Random Interest Questions
Jun. 18th, 2003 11:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muscadinefrom ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
seraphimsigrist's journal entry:
biodiversity, gender theory, penny arcade, wicca
1) Teilhard felt that cosmogenesis=noogenesis
or ,uh, in English that the evolution of the world is
a movement towards consciousness (the noosphere)
which becomes deeper and deeper and more and
more absorbs the whole into its, well, sphere...which
if I do not misunderstand the concept can include the
passing of species and of ways of life of the earlier
earth...
does the idea of biodiversity conflict with the evolution
of things? an odd question perhaps but there it is.
I decided to do a little reading on the concept of the noosphere, as it wasn't something I was very familiar with. Now, as I understand it from what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong), Teilhard envisioned evolution as a directed process, including not just living things but the whole of the universe. Thus, there is conceived a progression from the simplest particles up to the most complex existing organism (posited as the human being)...and further it seems that there is a motivating goal of reaching the infinitely complex (God?). Beyond that, this progession is subdivided into spheres or levels: the geosphere, or material world; the biosphere, or living world; and the noosphere, or conscious/culture world (perhaps as the ultimate realization of the noopshere, or else the next level after, one might posit spirit?).
Now, attempting to examine the question within this framework, my first observation would be that each sphere affects the other, not just itself. And second, that it seems to me the more advanced sphere still depends mightily on the lesser advanced. It is a progression, but it would appear also to be a pyramid. Changes towards the low end of the pyramid can have drastic effects on the higher levels.
For example, the biosphere is but a thin layer on (as far as we know) one tiny planet, and the noosphere only one tiny fraction of that. In the grand cosmic scheme of things, a twitch in the geosphere could wipe away the noosphere, and a shudder could wipe away the entire biosphere...and that's probably overstating what would be required. Not that all changes would neccessitate a change for the worse. But perhaps of relevance to the question at hand, movement towards homogenization of the geosphere would likely have devastating effects on the higher spheres.
So, it seems to me with this being the case, it is likely that changes in the biosphere could also affect the noosphere in drastic ways. So, to answer your question in this context, I might say that the noosphere would be wise to manipulate the biosphere (and geosphere) cautiously, and at its potential peril.
Now, to step more deliberatly outside this framework. I tend to accept a more modern evolutionary/scientific concept, of the biosphere in particular. That is, that evolution is not directed towards greater complexity, nor that the ranking of complexity posited is meaningful. Rather, the evidence is that evolution fits the organism to its environment, and this can mean increasing or decreasing its "complexity." If a sponge can survive where a fish cannot, which is more "evolved"?
Complexity is a relative term in evolutionary thought. For example, (leaving aside the question of extraterrestial life) whales or dolphins are arguably as complex as human beings (dolphins might even arguably be primitive members of the noosphere). And many organisms (including some surprisingly "primitive" species) have demonstrably more complex genetics than humans. Even if we posit, for example, "the human brain" as the most complex structure known, studies have shown that individuals' relative brain "complexity" has no correlation to their contributions to knowledge and culture. Many people considered geniuses in their time had rather average brains. Which would seem to damage the posited correlation between noosphere and increased complexity.
Now, to the question at hand from my perspective. I would say that "biodiversity" is also a relative term. Biodiversity (at least of more "complex" organisms) has varied quite a bit over the course of their existence on earth, if we are to believe current scientific thought. And certainly the passing of species is a natural way of things. However, I think that some distinctions can be made between a species that goes extinct due to no longer being adapted to its environment, etc., and a species that goes extinct due primarily to human interference. Now, certainly it is arguable that humans are simply a part of nature and thus they are better adapted to their environments. OTOH, humans tend to adapt the environments to themselves, moreso than vice versa.
I believe the evidence points to potential long-term consequences of this somewhat "artificial" decline in species diversity, along with the "artificial" modifications of environments, that will be more bad than good.
seraphimsigrist's journal entry:biodiversity, gender theory, penny arcade, wicca
1) Teilhard felt that cosmogenesis=noogenesis
or ,uh, in English that the evolution of the world is
a movement towards consciousness (the noosphere)
which becomes deeper and deeper and more and
more absorbs the whole into its, well, sphere...which
if I do not misunderstand the concept can include the
passing of species and of ways of life of the earlier
earth...
does the idea of biodiversity conflict with the evolution
of things? an odd question perhaps but there it is.
I decided to do a little reading on the concept of the noosphere, as it wasn't something I was very familiar with. Now, as I understand it from what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong), Teilhard envisioned evolution as a directed process, including not just living things but the whole of the universe. Thus, there is conceived a progression from the simplest particles up to the most complex existing organism (posited as the human being)...and further it seems that there is a motivating goal of reaching the infinitely complex (God?). Beyond that, this progession is subdivided into spheres or levels: the geosphere, or material world; the biosphere, or living world; and the noosphere, or conscious/culture world (perhaps as the ultimate realization of the noopshere, or else the next level after, one might posit spirit?).
Now, attempting to examine the question within this framework, my first observation would be that each sphere affects the other, not just itself. And second, that it seems to me the more advanced sphere still depends mightily on the lesser advanced. It is a progression, but it would appear also to be a pyramid. Changes towards the low end of the pyramid can have drastic effects on the higher levels.
For example, the biosphere is but a thin layer on (as far as we know) one tiny planet, and the noosphere only one tiny fraction of that. In the grand cosmic scheme of things, a twitch in the geosphere could wipe away the noosphere, and a shudder could wipe away the entire biosphere...and that's probably overstating what would be required. Not that all changes would neccessitate a change for the worse. But perhaps of relevance to the question at hand, movement towards homogenization of the geosphere would likely have devastating effects on the higher spheres.
So, it seems to me with this being the case, it is likely that changes in the biosphere could also affect the noosphere in drastic ways. So, to answer your question in this context, I might say that the noosphere would be wise to manipulate the biosphere (and geosphere) cautiously, and at its potential peril.
Now, to step more deliberatly outside this framework. I tend to accept a more modern evolutionary/scientific concept, of the biosphere in particular. That is, that evolution is not directed towards greater complexity, nor that the ranking of complexity posited is meaningful. Rather, the evidence is that evolution fits the organism to its environment, and this can mean increasing or decreasing its "complexity." If a sponge can survive where a fish cannot, which is more "evolved"?
Complexity is a relative term in evolutionary thought. For example, (leaving aside the question of extraterrestial life) whales or dolphins are arguably as complex as human beings (dolphins might even arguably be primitive members of the noosphere). And many organisms (including some surprisingly "primitive" species) have demonstrably more complex genetics than humans. Even if we posit, for example, "the human brain" as the most complex structure known, studies have shown that individuals' relative brain "complexity" has no correlation to their contributions to knowledge and culture. Many people considered geniuses in their time had rather average brains. Which would seem to damage the posited correlation between noosphere and increased complexity.
Now, to the question at hand from my perspective. I would say that "biodiversity" is also a relative term. Biodiversity (at least of more "complex" organisms) has varied quite a bit over the course of their existence on earth, if we are to believe current scientific thought. And certainly the passing of species is a natural way of things. However, I think that some distinctions can be made between a species that goes extinct due to no longer being adapted to its environment, etc., and a species that goes extinct due primarily to human interference. Now, certainly it is arguable that humans are simply a part of nature and thus they are better adapted to their environments. OTOH, humans tend to adapt the environments to themselves, moreso than vice versa.
I believe the evidence points to potential long-term consequences of this somewhat "artificial" decline in species diversity, along with the "artificial" modifications of environments, that will be more bad than good.
