Humankind Advancing, Vol.10, No.2 April 1999

Theme: Becoming Masters of our Fate

CONTENT

Preliminaries
Quote from Agassiz
Editorial
Quotes from Sperry and from Chaisson
Quotes from Henley and from Bacon

Anti-Millennium-Fever Medication
Quotes from Fagg, from Schafer, and from Brown

Focus on Cosmic Evolution
Eric J. Chaisson

Focus on Solid Foundations
Pat Duffy Hutcheon
George Bugliarello
Newton Rescued

Reflections
Acknowledgments
References


"The time has come when scientific truth must cease to be the property of the few, when it must be woven into the common life of the world; for we have reached the point when the results of science touch the very problem of existence."

Louis Agassiz

Editorial:
A common Creation Myth, based on the Story of Evolution as discovered by science, is suggested by our most responsible thinkers as a new unifying bond for all of humanity, especially if supplemented by a higher aim toward which to strive. The most motivating and exciting aim appears to be conscious contribution to ongoing evolution -- the steering of cultural development toward more wisdom and more mutual concern. The present issue, as well as the following ones, will concentrate on the work of outstanding individuals on the forefront of that endeavor.

* * * * *
The sanctity of human life is perceived in a framework in which the very definition of human rights includes and depends on the rights and welfare of coming generations.

Roger W. Sperry

Observing the cosmos creates an eerie feeling....The remote stars and galaxies broadcast information just as surely as the television sets in our living rooms, not about economics, politics, or sociology but about our cosmic roots. I'm convinced that if social, political, and religious leaders were to observe the cosmos and to grasp its big picture, they might then realize how we fit into the cosmic scheme of things, how fragile yet beautiful our spaceship Earth really is. In doing so, we might just get our earthly act together for the betterment of all humankind. (P.22)

Eric J. Chaisson

The Life Era

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishment the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley Invictus, 1888

The Universe is not to be narrowed down to the limits of our understanding, which has been man's practice up to now, but the understanding must be stretched and enlarged to take in the image of the universe as it is discovered.

Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)

Anti-Millennium-Fever Medication:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles H. Duell United States patents commissioner, 1899

* * * * *

In the 17th century Mulla Sadra was the first Islamic Philosopher to establish a philosophy of flux. He saw movement as the only reality in the world, and superimposed onto the concept of advancing time the belief in irreversible progress to ever greater excellence or perfection. For him a movement backward, from the more perfect to the less perfect, is impossible, thus contributing to the irrepressible belief in progress that still prevails today.

Lawrence Fagg Professor of Nuclear Physics

- - -

Fortunately Culture has a great deal to say about those particular values which are most germane to the human condition. It does so by singling out those values which have been accorded humanity's highest accolades and withstood the test of time....They include: the thirst for knowledge, wisdom, beauty and truth; the pursuit of excellence, perfection and creativity; the importance of justice, equality and diversity; the necessity of caring, sharing and human love; the need for order, stability and identity; respect for the rights, traditions and beliefs of others; and the search for the sublime.

D. Paul Schafer, Director World Culture Project

- - - "The greatest "ray of sunshine" is the "indomitable human spirit, people's capacity to meet challenges and thrive in their face."

Arnold Brown Futurist

* * * * *
FOCUS ON COSMIC EVOLUTION
Review of
THE LIFE ERA
Cosmic Selection and Conscious Evolution

by Eric J. Chaisson

The perspective is breathtaking. If most of our problems are caused by shortsighted pursuits of immediate goals, as I believe they are, acquaintance with Chaisson's merging of cosmic evolution and an ethic of responsibility provides a powerful beacon of hope for our world.

The author's own sense of responsibility led him to switch from his previous position as senior scientist and division head of a NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Agency) research center to that of Director of the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University, where he instills a thorough understanding of scientific principles and regard for critical thinking into the minds of his students -- future teachers of science. Chaisson discovered, and deplored, that such fundamental understanding is lacking in our society because many teachers of science are inadequately prepared for their position.

But science cannot be taught, he believes, in separation from a strong future-orientation, and that orientation, he is convinced, must go hand in hand with an ethic enlightened by our insights into cosmic events, the emergence of consciousness from energy and matter, and the dependence of intelligent life's fate -- not only here on earth but anywhere in the cosmos -- upon a unified, planetary belief system accompanying and directing technological progress.

Chaisson's most fundamental lesson is succinctly condensed in the following quote: "Implicit within our cosmic evolutionary paradigm is a transcendence of the Darwinian principle of natural selection, a loftier standard that I call the principle of cosmic selection: Those technological civilizations (of any type on any planet) that recognize the need for, develop in time, and fully embrace a global (even a galactic and then a cosmic) ethics will survive, and those that do not will not." (Pp.201/202)

The title of his book The Life Era refers to the author's division of Cosmic Evolution into three distinct eras: the "Radiation Era," the "Matter Era," and the "Life Era." The universe began with the Radiation Era, a time where everything was pure energy. Several thousand centuries latter, matter, which had emerged from energy, became the dominant feature of the universe, giving rise to distinct structures like galaxies, stars, planets, and organic life forms on (presumably) several of these. That was (is) the "Matter Era" -- not yet the "Life Era" -- even though consciousness has already emerged from advanced life. The Life Era will only begin when conscious evolution becomes a dominant factor in our cosmos. We are as yet merely at its threshold, awstruck by glimpses of tremendous possibilities, but hesitant due to fear of failure.

Most needed at present, Chaisson believes, is the wisdom that would allow us to participate in further evolution. To achieve that wisdom, he says, we must develop a "scientific philosophy," distinct from classic philosophy, for "neither thought alone nor belief alone will ever make the unknown known" (P.4); fact-oriented knowledge is an ineliminable component of wisdom. Our entrance into the Life Era, the era in which we achieve the power to approach our ideals successfully, depends upon it.

To make the word "evolution" less objectionable to certain segments of our population, he uses the simple expression "change" instead, which he describes -- in all his publications -- as basic to progressing development in the universe, going so far as saying, "Change is my God" (Our Cosmic Heritage, 1988, pp.469, 478/79).1 It may be argued, however, that not change itself, but selection drives evolution forward. Though selection cannot occur without change, change alone may lead to regression as well as advance.

The Life Era is the second volume of a planned trilogy on cosmic evolution. The first one, Cosmic Dawn, led to several questions:

- "How old is the notion of cosmic evolution, and how has the idea of change itself changed over the course of time?

- "How can order emerge from chaos, and especially complex life from simple chemicals, when the second law of thermodynamics dictates that the Universe steadily becomes increasingly randomized and disordered?

- "How did the Universe originate; in particular, what is the origin of the primal energy at creation?

- "How does [Chaisson's] view of the Life Era compare to previous efforts by philosophers and theologians to build grand schemes of life's destiny, and what are its implications for the future of our human species?" (p.5)

These questions are answered throughout The Life Era. Chapter one provides a basic overview, leading to a full understanding of cosmic and biological evolution, and introducing Chaisson's immense vision of the future.

"[Subatomic] particles simply `materialized' from the energy of the primeval bang. Neither magic nor mysticism prevailed, just the well-known and often studied fact that matter can be naturally created from clashes among packets of energy. This interchangeability of matter, m, and energy, E, is proved daily in the bowels of nuclear reactors around the world." (P.16)

"Because radiation needs many billions of years to reach us from so far away in space, we see the remote quazars as they once were in their blazing youth, not as they are now." (P.23)

"...tools, speech, writing, foresight, curiosity...are among the evolutionary developments that make us human. They had a clear effect on the brain: It got bigger.... without a brainy seat of consciousness and its inherent awareness of self and environment, galaxies would twirl and stars would shine, but no one or thing could comprehend the majesty of the reality that is nature." (P.43)

Chapter two discusses the history of change, and the gradual recognition of its importance, which coincided with the emergence of the concept of linear time and the separation of fact from fantasy. "The Copernican episode," the author writes, "is a good example of how the scientific method, though affected at any given time by the subjective whims and human values of various researchers, does lead to a definite degree of objectivity" (p.73).

Chapter three deals with the physics of change and explains why the second law of thermodynamics -- which says that during every transformation an irreversible loss of order and an increase of disorder occurs in the world -- does not stand in the way of evolution. The law applies only to a closed system, while the Earth constantly receives new energy input from the sun, creating new and ever more complex orderly structures. But productive energy in the universe as a whole dwindles relentlessly, until, billions of years from now, all usable energy will have vanished, all change will cease, and time itself (which is a measurement of change) will come to a standstill. Until that state arrives, however, eons are available to us for unimaginable discoveries and creations.

"Evolution means creation of ever more complex islands of order at the expense of even greater seas of disorder elsewhere in the Solar System as well as in the Universe beyond" (P.173).

We are now in Chapter four, which also contains fascinating descriptions of energy fluctuations in a vacuum -- particles are constantly created and annihilated by antiparticles in a timespan too short to detect -- and our universe may be the result of such spontaneous action. (P.164). -- It is of special interest to note that Chaisson does not agree with the argument of many scientists (including Professor Sperry) that subatomic events, which follow different laws from those at the macrolevel and include uncertainty, are superseded by statistical certainty at higher levels. Recent mathematical explorations in the field of chaos theory (e.g. the butterfly effect) show, he explains, that infinitismal small causes can lead to major effects. Therefore, the effect of quantum uncertainty on brain function and other macroevents cannot be excluded.

Headed "Two Preeminent Events," Chapter four leads from the first great transition (energy-dominance --> matter dominance) toward the second one (matter-dominance --> life dominance) and brings us closer to Chaisson's main theme: the preparation of technologically advanced life for the kind of understanding and wisdom that will enable it to take advantage of its present position in the history of the Cosmos.

Chapter five deals with that theme directly and speaks of the Global, even Cosmic, set of ethics we need. We must, Chaisson warns, examine the consequences of change as our fragile planet is torn by increasing problems -- think more broadly and act more wisely (which means in the best interests of all humankind). Technologically competent civilizations may have evolved on other planets but always ended by destroying themselves. If we succeed to avoid that end, we may be the first civilization in the Cosmos to do so.

"We are to the Life Era as the first atoms shortly after creation are to the Matter Era" which to reach "required `merely' a few million years." However distant that aim may be, to reach it survival is a prerequisite at each single step (P.194); Chaisson's soaring over unimaginable spans of time has relevance to present decision making.

He lists among the major problems threatening us at present "overpopulation, nuclear warfare, genetic degeneration, and environmental pollution." These cannot be handled without developing a "global culture" or "planetary ethics" reaching beyond national borders (P.196).

Neither past philosophies nor religions are suitable for that task. (There are thousands of different faiths, each with its own beliefs and dogmas, and most of them insisting to be the "one true faith" P.198). But science alone -- though more objective, more likely to achieve international consensus, and widely recommended as a basis for a global ethic -- is insufficient, Chaisson cautions. (Among other reasons, because excessive specialization leads to myopic concentration on a single small field. P.199). What is needed, instead, is a synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, based on the concept of evolution to provide unity and life-preserving adaptability to changing conditions (P.200). That insight guides his educational policy:

"I now tell my students, that if our species is to survive to enjoy a future, then we must make synonymous the words "future" and "ethical," thus terming our next grand evolutionary epoch "ethical evolution" (P.201).

The ethic of the future, which he labels "evolutionary humanism," requires a reduction of personal freedom whenever it interferes with the viability of humanity as a whole. "People should always be free to destroy themselves but should not be free to destroy the species" (P.204, 205). Civilization needs norms that prevent social chaos, anarchy, and barbarism (P.207). Chaisson advocates a synthesis between extremes of individualism and of government oppression by means of evolutionary (not revolutionary) change. If change comes to sudden, it will destroy what it intends to bring about. Hope lies in an "intellectual solidarity of humankind" and a broadening of the quantity and quality of education on earth (P.210). Chaisson's "evolutionary humanism" would naturally select globalism, altruism, and personal restraint as beneficial, while de-emphasizing nationalism, greed, and even personal autonomy. (p.215).

The latest recommendation may cause concern, esp. as the author continues that the damping of individualism "jibes well with our statistical age" and reinforces this view with knowledge gained from particle physics. Though Chaisson acknowledges that evolution increases individuality (implying that humans are not atomic particles) all his examples are negative, and individualism is identified with egoism. (P.218). That is not so. Individual thoughts may be immensely beneficial to humanity. It would be a crime to eliminate them. Wisdom cannot be streamlined and subjected to mathematical calculations. -- Concern is calmed, however, by his subsequent emphasis on individual creativity, diversity, and curiosity, for which the unity of global thinking must leave room. Our species would not remain human otherwise. (P.219). "Knowledge and compassion," he says, "these are the twin guides to the future of our species." (P.221).

Most thought provoking is the author's epilogue. I read with relief -- after countless arguments with persons of the opposite conviction -- that he describes consciousness as a consequence of brain evolution, not a property of the universe which preceded, and guided, evolutionary progress -- though Cosmic Consciousness might be realized in the far future as a vast and fruitful interconnected network of individual minds. (P.227). Even immortality has place in his belief system -- not of individuals but of civilizations or species, and, enigmatically, "the separation of mind and brain." What he means, however, is not that the mind can exist independently of the brain, but that advanced consciousness -- that is, thinking not restricted to immediately useful pursuits such as eating, drinking, nest building etc., but dedicated to the wonders of nature and the grandeur of the Cosmos -- is so far above ordinary animal consciousness that it must be conceived as a new evolutionary step. (P.229).

Mathematically inclined readers of The Life Era will appreciate the book's appendix "A Mathematical Guide to the three Eras of Cosmic Evolution," in which Chaisson provides additional support for his tenets. On the other hand, it may be felt that the grand sweep from subatomic particles to the human mind and beyond, when treated mathematically, bypasses what is most valuable in the universe: the human soul. Personally, I believe that additional support is not needed to follow the astrophysicist's thinking and recognize his book as one of the most valuable contributions to our future.

The vastness of Chaisson's space and time perspective may cause many persons to judge his work as an exercise in abstract thinking, irrelevant to pressing problems of our time. On the contrary: the book is as relevant as the picture taken from outer space of our unique, fragile blue planet hanging alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, destined for destruction, unless we care -- the picture that belongs into every classroom.

* * * * *
Many of my readers will feel more comfortable with a direct focus on our present problems and difficulties, which is provided by Pat Duffy Hutcheon, whose forthcoming book contains a bibliography of research on the effects of media portrayals of violence and pornography on human development. As both authors call their world view "evolutionary" (humanism, resp. naturalism), the selections chosen from Hutcheon's work also reflect the theme of evolution.

* * * * *
FOCUS ON SOLID FOUNDATIONS

Excerpted from "What it Means to be Human," Chapter 2 of

BUILDING CHARACTER AND CULTURE
(Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999)

by Pat Duffy Hutcheon,

a Vancouver-based educator, sociologist and writer.

The evolutionary systems model allows us to think of human culture as a complex, self-organizing, feedback system -- the most encompassing of all the systems in the evolutionary hierarchy. This chapter examines the significance of this for our understanding of what it means to be human. Above all, to be human is to be a cultural being. It is culture that has made us unique in all the world -- perhaps in all the universe. To be both a creator and creature of culture is to be capable of unimagined heights of greatness and unspeakable depth of depravity. To be human is to have the potential either for building magnificent civilizations or for destroying one's fellows in centuries of meaningless wars. It is to be burdened with the knowledge of a remarkable but sometimes shameful past -- and with an awareness of our distinctive responsibility for creating an enduring future, for our own species as well as all those other living things whose welfare depends upon us.

Perhaps it is time for us to ponder on how we came to acquire this awe-inspiring and potentially tragic role in the evolution of life. And on how we came to be so inappropriately and inadequately prepared for the task. What are the sources of the gullibility and aggressiveness and the inter-group hatreds and shortsighted selfishness that continue to cripple us, even as our technological advances render us ever more powerful? Can we achieve the kind of understanding of our propensities and potentialities that will allow us to use our power more wisely, or are we destined to follow the dinosaurs into oblivion? Are we capable of learning what we need to know in order to create the characters and cultures that are necessary for building a better world, or are we irrevocably limited -- and perhaps even doomed -- by our animal natures?

Our Animal Ancestry

Indeed, human beings share many attributes with the other animals, and those communalities should be recognized and appreciated. The "lower" animals suffer pain as we do; like us they feel love and loyalty and loss. Like us they use all available means to exploit the physical environment for their survival needs. Like us, most of our fellow animal species have been, during their evolutionary history, both predator and prey (and it helps us to understand our continued propensity for war to realize that we are still linked -- both genetically and socially -- to these primeval states). Other animals also live in groups and bond with mates, sometimes for life. They expend great effort in seeking to nurture their young in warmth and safety....In the face of all this how, we might well ask, can human beings be considered unique?

A Crucial Emergence

The answer is that something of overwhelming importance occurred for the human species somewhere along the evolutionary trail. Regardless of how we choose to explain the causes of this occurrence, we must unite in understanding its nature if we are ever to achieve rational and ethically based control of the character- and culture-building process. It is clear that evolution has produced in our species certain capacities not yet present in any other form of life. These are (1) the ability to imagine and create objects of art; (2) the tendency to wonder about (and to revere) the forces or processes determining our origin and destiny; (3) the mental skills required not only to sense and become habituated to regularities in experience but to seek to explain them, and to be curious when remembered regularities do not occur as expected; (4) the capacity not only to feel love for another but to idealize the object of love and the relationship involved; (5) the propensity to value or make judgments of worth and to strive for valued ends; and (6) the ability to transmit the products of all these imaginative and cognitive operations from generation to generation. Together, these capacities contributed to the emergence of a distinctly human character and culture. It is these that mark us off as human.

All had their source in one seminal evolutionary watershed that occurred eons after the evolution of life almost four billion years ago. As in the case of other crucial emergences in evolution, the transition threshold which propelled us into our uniquely human self-consciousness would have required a long build-up in terms of geological time.

Evolutionary theorists have long referred to major watersheds in evolution, such as those of life and the symbolic breakthrough leading to human self-consciousness, as emergences. Although this concept was probably used first by Thomas Huxley, it was developed by George Herbert Mead and subsequently refined by Julian Huxley. It was considerably substantiated in 1969 by the work of Roger Sperry, the Nobel-prizewinning neurological scientist. A 1995 book by another Nobel prizewinner, the physicist Murray Gell-Mann, shows how the concept has received added support from recent discoveries in physics concerning "transition thresholds" in non-linear, complex dynamic systems. (It is unfortunate that this phenomenon has been referred to, somewhat misleadingly, as "chaos" -- a term denoting an "essential" disorder at the heart of physical existence which is quite unwarranted by the theory.)

Emergence is perceived within the evolutionary systems model as a function of the hierarchical nature of evolution. At each increasingly complex level of relations, some sort of breakthrough in organizational complexity is understood to have occurred: a breakthrough which evolutionary scientists explain in terms of a build-up of relatively small changes generated by the ongoing process of natural selection. Because of the nature of dynamic, self-organizing systems, it appears that a minute but key alteration in initial conditions can trigger a developmental spiral capable of sparking a major transition to a different order of functioning.

The emergent system will be characterized by a new set of structural components governed by a new pattern of relations. These increasingly complex levels of relationship in nature can be traced from the quarks and electrons of physics through the activities of the atoms studied by chemistry, the genes of the biological level, to the organic interactions of physiology and the brain circuits of neuropsychology. From there they can be perceived in the environmentally stimulated responses and habits and the sensing-reasoning, self-conscious mental processes of the psychological level and, ultimately, from the social patterning of group behavior to the customs, ideas and ideals of the cultural level of interaction. Once emerged, the higher level system seems to have the capacity to operate in a causal relationship to the lower-level processes. This is evidenced in the way that psychological states can affect neurological functioning; the way that repetitive chanting and group hypnosis can alter states of consciousness; and the way that peer-group pressures and culturally sanctioned ideologies can shape individual choices.

One of the significant implications of all this for social science is that some form of adaptive feedback from the consequences of action is likely to be the operative principle of change even at the most complex levels of relations, and we should be looking for behavioral and cultural equivalents of that process. Another is that, although our explanations must take account of all available tested knowledge in physics, biology and neuroscience, it is not appropriate to reduce them to the basic units of analysis operating at those simpler levels of interaction. In other words, we should not attempt to explain complex psychological and sociocultural activity solely in terms of genes or chemical reactions -- and especially not of quarks or the motions of planetary objects.

The concept of emergence further implies that we should expect society and culture to "cause" individuals to function in certain ways. We should not be surprised to find that collective rituals and social approbation and approval affect the behavior of individuals; nor should we be surprised to find that the culture created by humans in their symbol-using capacity does, in fact, feed back to influence their thoughts and actions. Finally, we can conclude from all this that the process of ongoing change in which humankind is immersed is an extremely complex one that can best be viewed as some form of genetic-cultural co-evolution.

* * * * *
These excerpts, submitted by the author with permission of the publisher, are from a pre-publication issue of Dr. Hutcheon's work.

I also received the introduction and Chapter 9 of Dr. Hutcheon's new book. The former, describing the culture of industrialized nations as being in danger of spiralling downward, introduces her work as a search for reasons and remedies of that trend. Remedies, she points out, have to be used with caution and based on what actually works. "Our current social scene is no place for massive programs based on grandiose visions. We can do better, but only if we rely on rigorously tested hypotheses and continuous monitoring of results to see whether we are in fact moving in the desired direction." -- Chapter 9 argues that in multicultural societies each immigrant ethnic group should contribute the best its culture has to offer to a common and superior civilization to be built, rather than to insist on ethnic separation, which encourages mutual hatred.

* * * * *

Review of
Engineering and the Crossroads of Our Species

by George Bugliarello

The Spring 1998 issue of the (U.S.) National Academy of Engineering magazine The Bridge contains a remarkable article by George Bugliarello, which places the discipline of Engineering into a wider framework, involving concern with our future, our society, and our species. Even such a strictly technological field as engineering, Bugliarello believes, should not be pursued in separation from a sense of responsibility for our common fate. Anyone who skims only the beginning and the end of the article, however, will miss its most thoughtful and important parts, which the author has placed into the middle. -- At first, the concept of engineering is traced from most primitive artifacts at the dawn of humankind to present achievements of awesome power, either to destroy or to enhance life, depending on which way we choose at the crossroads we have now reached.

Describing the difference between technology (engineering) and science, Bugliarello says that "science is about understanding nature and about the ways in which we can be assured that our understandings are valid. Engineering, in a broad sense, is about modifying nature." But we do not always go from understanding to modifying, the direction is often reversed. "The clock inspired planetary theories; cannons were invented before ballistics; Marconi transmitted radio signals across the Atlantic in spite of the scientific tenet of the time that radiowaves could not follow the curvature of the Earth." (P.10).

Inventions reinforce one another, and the more is being invented, the faster we proceed. But we have reached a limit that makes it necessary to ask what we should do -- how far we should go and in what direction, "rather than being helplessly tossed about by waves of technological or social determinism." Major crossroads had been reached in the past: the mastery of fire, the invention of agriculture and cities, printing, flying, communication across the globe, the harnessing of new energy sources. Other crossroads (and I think these achievements depended upon one another) were reached in the social domain: monotheistic religions, democracy, and the concepts of liberty and human dignity (Pp.10/11).

A "dramatic new phase," however, has arrived with the "concurrent impact of four major developments." The first is gene manipulation, the second our mastery of immense power (nuclear, chemical, and operation in space). The third is the effect upon the environment of population growth, combined with increased consumption. "The final and perhaps most important emerging development is the possibility of achieving a higher level of social intelligence for our species. This hyperintelligence is made possible, in principle, by the ability to link everyone of us through telecommunications and computers" (Bugliarello, 1990)¹ -- which may "move the human condition to a new, higher plateau." It may, for instance, allow us to hope for a time where we will be free from "the tyranny of the quest for food -- the overriding preoccupation, throughout their history, of all living organisms" (P.11)

How can such dreams -- or rather possibilities -- be achieved? Bugliarello emphasizes education above all else. Engineers must get involved in the shaping of school curricula, and technology must not be taught in separation from other elements that make us human.

Modern engineering is the triumphant domain of pure rationality -- a reasoned distillation of empiricism, experience, and, above all, science.

Mastery of pure rationality, however, is not enough if we are to tackle the challenge of our future. For instance, if we were purely rational, would we continue to have wars?....Rationality and emotion are both exquisitely human, and neglect of one or the other can spell disaster. (P.12)

"An integration of science, engineering, and ethics, that is of knowledge, action and wisdom" is also needed to make our ever more crowded cities more "emotionally satisfying." We have to avoid the coldness of engineering projects, even though, and especially because, the steady increase of the human population on Earth cannot be sustained without simultaneously increasing artifacts. To make these less emotionally draining, aesthetics must receive more importance in engineering. (P.13) On the last two pages, the author winds down with man-machine comparisons (Descartes and De La Mettrie treated man as a machine), and the need to integrate machines (e.g.computers) and the human mind for the achievement of higher human purposes. ("Can we ...mass-produce individuality? "P.15) The challenge of increasing life spans, and the hope for perfect health and well-being are discussed, as well as job losses as a result of automation, and the need for more experienced people. -- In the ending paragraph, Bugliarello's great love for his field shines through, achieving a special radiance by its insertion into a larger framework:

"To remain masters of our fate, we need to use all our engineering skills and societal will. A new, holistic view of the wonderful instrument that we call engineering, and a new ambition for engineering -- not only as a profession, but also as one of the cultural bases for every citizen -- are the keys to keeping open many paths to the future of humankind." (P.15).

1) See reference on p. 23.

George Bugliarello, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, is chancellor of the Polytechnic University in New York. This paper is based on a speech he gave on Nov. 6, 1997, at the 100th anniversary celebration of the Engineering School of Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. (U.S.A.)

* * * * *
NEWTON RESCUED
The January Issue contained a report on Newton, which described the discovery of his involvement with alchemy, magic and mysticism. One of my readers came to Newton's rescue with the following letter:

I did note with approval your comments on Michael White's book about Newton. I think White is sensationalizing information that was already well established. Other important scientific figures of the time were also heavily into alchemy and other forms of mysticism -- Kepler, for instance. In an historical context, that's not surprising, any more than the natural theology based on Newton's work can be considered surprising, though it seems peculiar to us today. Generally intellectual developments evolve put of an existing milieu, rather than being a complete departure. In any case, the fact that Newton believed in alchemy and also did extraordinarily important work in physics says nothing about the intellectual validity of alchemy, and linking the two is a logical fallacy. I'm sure people 500 years from now will be bemused that we could have made so progress in (say) nuclear physics yet be so backward about the way our social systems are organized.

David Stover Senior Editor at Prentice Hall Oakville, Ontario, Canada

* * * * *
REFLECTIONS

In his 1998 address to the Foundation For the Future*, following his recommendation to harmonize the agendas of science, religion, and philosophy, Chaisson asked: "How can we make such a shift toward collective thinking while still preserving the dignity of the individual?" My answer is that a worldview shift from revealed religion and/or from a value-exclusive science to a science of life that includes consciousness, specifically incorporates the dignity of the individual.

Evolution proceeds not only from simple to complex entities, but also from mass production to individuality -- as Chaisson knows well.

Atoms, molecules, bacteria and unicellular forms of life behave so similar, that their behavior can be mathematically treated and calculated. Even ants and bees cannot be described as individuals -- in fact, the success of their remarkable cooperation depends upon their inability to make independent decisions -- and that perfection prevented them from evolving further. All this changed with the arrival of warmblooded creatures with endoskeletons and expanding brains. The ability to make mistakes and learn from them turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. Still, the oldest cultures manufactured stone axes for thousands of years in the very same manner, the questioning of ethical convictions resulted in death or expulsion -- and often the brightest and best were eliminated from the growing tip of further development. Science was a breath of fresh air -- but by dissociating itself from values, it also dissociated itself from humanity. A superior selection principle was absent. Pre-human nature selected from chance variations whatever proved viable in the short term -- and that is still the selection principle of our presently dominant value system: economic progress.

Thinking individuals perceive a new and higher selection principle, a principle choosing long-term viability, and in addition the freedom to advance into as yet unknown regions of understanding and insight.

There cannot be an ethic of evolution that suppresses individual thought -- though, as in nature, progress is not produced by changes of norms, but by selection from these changes. Who selects? In nature it is death or survival; in culture it should be foresight.

Science must constantly contribute to changes in ethics that would permit the flame of humanity's inner life to burn. But science is no substitute for this flame. -- A valid ethic cannot be derived from science.

------------------------
*The Foundation for the Future, founded recently by a private philanthropist, combines the most outstanding thinkers on long-range evolution, both in the field of science and the humanities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Publishing House of W.W.Norton for sending me a review copy of Dr. Chaisson's The Life Era, as well as to that of Greenwood for permitting me to use excerpts from Dr. Hutcheon's forthcoming book Building Character and Culture. Furthermore, I would like to thank the National Academy of Engineering and Dr. Bugliarello for permission to quote from his work and for their review copy of The Bridge.

REFERENCES:

Agassiz, L. -- as quoted on p.214 in The Life Era by E.J. Chaisson.

Bacon, F. -- as quoted on p.80 in The Life Era by E.J. Chaisson.

Brown, A. -- as quoted in "Future Quest" by Cynthia G. Wagner. The Futurist, 32(8):41-42. November 1998. [P.42.]

Bugliarello, G. -- Hyperintelligence: Humankind's next evolutionary step. Pp.25-37 in Rethinking the Curriculum Toward an Integrated, Interdisciplinary College Education. M.E.Clark and S.A. Wawrytko, eds. New York: Greenwood Press. 1990.

Bugliarello, G. -- Engineering and the Crossroads of Our Species. The Bridge, 28(1):9-15, Spring, 1998.

Chaisson, E.J. -- The Life Era. New York: Norton. (1987),1989.

Chaisson, E.J. -- Our Cosmic Heritage. Zygon, 23:469-479, Dec. 1988.

Duell, C.H. -- Essays on the 2000 Millennium "Brave New Epoque" by Allan R. Gregg. MacLean's, April 6, 1998, pp. 56-60. (Inset on p. 60.)

Fagg, L. -- Between Never and Always. Science & Spirit, 9(2):4-7. 1998. [Pp.5/6]

Henley, W. E. -- as quoted on p.3 of Don Thielke's contribution to the Manifesto Team of the New Action Linkage Network (coordinated by E. B. (Bill) Holden, Jr., Box 1692, Bellflower, CA 90707-1692).

Hutcheon, P. D. -- Building Character and Culture. Westport, CT: Praeger. 1999.

Schafer, D. P. -- The Millennium Challenge: Making the Transition from an "Economic Age" to a "Cultural Age." World Futures, 51:287-320. 1998. [P.309.]

Sperry, R. W. -- The Impact and Promise of the Cognitive Revolution. American Psychologist, 48:878-885, August 1993, [p.884.]