4. Responsibility to Preserve Mother Nature
Even though I am suggesting that humanity is destined to continue pushing itself beyond and above nature, this does not
necessarily mean that we must destroy nature in order to continue on this post-animal path. In fact, increasing awareness
of our negative impact on Earth may be just the beginning of a major re-evaluation of what it means to be a human on this planet.
It is possible
that at some point humanity will have no choice but to leave Mother Earth in order to save it while at the same time
continuing on its inexorable path beyond original nature. We may launch a panspermia that fertilizes other worlds with
DNA,
making them pseudo-biospheres (Earth being the original). In doing so, we may then allow ourselves to pursue immortality,
since we would then have more space in grow and never die.
But to be honest, I do not feel good about this kind of scenario. Perhaps we must allow our desire for immortality to be
expressed in other ways, such as in cultural artifacts, memories with loved ones, and simulated virtual worlds.
Perhaps we will be able to simulate life on earth in computers to such verisimilitude that we will be
able to cast off our physical bodies (death as we currently know it), and merge neurally into virtual reality.
This would allow us to have a cerebral
population explosion without making such an impact on the physical earth.
Or perhaps we will come to see our physical existence as so intertwined with the rest of Earth (the ultimate ecosystem - Gaia)
that we will come to associate its continued existence with our own immortality. This would require a significant erosion
of the hubris that helped bring us to our current position at the top of the food chain. But it may be the only choice we have,
considering that we rely on - and are a part of - the super-organism which is Gaia. And Gaia is alrealy far ahead of any
one individual human, as far as longevity goes.
5. Conclusion
This leads me to the question of "whose" immortality we should be concerned with. I began by talking about the physical
immortality of a single human individual. Certainly an interesting subject from a scientific and philosophical viewpoint.
And perhaps
it is something that is innate for humans - who may be thought of as the ultimate expression of the selfish gene. Dawkins
suggests that we are, after all, elaborate vehicles whose only purpose is to help the selfish gene perpetuate itself.
In fact our brains have evolved the sense of self, consciousness, and a
desire of self-preservation - perhaps as a by-product of this original accident of self-replication.
But since the notion of altruism can extend beyond the self to the immediate family,
the species, or even all of life, it may also be appropriate to associate one's need to live forever with the same
need of the larger living system of which one is a part. Therefore, I would say that there are not only
many forms of immortality, but there are also many ecological scales in which to describe this innate desire to live forever.
And so, when I associate myself with something that is greater than myself, my own death becomes easier to accept.
But even so, it would be really great to live a healthy life to age 1000. Why, I could plant 1000 trees and help Gaia
breathe just a little bit better!
|