The end of species
I’ve been reading a scifi series called The Uplift Saga, by David Brin - fantastically dense, dark scifi, somewhere between alternate theology, & apocalyptic, machine-infused, deep-time future. (If that sounds awesome to you, leave me a note. I have a few other series you should read.)
He posits - and I promise, this won’t in any way ruin the ending - vast civilizations, each one uplifting new species to sentience, sapience, as they themselves were lifted by other, older species - and then, like people growing old, each species becomes peaceful, & strikes out for a kind of species-wide redemption. A gradual withdrawing from the universe to contemplate, & then a final move to transcendence/oblivion*
“All good species go to heaven,” or some such. It’s a way to understand deep time, to make of it a living (well, life-based) metaphor.
Governments are like civilizations are like companies; they start out young and vigorous, age through adolescence to maturity, & then fade away, falling at last to some disease (geriatric bureaucracy, barbarian incursion, hostile takeover), and dying. Why shouldn’t it be true of species?
~**~
(Have I lost you yet?)
…
Ecosystemization vs Personalization
I think the Chinese have a different view of government, in general, than we do in the Western world (this is related, I promise) - seeing it not as a person, to be born & raised & perfected & thrown on the trash heap, and reconceived to start again - but as an ecosystem - something that’ll have its years of drought and famine and fire and flood - something to be maintained & rebuilt & nurtured. Ultimately, it’s seen as something to be revered - even if it’s feared.
& we can layer viewpoint upon viewpoint, for any conglomeration of people or ideas you care to name; to the founders, it’s a startup. To employee 40,001, it’s an environment. To the romans, it’s luxury. To barbarians, decadence. To the US, it’s a shining example of “the rule of justice” - even if that justice was enforced by practices too barbaric for ‘modern’ post-Europeans. For more on said reluctance, see Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire, by Niall Ferguson.**
Point is, empires rise and fall, no matter how we see them - even if the seeing can stave things off for a while. The Romans fell. The Greeks fell. The Aztecs fell. The US will fall - and Russia and China and India and Australia and Switzerland and Iran and South Africa and Cuba. Some sooner than others. Some perhaps not for millenia.
~**~
Does it matter?
So everything rises and falls, in the time we’ve had to observe it - & from what we can tell, species do the same. But species tend to do it when they run out of resources, when there’s no way left to grow.
What happens if you never run out of resources? (if you run out of the need for resources)
Brin posits an eventual coalescence of the spirit, an inward-drawing as a whole. Contemplation (for an entire species?). A loss of interest in the struggle for resources and recognition.
… but what’s happened in the past when large groups have run out of the need for resources ? What happens when the Romans have everything they could possibly want?
— answer: they drive their soldiers farther and father afield. The empire’s built on conquest, and so Romans find themselves in Spain & Africa and Asia, fighting not for survival, but for accumulation. They drive their merchants toward the exotic. They seek medication & art and culture. They experiment with sex, with marriage, with love, with death. Always the search for a new conquest, a new horizon.
… We, as a species, are uplifted by our explorers, given rationality & security by our bureaucrats, bankers, & brewers.
Animals & molds expand to fill the space given, & then momentum (or greed, or habit) takes us over the edge, until we’re desperate again, scrambling to feed ourselves.
Without a need for survival, we invent games & puzzles, & shopping, & currency & work & vacations.
We invent wars.
~**~
Here’s my theory. If there are other species out there, perhaps the sociosexual imperatives are different. Maybe some species’ individuals would travel too far apart (whales lost in an ever-widening ocean) until they couldn’t find each other. No meeting, no mating, no breeding. Species snuffed out, no harm done.
Or maybe crowding would trigger a kind of species overload, mass lemming-like suicide.***
Or maybe we’d discover - again - that humanity is its own worst enemy. The only thing that can really harm a human adult these days is either human, or based on some human action. (AIDS. Car crashes. Heart diseas & lung cancer. Radiation poisoning. Death by McDonald’s. What have you)…
So.
I think - that like corporations & nations & companies & bureacracies & religions & individuals - each species carries within it the seeds for its own destruction.
Does that really mean anything? Probably not. But it’s interesting to think that, some million or 10 million years in the future, my descendants will face some of the same questions & challenges I do today. To think that violent self-destruction may be the only thing, in the end, to say we’re still human, after all…
* You’ll learn more if you read the books. And that’s all I have to say.
** or you can read “Reluctant Empire,” the short version also by Niall Ferguson. (via the Hoover institute)
*** And yes, I do know lemmings don’t commit suicide en masse, but it’s such a useful image, or else why would it’ve stayed current so long ..?
May 9th, 2011 | Tags: brin, david brin, mortality, musing, niall ferguson, reluctant empire, sapient, scifi, species, unreal | Category: Connection, Science Fiction, Sociology | Leave a comment