Pacifying nature is ending nature. Marcuse pictures a utopia where all happiness is derived from a world without aggression. He sees the ultimate goal of technology to be the complete and utter “pacification of existence”. He pictures the end of the predator-prey relationship. He envisions humanity’s control of every aspect of nature. Marcuse is blind, pacification can only be accomplished by ending nature completely, there is no middle ground. The complete pacification of nature can only happen after it is destroyed completely, there cannot be any harmonious infusion of reason and nature as Marcuse pictures.
In Marcuse’s world humans no longer hunt animals; in fact animals do not hunt animals. Everything is programmed to be peaceful and pacified. There is no aggression because there is no need for aggression, in his world. Marcuse bases his argument around the idea that technology’s end goal is the complete control of nature, fair enough. It can be said with some certainty that technology has always existed to help conquer nature. All tech is derived from the need to surmount some physical, natural, need. Fire was used to counter the cold, bows and arrows to hunt prey, agriculture developed to feed the people when the hunters failed, and houses where built to shelter them when they were not farming. After all the basic needs were met, tech has been building for the absolute control of the natural world, but no technology exists or can exist that completely end all strife in nature. What Marcuse is getting at is a technological breakthrough that would change the entire planet, Homo sapiens included. The only thing that would be conceivable at present day would be a complete genetic overhaul, changing nature at its most basic level. Changing every living thing to put an end to aggression would require leaps and bounds in the physical possibilities of genetic engineering.
Assuming this somehow becomes possible, as pointed out by Joy, Murphy’s Law will take over. Something will go wrong while engineering this pacified world. The genome is as complex a system as can exist in nature or otherwise, and given the nature of complex systems something will get messed up. Planning the entire behavioral/digestive changeover to end predation in nature would be almost unimaginable; it would be playing God in a very real meaning of the phrase. A parallel can be drawn to Victor Frankenstein, where as he “simply” created one new life form; the type of changes Marcuse wants would create thousands. If Victor was tortured so badly for assuming the powers of God, is it not conceivable that whoever would have to engineer these creatures would not be tortured 1000 times as badly?
If Victor’s creature was unruly, these genetic anomalies would be as well. There behavior would be unpredictable, maybe they would eat only vegetables, but kill each other for fun, there is no way to tell for sure. Controlling behavior would be impossible, conditioning and domestication is possible, but not for every species on Earth. The only way to truly pacify everything in nature oddly would be to destroy everything.
Assuming then that there where amazing breakthroughs in genetic engineering that could lead to control of behavior as well as biological development. The predator-prey relationship could be put to a halt, for a short period of time at least. Sure if the tech is there for it, one can rewrite every single element of natures DNA, change every one of the billions of base-pairs that codes for a behavior that causes an animal to hunt another, but how long would it last. In a world of genetically designed herbivores and limited resourses, one will be better then another, and at that point Darwin takes over.
The better herbivore would survive to reproduce, while others would die out completely or be forced to adapt. One adaptation would likely be the taste for meat, and slowly but surely the cycle of predator and prey would happen all over again. The world Marcuse envisions is reminiscent of the opening of Clarke’s 2001 a Space Odyssey. All the pre-humans are huddled around, starving, out competed for food and in the evolutionary sense on their way out. Suddenly a big shiny black obelisk lands in there midst, and one of them is brilliant enough to club a pig. Tada all the food they can eat. Here technology causes the aggression. The predator-prey relationship developed because it works, it may take another few million years but eventually all the changes in genetics would account for nothing. Animals would be hunting animals once again.
Assuming even that this future technology is also capable of halting mutation by ensuring every single base pair is correct every time DNA is replicated (3 Billion base pairs for a mouse times billions of replications). If this were possible it, would effectively end evolution. Without heritable mutations species cannot change and would not adapt or change. Ending evolution would mean that the one species that was lucky enough to be engineered at the top of its game would be one of the only herbivores in town, but at least no one would be murdering each other right?
In “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” effectively there are no natural predators. Mercerism keeps all people empathetically connected. Humans and animals get along peacefully and all life is precious, except the artificial life. Humans create androids; sentient beings, and still even in a world so enthralled with Mercerism, there are people to hunt them. The androids become the prey, and the bounty hunters are predators. There is no escaping aggression, even if there is nothing to hunt, humanity creates prey, and as long as Homo sapiens are part of nature that is how it will remain.
There is no way to control nature, without destroying it. Destruction of every living thing would pacify it in a way, there would be nothing left to fight. Attempting to pacify nature as Marcuse pictured it would only succeed if nature was destroyed. Removing everything natural would be the only way to render the world serene.
3 comments:
I like the beginning of your introduction a lot, although I think you repeat yourself too much. Your argument is clear and interesting right away; presenting evidence, of course, is the next step.
I have mixed feelings about your second paragraph. It, too, is an interesting and articulate response to Marcuse, but it also reads (because it is so general in nature) as a very *general* response to Marcuse. The last sentence is good: "Changing every living thing to put an end to aggression would require leaps and bounds in the physical possibilities of genetic engineering." Marcuse, presumably, would agree with this - that's clearly what he's imagining.
Your turn to Joy and Frankenstein is very clever. Because you are making specific claims about genetic engineering, I feel like this would be a great opportunity for some research. Some books I refer to on these subjects are Bill McKibben's Enough and Lee Silver's Challenging Nature. McKibben opposes genetic engineering and Silver (who seems to have a Marcuse-like agenda) is in favor of it. You may have better sources in mind. For this argument to achieve its potential, though, you need to make us understand why we should agree with you & Joy (and McKibben) rather than Marcuse (and Silver).
I think the space and energy devoted to Philip K. Dick could be better devoted to fleshing out your argument (with citations!) about the impracticality of engineering life in general. This was the best part of your argument, and you seem knowledgeable, but it still lacks details, and I know of reputable thinkers (Silver is the author of the definitive guide to the mouse genome!) who think that something like Marcuse's vision is possible. I think your objections are smart, but the details and citations are missing.
Overall: Truthfully, I think this is a very smart and focused paper. A stronger, more detailed focus on the evidence (particularly the scientific evidence) for your claims is the obvious thing to take it from good work to excellent work.
Pacifying nature is ending nature. Marcuse pictures a utopia where all happiness is derived from a world without aggression. He sees the ultimate goal of technology to be the complete and utter “pacification of existence”. He pictures the end of the predator-prey relationship. Marcuse is blind, pacification can only be accomplished by ending nature completely, there is no middle ground. The complete pacification of nature can only happen after it is destroyed completely, there cannot be any harmonious infusion of reason and nature as Marcuse pictures.
In Marcuse’s world humans no longer hunt animals; in fact animals do not hunt animals. Everything is programmed to be peaceful and pacified. What Marcuse is imagining is a technological breakthrough that would change entire species, Homo sapiens included. The only thing that would be conceivable at present day would be a complete genetic overhaul, changing everything at its most basic level. Changing every living thing to put an end to aggression would require leaps and bounds in the physical possibilities of genetic engineering.
Just because something can be imagined does not mean it can be created. Quoting from Enough “If you had a nine foot tall person…the bone density would have to increase to such a degree that it might out strain the bodies capability to handle calcium.” It would just be physically impossible to modify an organism to that degree, while height can be enhanced, limits exist. Granted limits in genetics are being broken everyday, there still some physical boundaries that cannot be crossed. Think about plants, they are green; they absorb all light and reflect green and blue. Why are plants not black? A black plant would absorb much more energy. The genes for black chloroplasts just do not exist in nature (Hartwell). There must be some innate gene already in existence somewhere to be modified genetic engineering to be feasible. What Marcuse is calling for would require entirely new genes to be created, not simply old ones modified, and from a purely physiological perspective this is impossible.
Assuming this somehow becomes possible, as pointed out by Joy, Murphy’s Law will take over. Something will go wrong while engineering this pacified world. The genome is as complex a system as can exist in nature or otherwise, and given the nature of complex systems something will get messed up. Planning the entire behavioral/digestive changeover to end predation in nature would be almost unimaginable; it would be playing God in a very real meaning of the phrase. A parallel can be drawn to Victor Frankenstein, where as he “simply” created one new life form; the type of changes Marcuse wants would create thousands. If Victor was tortured so badly for assuming the powers of God, is it not conceivable that whoever would have to engineer these creatures would not be tortured 1000 times as badly?
If Victor’s creature was unruly, these genetic anomalies would be as well. There behavior would be unpredictable, maybe they would eat only vegetables, but kill each other for fun, there is no way to tell for sure. Attempting to genetically modify behavior would be like giving someone furniture from Ikea. All the instructions and pieces are there for them, but there is no guarantee it will be getting put together as intended. Controlling behavior would be impossible, conditioning and domestication are possible, but not for every species on Earth. The only way to truly pacify everything in nature oddly would be to destroy everything.
Assuming then that there where amazing breakthroughs in genetic engineering that could lead to control of behavior as well as biological development. The predator-prey relationship could be put to a halt, for a short period of time at least. Sure if the tech is there for it, one can rewrite every single element of natures DNA, change every one of the billions of base-pairs that codes for a behavior that causes an animal to hunt another, but how long would it last? Getting back to Joy “biological species almost never survive encounters with superior competitors.” In a world of genetically designed herbivores and limited resourses, one will be better then another, and at that point Darwin takes over.
The better herbivore would survive to reproduce, while others would die out completely or be forced to adapt. Just one of the many documented cases of this occurring is happening right now in Abu Dhabi, foreign species which were brought in accidentally are quickly out competing the indigenous species, threatening their very existence (Gulfnews). In this genetically engineered world if the old species wants to survive it had better adapt quickly. One adaptation would likely be the taste for meat, and slowly but surely the cycle of predator and prey would happen all over again. The world Marcuse envisions is reminiscent of the opening of Clarke’s 2001 a Space Odyssey. All the pre-humans are huddled around, starving, out competed for food and in the evolutionary sense on their way out. Suddenly a big shiny black obelisk lands in there midst, and one of them is brilliant enough to club a pig. Tada all the food they can eat. Here technology causes the aggression. This would be the end result if everything were a genetic herbivore. The predator-prey relationship developed because it works, it may take another few million years but eventually all the changes in genetics would account for nothing. Animals would be hunting animals once again nature would go on just being nature.
Assuming even that this future technology is also capable of halting mutation by ensuring every single base pair in the nucleotide sequence is correct every time DNA is replicated (3 Billion base pairs for a mouse times billions of replications). Once this is accomplished DNA repair systems would have to be engineered to counter chromosome breakage, mutation from chemicals or radiation, and a plethora of other factors, in cell that gets passed on in reproduction. If this were possible it, would effectively end evolution as it would end all mutations. Without heritable mutations species cannot change and would not adapt or change (Hartwell). Ending evolution would mean that the species would remain as they were engineered, but they would not all be equal.
So in this scenario the world has once again successfully been pacified. Everything is happy munching on plants, peacefully, but still some are better at munching away then others. Geneticists have way too many factors to consider for them to make everything equally competitive, circulatory, digestive, and nervous systems, are just three macro-level systems where the slightest edge in one species would give an unbeatable edge over a long enough time line (Hartwell). With no more adaptation anything that was not number one would die off. Leaving just a handful of Alpha-organisms left, this would destroy the delicate balance present in the ecosystem. Using just a simple example from a biology class, everyone was given a fish bowl and expected to fill it with the correct number of fish, elodea (a plant that grows in water), and snails, and then seal it with an airtight lid the results were graded. The idea was the fish ate the elodea and produced waste for the snail, which produced nutrients for the elodea, which provided food and oxygen for the fish and the snail. Everything required perfect balance. In one tank the snail died, followed rapidly by the elodea and fish, in another the fish died killing the snail and elodea, and in a couple everything just died at the same time the point is once one thing went wrong the whole tank was dead. The fish tank was supposed to be a simple 3 organism system, and even then Murphy’s law took over. Macro-level ecosystems are more complex but carry the same risks, and with no evolution or adaptation remaining, the new Alpha-species are just like the fish in the tank when the snails died, dead.
There is no way for genetics to pacify nature without destroying it. If complete and permanent pacification is desired then destruction of every living thing would be the only course of action; either by allowing the ecosystem to fall in to collapse, or by nuclear devastation it does not matter how its accomplished. Attempting to pacify nature as Marcuse pictured it would only succeed if nature were destroyed as an end result.
"Gulfnews: Foreign animals and plants pose threat to native flora and fauna." Gulfnews: Home. 27 Feb. 2009 http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/09/09/10066126.html.
Hartwell, Leland, Leroy Hood, Michael L. Goldberg, Ann Reynolds, Lee M. Silver, and Ruth C. Veres. Genetics From Genes to Genomes. New York: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, 2006.
McKibben, Bill. The Bill McKibben Reader Pieces from an Active Life. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2008.
Nitpick: you have a habit of using commas when you should use semicolons (that is, when you are separating two independent clauses).
Your third paragraph responds nicely to most of my issues from the first draft, but it's rushed - when you have a detailed, interested set of ideas or facts to explain, sometimes you really need to do it. This paragraph could easily have been a page: it's smart, but also it's awkward and choppy.
Later in the paper (e.g., when you talk about the unpredictability of engineered organisms), I'd like to see some details, like the ones in the 3rd paragraph.
"Assuming then that there where amazing breakthroughs in genetic engineering that could lead to control of behavior as well as biological development." Of course, many would argue that behavior is heavily or even completely determined by a combination of genes and environment - presumably Marcuse (and certainly Silver) are talking about altering both. Not that your objection is invalid - but in a way, it just indicates the extreme ambitions of the other side. You might have settled on an argument that their goals are impractical, impossible, or wrong - here, it seems like you move a little too easily among all three.
Your detailed discussion of the snail, etc., is a really great addition - perfectly applicable and well explained.
Overall: You have made considerable improvements to a very promising draft. It could have used another proofreading, and I think, as I said before, that you vacillate between thinking that the opposition is thinking of the impossible, the impractical, or something just wrong, which causes me some confusion. I also think that some of your additions are too rushed - I like this version, but I would have liked a 6 page version better.
Nonetheless, this is distinguished by a good argument, good research, a decent understanding of Marcuse, and solid writing.
Post a Comment