
https://www.britannica.com/topic/transhumanism
Leave a Reply