Phone Zombies: A new stage in human evolution?

We’ve all seen them, at some point in our environment we may have even been one of them: Phone Zombies. People so engrossed in their phones that they walk along the street with their heads bowed ignorant of any outside stimulus.

They aren’t just on the street, they are on trains, in pubs, in coffee shops and restaurants, people who are so drawn in by their smartphones that they see and hear nothing else. They could cause accidents, be the victims of muggings even die and nothing would stop them from staying with their mobile phones.

I was recently in my local weatherspoons meeting with friends before going out for an evening meal and one of my friends looked at another table and there were three guys sitting there not talking to each other, just staring down at their respective mobile phones. Now if I had done that with my friends for any length of time it would have been seen as rude, but what is normal for one group isn’t always normal for another.

We all considered this strange dichotomy, with one of my friends going so far as to ditch social media and his phone for the better part of a week. Examining this further, it seemed to be a generational thing: the day-to-day usage of smartphones seemed to increase with each generation, millennials would use mobile phones more than their generation y or x counterparts.

GettyImages-528577724-1-e1485463675103-620x250

An all too common site in the world today or a symptom of something larger?

However this seems to be too easy an explanation dismissing the fact that many people in these opposing generations use their phones just as much as the main smartphone using groups.

The use of smartphones is the first inclusive social phenomenon in so much as it doesn’t vary from social class to social class, working class people use their phones just as much as the people perceived to be the social elite. People have become so dependent on their smartphones, that they retain an almost drug like addiction to them.

So we have to take a wider view, applying this logic to us as a species and the mediums used to communicate: after all a phone is just a tool which we use to access this stream of consciousness, it is the stream that shapes the debate.

In the times before the internet (seems strange to think that it’s only been around for 30 years), people communicated with the methods at their disposal: landline telephones, letters, spoken word debates, newspapers and television.  We didn’t have the sort of broad reaching far ranging access to the world that we have today.

sts-460s15

might have gone a little too far back in the way back machine

One might argue that this was a better time, but we still had ignorance, prejudice and things that were not documented. Now we have the ability to access the latest news, social interactions and the ability to air our views in a way that we have never had before. This should be the greatest time to be a human being, where we can truly change our world and know what it truly is to be human.

But it isn’t. In shaping our online world we have pulled away from the community aspect of humanity, we have become introverted individuals with everything to say online, but with nothing to say in the real world.

One of the greatest strengths of humanity is that humans build communities, we come together with a common cause to shape our surroundings and grow as a collective. That is how evolution occurs. Communities now seem to be moving online and as a species we are losing that aspect of coming together.

I can hear the voices saying: We come together online? Yes we do, but how much of that is definitive, how much is a person actively saying yes: I want to be a part of this community and shape its future and how much of it is just a click without conviction or an opinion without grounding.

We have the clarity of the written word, but the word is only as good as the writer and can easily be interpreted incorrectly or manipulated to suit a specific set of facts or guidelines. We have political leaders using twitter when they should be using their mouths and in some cases causing international incidents in the process.

trumpiq

The twitter president: Donald Trump

So now we move onto the next part of the debate: human beings are doing more things online and through their smartphones than at any point in previous history. We talk online, we date online, we play games online, we contribute to debates online, we organise social interactions online.

As the technology evolves will we eventually become non talking apes who are incapable of articulating ourselves unless a wi-fi connection is present?

I would argue, yes we are. Technology is our friend, yes in so much as it has enabled us to enrich our lives, growing beyond the normal confines of our species to a point where we can become something different.

However, technological evolution has supplanted physical evolution as the main catalyst for change in the human species. Its like Jeff Goldblum says in Jurassic Park :people were so preoccupied with whether or not they could do a thing, we never stopped to if we should.

I have no issue with the people that say, why not? Its not as if physical evolution has done us any favours, but it has: we have evolved from a bunch of monkeys to the dominant species on this planet.

As our technology has grown and evolved, we have created an environment that is unsustainable, contributing to our increasing isolation as individuals and making us lazier as a species. Phone zombies are just the latest symptom of this problem.

Wall-E obese humans - cropped

Is this the future for humanity if technology runs riot?

Should we go door to door and burn our wifi routers and mobile phones?  No, as a society currently going cold turkey would ultimately cause more harm than good, but at some point there will be a movement away from this technology, a technological or physical backlash against the invasion of technology into our lives.

We will lose our drive forward and technology will grow stagnant, at this point the only real change will come from our old friend evolution. We will have to evolve beyond the technology that has brought us to this point, whether that evolution occurs in 1,000 or 10,000 years is anyone’s guess but it will happen, of this I am certain.

Protestors from SACOM (Students and Scho

Will there be a backlash against technology?

What are the practicalities and politics of preserving the Status Quo?

The world is an ever changing place; more and more people and society as a whole exist in a state of flux. Yet amidst this constant state of change, there is the constancy of the world itself. This world is not a new one and has steadily evolved over the centuries to become the society in which we live.

It will continue to evolve, but as it does it relies on one main thing: The maintenance of the status quo.

By status quo, I mean the steadiness of human society both political and sociological. This steadiness is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and is supported and maintained by the social and political institutions we have created for ourselves over the centuries.

How does this control manifest itself practically?

Firstly in a population which aspires to be more than it currently is, which is in turn far less likely to rebel and cause societal change. By aspiring to be more than we are, we remain caught up in our own personal spheres of influence and are ignorant of what is going on around us.

The idea that we can achieve more than we currently do is supported primarily by our consumerist society. A society which consumes goods in a self perpetuating cycle has the effect of reducing its own net worth while increasing the wealth of those pulling the strings. Goods are purchased then consumed by the society and then the society is forced to create new goods to sustain itself further, distracting them from dissention and societal action.

The secondary mechanism of support is exposing that society to a better way of life. This can be through exposure to celebrity culture/ the more affluent individuals or the promise of a different way of life (for example through a lottery or competition). The exposure to this often leads to a practical desire for members of the society to become these individuals. Like any lottery, the chances of an individual achieving this are remote. The society itself can manifest a mechanism to reduce the chances of an individual advancing, either through sociological impediments like the class system or monetary impediments like lack of affluence. Both of which can stop an individual from achieving their full potential.

And yet, individuals do achieve these feats but only after conforming to the societal model, this could be through the acquisition of personal wealth or greater status. Both of which rely on the consent of the society and the preservation of the status quo.

This can be achieved by the placation of the social group via monetary or increase in status. As long as the individuals involved are placated the method can be anything. They should also have the opportunity to better the lives of those who are less fortunate than they are, when the actual chances of bettering these individuals’ lives are small. This method also serves to placate the less well off on the societal pecking order by making them value their lives and status, however small it is.

Malcontents, or those who choose not to accept the status quo can be ostracised by the societies pre-existing mechanisms, reducing their status to the point where these individuals can no longer affect the status quo in any way. This pushes the individuals out and preserves the status of those who are willing to accept it.

Societal status quo, relies on placing the right people or social groups into the right place for them at the right time.

Governmental status quo is very similar and can be maintained indefinitely by refreshing the various branches of government regularly with new individuals from the same sorts of social groups. This has a double beneficial effect because it maintains the status quo on an ongoing basis and gives the people the idea that they have determined who would be in control of their country, despite the fact that they did not.

Any changes made to the fundamental structure of the government, for example a popular uprising or dictatorial changes would obviously result in some disruption of the status quo, but ultimately the underlying political world would remain the same.

Potentially damaging changes to the status quo resulting from international schisms can be avoided by greater co-operation between international governments. Into this mix of peoples there will always be rogue elements, but as long as a consensus prevails the rogues can be ostracised, their politics ignored and their political status reduced to its lowest amount.

The threat of an unseen enemy, or war allows the government to add new dimensions to its status quo preservation mechanism and gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want. As long as there is a danger, any sort of restrictive or unhealthy policy can be masqueraded by the government as being a security matter and in the national interest.

Additionally the government can employ external agents, in the guise of individuals acting alone or as part of a cell to produce acts of terror, which have the effect of swaying the populations of their respective countries. As long as the involvement of the government remains a secret, they cannot be found out.

Human beings are at their heart agents of change. This change manifests itself both in how we act and how we conduct ourselves in the world, it is this change which has enabled us to rise from apes to humans and will eventually lead beyond. When this necessary change meets something which is immutable, (i.e. the status quo) the most likely result will be the destruction of one or the other. It can be suggested that the continued maintenance of the status quo at the present time is stopping us from changing both ourselves and the world around us. It is stopping us from evolving.

Although evidence for this change cannot be perceived immediately it will eventually be discovered, what we do at this point is up to us. Do we change our world or do we choose to accept it?

© R Simmons. All Rights Reserved.

What would happen if a government or political party decided to tell the whole truth?

In today’s political arena, the truth is often the first casualty in the rush to sway popular opinion. The rise of spin has worked in tandem with a very old practice, the practice of rhetoric.

Rhetoric was in itself a product of the Ancient Greeks who used it as a way of increasing status in the community while persuading the populous to come around to your point of view.

It was taught in Athens and many of the Greek islands and gradually passed on to the Roman Empire and after the dark ages where it was used by the fledgling politicians and statesman of the Middle Ages.

Following the enlightenment, the growth of political thought and expression defined itself in the English Civil War, The French Revolution and The American War of Independence.

In our modern age, rhetoric has never been more popular as a tool, but the use of rhetoric is more and more becoming a way of distracting the general populous from the real truth of political action.

The competing superpowers of the USA and Russia used rhetoric and spin to turn their political standpoints against each other, spreading lies and disinformation to undermine their respective enemies.

It may have been perceived that the end of the cold war would have brought an end to this practice, but as the walls came down the tactics became more clandestine. Controversial governmental policies pushed the need for spin and rhetoric to the fore as governments attempted to justify their actions.

In some cases, the truths they are attempting to justify are so politically damaging, that they have to be cloaked in lies and spin to be explained to the public. The more terrifying truths are merely not expressed; instead they are classified as being in the national interest and promptly buried.

It also remains a prominent force in the practice of electioneering where increasingly it has been used by political parties to make light of the weaknesses in their opponents policies and political record.

Current affairs shows are full of politicians using spin and rhetoric to confirm /deny their actions, make beneficial coincidences seem like part of their plans and to distinguish themselves as being different from other political parties.

Politics is primarily the art of discourse, the reasoned debate that exists within a community of individuals. The rise of modern political society has supplanted this in favour of a defacto schoolyard game of one-upmanship, where one party blames another for the failings of the country.

The pursuit of controversial policies like the Iraq war, the War on Terror and austerity has made the public very sceptical, a climate which has not been favourable to politics in Britain as a whole.

Amidst this malaise of spin, the understanding and faith in the political parties shown by the general public has never been lower. Voting turnouts at elections have never been lower, entire sections of society have become estranged from politics as distrust of politicians has grown. This estrangement can only grow as time goes on and as it does, more extreme political standpoints may become more palatable to the unhappy populous.

The practices used have created this climate, but what if these practices were abandoned in favour of a new practice: telling the public the unequivocal complete truth.

We talk of truth, but what does that mean in a political sphere?

In a political sphere we are talking about the full disclosure of those things which could be beneficial or detrimental to the government of a country. No distinction would be made, all truths would be told and it would be the responsibility of the voting populous to determine if those truths make the incumbent party not worthy of voting for.

This need not be limited to things happening in the present, past acts undertaken by previous governments could be fully disclosed and not disclosed after a certain period of time as currently practiced.

That being said, a certain level of truth telling exists in modern government anyway you just have to move past the spin to find it. The truths of statistics, budgets and expenditure are not easily recoverable but they are there, it is a question of what is done with those truths (for example the recent parliamentary expenses scandal). Politicians recognise the need for truth in all spheres of politics however their policies do not go far enough.

The level of detriment of the truth would decide the path of the political party, nay the political system of the country. Alliances with other world powers could be shown to be alliances of convenience rather than actual friendship. The behind the scenes practices of government could be revealed, relationships between parties, companies and fundamental truths about how the country is run could be exposed.

The effect on that countries status in international politics is more of a hit and miss scenario. Some countries may welcome the chance to deal with a country which tells the absolute truth, whereas other more restrictive governments would actively shy away from dealing with this country. This aversion to telling the truth may in turn lead to their own populations asking why?

A tremendous amount of initial damage would undoubtedly be done to the political system of that particular country, however after the dust settles this culture of truth telling might actually find its way into the political systems. Fundamental changes would be made to the way a political party conducts itself both internally and externally. Election politics would never be the same, as parties would move away from the current schoolyard fight to reasoned engagement with the voting individuals of the country.

The truth would result in a clearer understanding of what each party does and how that could affect the determination of the country they are attempting to win the right to run. This could reenergise the voting population’s interest in the political process, lead to greater voter turnout at elections and greater faith in the systems of the respective governments.

 

© R Simmons. All Rights Reserved.

What are the practicalities and consequences of definitive proof of the existence of God?

The Question of the existence of God is the fundamental question that has occupied the thoughts of scholars, theologians and philosophers since the beginning of human knowledge. Religions have been founded on the various schools of thought, wars have been waged in the name of God and entire civilizations have risen and fallen directly or indirectly as a result of this question.

Recent scientific experimentation has sought to prove the existence of God by proving the existence of his actions. We have looked to show the handiwork of an intelligent designer in the fabric of the universe. While the discovery of the Higgs-Boson the so called God particle, science has gone some way to prove the existence of an external deity but there are still so many unanswered questions.

But what if the questions were suddenly answered?

The establishment of a definitive way to effectively prove the existence of god will most likely result in the creation of a new scientific branch and new technologies. This could range from scientific classification of the entity to practical measurement of its abilities. The possibility of proving the existence of a false god may also necessitate a divinity test to which the entity would be subject. In the same way that we would prove if a life form is sentient we would need to prove this. Although this would be seen predominantly as a religious matter, the act of faith can only definitively prove so much, science will inevitably take over. There will be uproar from the main religions, who will feel that they are somehow being supplanted by the scientists and this in turn could cause a further schism between science and faith. Whether this schism is a spiritual or physical is up for debate, however a physical schism would in all likelihood result in profound sociological change.

Taking a step back, the fundamental question which all subsequent contact would be based is: Can the human mind truly comprehend God? True comprehension may involve the use of artificial technology to augment the human brain, or genetic engineering to bring our evolution forward to the point where we can effectively comprehend higher levels of being/thought. Both of these methods will have far reaching consequences, both in terms of the desired objective and humanities interaction with the world as a whole. A change made too early may cause irreparable harm.

In a world where the existence of god has been proven and confirmed the need to create a stable framework for communication is prevalent. This would be much the same as communicating with another country or species. The only difference being that the embassies for this diplomacy already exist, albeit in the form of churches. Ambiguity and uncertainty about the message of God would give way to absolute clarity as the entity would be forced to confirm its policies within a pre-existing diplomatic framework. The greatest casualty of contact with God and the resulting clarity of message may be the religions he has inspired, holy texts may be proved to be inaccurate, clerics may be denounced and entire ways of worshipping may be deemed unacceptable to the entity.

Dialogue with an omniscient entity would doubtless bring a flood of scientific questions as the mysteries of the universe would be up for grabs. We could find out how the universe was created, what it takes to make worlds, harness infinite energy and create life. Fundamentally speaking however, this would depend on the entities willingness to volunteer that information. If he or she would not what could we do to change their mind?

Religiously speaking: Can God disclose the existence of heaven and hell? Would he want to? An unknown god cannot be held accountable for his own actions. A known God can.

The entity known as God may prove to be one of a race of entities which occupy and even larger universe. We may be the smallest iota of the smallest atom in an infinite reality. The previously arcane polytheistic religions could reassert themselves in religious thinking. If they are a race of omniscient entities, what is to stop another entity from contacting us and setting itself up as a potential competitor to our God?

Acceptance of the entity may not be forthcoming, in fact many individuals may reject the input of this unseen interloper in their lives. Interference once deemed as destiny or “God working in mysterious ways” could be ignored as we finally have an entity to blame of our own shortcomings. A revolution of spirit could result in an active desire to eliminate God from our lives, practically and spiritually. Blaming God leads to culpability and the potential to create a world where God is subject to the laws of man and is limited by what he can say and do.

The practice of Atheism may enjoy a sudden resurgence, a resurgence born of the proof of the existence of God as a legally and sociologically culpable entity in our lives. The paradox being that proof kills religion but creates a religion with no God.

Another assertion is that God is beyond good and evil and would therefore only work in humanities best interests. Entities which are part of a race rather than a singular may be subject to the same fundamental laws and emotional states as humanity. Not all of these states are good, if we meet a pissed off entity with godlike powers the consequences for humanity could be disastrous. We could become playthings for a more powerful race, like ants under a magnifying glass.

Proving the existence of God, though a worthwhile pursuit may prove costly to the spiritual and psychological health of humanity. We must as a species shake our preconceived notions of what God is, what he can do and what role the entity plays in our lives. We have to understand what the destination is and what it entails before we proceed on the journey. Only then can we truly be ready to discover God.

 

© R Simmons. All Rights Reserved.

Would a world ultimately free of choice be a better one?

On a daily basis, a person existing in the world makes thousands of choices. If every person in the world made the same number of choices then the numbers would be infinite. These choices determine everything from what sort of coffee they have in the morning to larger choices, should I change my chosen career?

Every choice has a result which spawns a myriad of new choices and the cycle perpetuates itself onwards. Choices themselves can sometimes be obstacles rather than avenues, but what would happen if there was no choice? What if choice never existed or was supplanted by some other entity?

The absence of choice, if undertaken by humans themselves can resemble a totalitarian regime. Choice would not exist because the government of the affected nation would not allow it to exist. That being said, the removal of choice using this means does not necessarily mean that it does not exist, merely it has been withdrawn from acceptable usage by the society.

The trains would run on time, people would display satisfaction in the work and in their lives for fear of the consequences. The government enforcing this would most likely be hard line government, pursuing a philosophy of suppression by political and sociological means.

A society which employs this method of choice removal may seem to be okay on the surface, but discontented elements would ultimately surface primarily due to the presence of one natural phenomenon: Free Will.

Free Will would be the splinter in the foot of the totalitarian regime and could likely lead to its overthrow. True absence of choice could only be accomplished if free will did not exist.

Artificial choice or free will removal could take two potential forms: The disassociation of humankind from the sphere of decision making or the removal of the in-built human ability to perceive choice.

Under the disassociation method, an entity or medium is required to take up the burden of choosing on mankind’s behalf. In today’s scientifically advanced age, the most fool proof way of doing this would be to create a supercomputer, ostensibly to balance and weigh all of the choices available for mankind. Other more localised disassociation methods would rely on individuals and individuals may not choose to proceed with the result of the external choice maker once made.

A supercomputer created to make choices for humanity would require a level of technology un-paralleled in human history and would undoubtedly involve the creation of advanced artificial intelligence. Choices exist outside of the world of black and white and it would take an artificial intelligence to truly appreciate the scope of the choice. This AI would learn from each choice and would take on a degree of omniscience typically associated with a god like entity.

That being said, this choice making computer could be used/manipulated for ends contrary to its intention, it could be used to manipulate a society into submission. On the flip side of the coin, humanity may be reluctant to apportion its free choice to a machine and could rebel against it. The need to be objective about this sort of development would necessitate its response.

The second method, the removal or suppression of the inbuilt ability of Mankind to perceive choice and act on it could be far more effective and far more attainable. Genetic engineering or pharmaceuticals could be used to negate the human ability to perceive choice or act on it much in the same way as an anti-depressant would. Great care needs to be taken with this method to ensure that the negation of choice by pharmaceutical means does not result in an inactive society which does not evolve or progress.

The pharmaceutical method would need to work in tandem with a strong government which pushes its individuals to interact with society. The individuals in charge of this government may need to be free of the need to medicate themselves to direct the medicated populous. In this society of divides, the medicated would essentially become a slave populous and the previously mentioned rebellion against this authority would occur.

The natural absence of choice is a virtual impossibility as the natural world is founded on the principle of choice. Evolution of a species occurs as a result of choice, natural selection occurs as a result of choice and so on. The only way that a natural absence of choice could work is if it only applied to humankind at this time. Other species would simply die out without the ability to choose.

Practically, the absence of choice from the human sphere of perception can be a great levelling force. Many people have so much choice that this forces them into procrastination, or the feeling that their current way of life is in some way not the correct one. A world free of choice would remove the possibility of changing your life to make you happier. Would an individual removed of choice be happier? Maybe, choices can cause uncertainty and without choice the uncertainty would not occur.

As explained previously, this absence of choice may have a potentially detrimental effect on mankind, humanity may simply stop doing things or inversely they may do the same thing over and over again until the species simply exhausts itself. Also the absence of choice doesn’t allow us to anticipate external events, for example a person would not dodge an oncoming car because they could not choose to. If you play this scenario out to its natural conclusion, the human race would be unable to prevent its own extinction simply because it would not be able to choose to.

Under this forced or unenforced absence of choice, humanity would struggle to exist. It is the desire to change, to improve to strive further and further that allows us to become the best of ourselves. A world which exists in this way is most likely to implode, leading to the extinction of mankind via external means or internally through inaction. A better world would not exist.

 

© R Simmons. All Rights Reserved.

What is the answer to Life’s problems?

For many individuals, finding that one panacea answer to life’s problems becomes a central part of in their esoteric experience of life. Humanity manifests many answers to this problem, do this 5 times a day and your life will be better, purchase this item and your life will be improved significantly. All of them offer happiness and the solution but most of the time they only offer a temporary happiness that dulls over time.

What if we take this one step further, What if there is one universal panacea which would solve all of the problems of the world? The magic pill, the ultimate problem solver.

The problems of the world are numerous, from poverty to disease to war and beyond. Yet for all this seemingly insurmountable accumulation, there are still people in the world who hope against hope for a better world. Some would call them delusional; some would call them dreamers but what if their prayers were answered? What if there was a way to solve them all?

The answer implies a positive agent of change, but something can be negative and have a positive outcome can’t it?

The Second World War was one of the most horrific conflicts in human history resulting in a shocking 85 million deaths. It is not the place of this writer to call it a positive event because it is not, however it has resulted in the greatest acceleration of technology since the industrial revolution. Billions of individuals now benefit from technology inversely created as a result of the Second World War. Our knowledge of illnesses and the human body has been enhanced by experimentation on individuals detained in concentration camps despite the absolute evilness of the act itself.

Would a similar war result in a similar explosion of technological advancement? Undoubtedly, war for all its numerous faults accelerates technological change. In tandem, this technological change would be mirrored by a sociological change, populations migrate away from conflict zones, are reduced by use of weaponry and other social groups profit from this change. The reduction in population results in an increase in available resources, resources which if not taken up by the respective war efforts could enhance the lives of those remaining.

The destruction caused by a war could reduce humankind from a highly technological to an agrarian civilization, free from the trappings of technology and arguably its pitfalls. The people in this society could ultimately be happier and lead more productive lives than their forebears.

The scale of this destruction will be the determining factor in what sort of society arises from the war, indeed if any society as a nuclear war would be most likely an extinction level event. The movement of the world’s governments away from this strategy does not mean that they will not use it. The temporary problems which occur in our lives would be rendered obsolete in favour of new challenges, challenges which we may not be equipped to face in the long term.

A shared experience which brings humanity closer together need not only occur by war, there are peaceful methods by which the political and sociological world changes leading to positive results for all of the world’s many people.

One such manifestation of this could be through a massed religious experience.

Many individuals engaged in religious and spiritual services have felt the effects of being involved in a shared experience with others. You need only look at the evangelical churches for evidence of this positivity manifesting itself. Yet religion itself remains a very subjective experience on the part of the individual. But what if everybody in the world had the same experience?

Practicalities aside, a mass religious event where everyone had the same experience of it would result in a lot of common ground. Separate individuals would have something to talk about and it is possible, although a stretch to assume that this discourse would open the door to other avenues such as the ending of old religious differences and international enmity.

Whether it would reshape the human existence and determine our future happiness and stability, no man can really say. There is no doubt that it would cause a moment of significant pause for humanity and could result in introspection where the individuals affected revaluate their lives.

We cannot ignore the subjective nature of religion, no matter how hard we would like to believe that we all have a similar experience of it. The diversity of the religious experience and its effect on people is the greatest barrier to it having a positive effect on solving the planets problems. Some may gain a solution to their problems from it, some may not.

The additional question occurs: What if that shared religious experience is not a positive one?

A negative experience, initiated by an external omnipotent entity might screw us up so bad that we are forever changed by it negatively. It could result in a degradation of the human spirit, as we question ourselves and our purpose in the world.

The same principles that govern a mass religious experience would likely be the same in the event of humanity making contact with an extra-terrestrial species.

The initial euphoria of finding out we are not alone would subconsciously render us united as a species. National borders would become unnecessary as we would have to unite to have dealings with the species, which would itself be unified due to its advanced nature.

The doors would be open for technological and cultural cross pollination, which in turn could offer new perspectives and technological advances that we would not have thought of. These new things could vicariously solve many of our existing problems like world hunger and inequality.

But on the other side of the coin, if the species that humanity makes contact with is hostile our problems on Earth could be exacerbated, we could even be conquered or subjugated by the hostile species.

For lots of people, the pursuit of money is a constant struggle. The poorest in the world struggle to make ends meet while the rich are often just as unhappy as their poorer counterparts.

The elimination of money would seem to be a logical step to ending a lot of the world’s problems, but this could result in the exact opposite. We have been locked into using money for so long, that it would be a hard habit to shake. An economic collapse would likely follow money’s elimination as goods and services produced would have no value.

There would be no means of determining the value of these items, so consequently no one would be under any financial obligation to do or produce anything. Despite humanities lofty aspirations, the notion that humanity would simply continue without it would not become reality. People are by their nature greedy, the most likely result of the elimination of money would be the implementation of a barter system which would ultimately become a poor cousin of the money that was eliminated.

Elimination of money from the human experience would not necessarily result in humanity being happier or its problems being lessened or solved.

Likewise, making everyone equal in status would not result in a solving of humanities problems. If everyone is equal in what they want, there will always be someone who wants more. The defining principle of human nature, which has been reinforced by centuries of exposure to consumerism, is to want what we don’t have. Increased exposure to a consumer culture will only exacerbate this habit in our spirit. We could stop the consumerist culture exerting such an influence on humanity by outlawing it; this could be dovetailed by a medical method of eliminating our need to be consumers.

However in the removal of want we might lose something of ourselves.

It is entirely possible that human technological, philosophical and sociological advances will be achieved without the need for an external entity or motivating force. Current human society has achieved many advances without such agents.

Technology could render all desires unnecessary, as nothing would be outside of our reach. There are already signs that we are becoming lazier as a species and technological advances could continue this disturbing trend. Humans could become apathetic individuals with no goals, no dreams, nothing to strive for.

The problem is if we advance too far too fast we could lose sight of our original objectives, which should always be the betterment of human life.

The rescinding of national borders to ensure global peace and harmony is a noble idea and there is an obvious benefit to this in so much as we would be a united people for the first time in our history.

Logistically, this dissolution presents us with two very pressing issues, firstly the reduction and elimination of armies and weaponry from the human sphere of influence. Secondly the ending of enmity between nations.

The ending of armies and weapons would need to be a united experience engaged in by all the governments of the world at the same time, if one nation chose to hold back its dissolution it could use its armies and weaponry against the others who would now be powerless to defend themselves.

The current disposition of hostile nations on this planet would prohibit such an endeavour from taking place. Not everyone may agree with the course of action being raised, some may even object in stronger terms.

Sociologically, it would be hard to replace generations of hostility existing between nations with feelings of peace and brotherhood. Hostility runs deep, from governments down to families to individuals themselves.

In addition this presents concerns in respect of immigration and removals of trade borders, concerns which cannot be easily addressed. There is no guarantee that the problems of the world would be solved by pursuing this course.

Much has been made of the role that humanity would play in addressing its own issues, but what if nature conspired by acting to solve the problems of this planet.

A sudden change in global climate, a reversal of global warming or a viral pandemic? Any one of these world shattering events could happen or a combination of several.

All of which could be hugely detrimental to the human population of earth, populations could be reduced, large areas of the planet could become uninhabitable and humanity could be faced with extinction.

Human beings define themselves as being adaptable to most circumstances but any change like this would ultimately present certain challenges. If humanity met these challenges, would the practical result be a solving of the problems of the world?

If so, a potentially disastrous event could produce a positive outcome. Areas of the planet which were previously arid deserts could become fertile again and likewise populations which suffered with starvation and bad harvests could find themselves with abundant levels of food. Indeed the change in global climate could render those who currently have everything with nothing.

A viral epidemic could also result in a paradigm shift in population disposition as it would be more likely to affect populist areas than those areas with less people. These individuals now free of others intervention in their local affairs could lead happier more productive lives, lives augmented by the knowledge that they survived when others didn’t.

Both events are extremely uncertain, there is more than a significant chance that either could render humanity extinct. Again there are no guarantees.

To solve the world’s problems from a practical perspective, a “perfect storm” of external circumstances must occur. By this I mean a series of circumstances which push humanity towards a state of nirvana but without reducing or devaluing the human condition. These circumstances would need to ensure sustainability of humanity for the current and future generations of the world.

The human spirit has defined itself as triumph over adversity. Nature stood against us, we have subjugated it, science perplexed us, we understood it (with the intention of bending it to our will), the universe frightens us but we have begun to explain it. Remove adversity from the mix and we would not have left the trees, we would not have invented the wheel, we would not be capable of travelling to other planets.

Human beings constantly strive for new things and are not easily satisfied. With all of these problem solving events and circumstances care must be taken to not completely sate this primordial instinct to strive for more. If this indeed sated, there is a risk we would become complacent and this complacency could lead to our extinction.

Our primordial instincts, although sometimes problematic have enabled us to become the dominant species of this planet and if maintained will enable us to proceed further on our journey.

 

© R Simmons. All Rights Reserved.