How is human evolution more risky than cosmic evolution?

Today’s Post

Last week we looked at how the underlying agency of ‘increased complexity’ in universal evolution can be seen as ‘risky’, and how introduction of yet a new requirement, that of ‘choice’, adds yet another risk to its continuation.

This week we will look at Teilhard’s assessment of this new ‘risk’.

So, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

If, as Teilhard asserts, evolution needs to be ‘chosen’ to continue, what’s involved in choosing it?  Restating and simplifying the Teilhard quote from last week:

“(we need) to be quite certain… that the (future) into which (our) destiny is leading is not a blind alley where the earth’s life flow will shatter and stifle itself.”

   Such ‘choice’ requires ‘trust’.  Confidence is required when making choices that affect our evolution toward the ‘fuller being’ that both Jesus and Teilhard cite as our goal.

We saw in Pinker’s survey on ‘pessimism’ how common it is to engage in denial of progress and how such denial reflects a fear of the future.  We also touched on the fact that such fear can be (and so often has been) seized upon by populists who offer themselves as bulwarks against the woes of the future if only we would trust them.  Their first move is to insist that there is much to be feared, then to begin to use this fear to undermine trust in the Western structures of society (effectively a grouping of ‘memes’) which they claim to have unleashed such social dangers as can be found in the free press, individual freedoms, and open immigration.   Other Western liberal practices are also denigrated, such as the development of a global infrastructure by which every advance, such as those reported by Norberg in his book, “Open”, can be shared globally and hence contribute to worldwide progress.  The wall which separates us from the rest of the world may well shut us in, but it is advertised as necessary to make us safe.

Once traditional Western norms can no longer be trusted, Teilhard’s ‘psychisms’ (identified as not only one of the fruits of these norms but an essential component of continued evolution) will become less efficacious and over time will begin to fail to mitigate the inevitably unwanted side effects that result from future inventions such as new sources of energy.

So, while Norberg’s quantification of human progress is in optimistic agreement with Teilhard’s projections, the risks are nonetheless substantial and cannot be overlooked.  Evolution is in our hands, and stewardship of its continuation requires a clear-headed knowledge of the past, recognition of and a commitment to the energy of evolution as it rises in the human species, and confidence in the future.  In the words of Teilhard:

“..the view adopted here of a universe in process of general involution upon itself comes in as an extremely simple way of getting past the dead end at which history is still held up, and of pushing further towards a more homogenous and coherent view of the past.”

Yuval Harari opines in his book, “Sapiens” that consciousness is an “evolutionary mistake” and is certain to lead to an early (by evolutionary standards) extinction of the human species.  While his book shows ignorance of evolutionary history (as seen in Teilhard’s ‘lens’) and recent human history (as documented by Norberg), the fact cannot be denied that human consciousness is a two-edged sword.

The Next Post

This week we took a second look at the second and more serious category of risks to human evolution.  Recognizing the ‘fragility’ of evolution, we acknowledged the ongoing risks of fixing what we have broken (the ‘structural’ risks). But we also noted the greater risk, the ‘Noospheric’ risk, which lies in the possibility of losing faith in our historically proven ability to, as Teilhard says,

 “…continually find new ways of arranging (our) elements in the way that is most economical of energy and space” by “a rise in interiority and liberty within a whole made up of reflective particles that are now more harmoniously interrelated.”

   In short, the interruption of this “rise in interiority and liberty” will stifle the flow of evolution in the human species.

Next week we will sum up where we’ve been in tracing Teilhard’s ‘articulation of the noosphere’ from Norberg’s enumeration of the articulations and arriving at the risks which evolution introduces as it overflows into the realm of the human.