Future Human Evolution?

    I remember my mother, when I was about 10 years old, saying words to the effect that: "... many thoughtful, wise, educated people suggest that humanity has stopped evolving now ... that we evolved this far over the last three to four billion years but have now reached where we were 'intended' to reach in biological terms."  She stated, furthermore, her belief that our future evolution would be in terms of cultural change, not biological change.  These words had a deep effect on me as they both gave me deeper insight into my mother's character and beliefs and, at the same time, distanced me further from her.  To my mother, although she was not stating this as unquestionable dogma, the lack of future biological evolution in humanity was a comforting thought which helped to unify her educated belief in science and evolution with her "fuzzier" Christian faith in the presence of a God who wanted us to live forever, after death, in heaven.  I suspect most people of faith share some similar version of this belief.

    I have heard what amounts to the same view expressed by many atheist and agnostic friends, colleagues and acquaintances.  They do not share my mother's belief in a teleological universe ruled by the plan of an intelligence intending to create us by means of evolution, but neither do they seem to be able to envisage a future in which evolution continues to operate on humanity in any meaningful way.  They do not even foresee our deliberately manipulating the genes of our children and their children's children's children in any great way other than minor tinkering with factors such as aging or general susceptibility to various diseases.  In short, almost everyone I know seems to believe that evolution has all but ceased forever to operate on humanity.

    To me that concept evokes a sense of sadness, if not outright horror.  To suggest that we would not, could not or should not evolve further sounds to me more like a prison sentence than an affirmation of our present glory.  I do not mean to suggest that I believe in a ladder-like 'upward' directionality to evolution; I do not believe that.  What I do envision and hope for is a future in which humanity will change to meet myriad challenges in myriad environments, perhaps on many different worlds throughout the universe.  Resultantly, I foresee us developing into myriad different forms, mental as well as physical. Science fiction tends to portray 'more evolved' intelligences as little more than modern human intelligences with a few fancy skills added, such as teleportation or telekinesis or telepathy.  But why should our descendants not change mentally as drastically as we have changed from our most ancient ancestors?

    My mother viewed us, in comparison with our distant descendants, as grandparents in comparison with adult grandchildren.  These grandchildren, in her view, would have different experiences and more advanced knowledge, but would remain comfortably familiar both in physique and in mentality.  In contrast, I view us in comparison to our distant descendants as bacteria might be compared to worms, worms compared to lizards or as lizards compared to modern humans.  Perhaps, among at least some of our descendants, should they manage to avoid total extinction, some form of multi-unit intelligence might arise, functioning analogously to the way individual cells in our bodies function together to create what seems to each of us to be a single thinking creature.  Should we be any more horrified by that possibility than an intelligent bacterium should be at the existence of a modern, multicellular human?

Packs, Cliques and Growing Up (Too) Slowly

    Have you every really examined and thought about the inter-personal dynamics in your office (workplace)?  I have come to the sad conclusion, not only from my own experience, but from reams of stories told to me by others about their workplaces, that most people, whatever their education, ethnic background or way of life, have a mentality that is very destructive to the proper functioning of that workplace.  There is a kind of mentality which gets its opinions largely from the opinions of whoever they are surrounded by.  They don't like mixed messages; they prefer 'purity' of message.  Therefore, they work to build exclusive cliques of like-minded people so that the opinions and messages they receive are not disturbing to them.  Opposition is always disturbing to such a mentality.

    They do not like to think that other groups (cliques, mentalities), who are not similar enough to be part of their clique, are valid or have valid, though opposing, views and opinions.  Therefore they engage in constant self-reinforcement through both positive and negative means.  On the positive (not necessarily good) side, they engage in frequent and overly dramatic praise for anything done, said or worn by other members of their particular clique.  On the negative side, they engage in frequent 'back-stabbing' whisper campaigns of character assassination against any other person, not of their clique, who has the misfortune (or poor taste in their view) to make his/her opposing opinions publicly known, even if only overheard from a distance.  To this mentality, any opposing view must, as quickly as possible, be pointed out to the rest of the clique and the offender quickly converted, conscripted or ostracized.  The ostracized will be subjected to general character assassination.  Conscripts are weaker mentalities who are conscripted through the threat of ostracism and character assassination.  Converts, though usually not large in number, serve to reinforce the view that they, the clique, are correct and 'pure' in their views, else why would anyone convert?  In my experience, most people, whatever their age, education, ethnicity or professed philosophy or religion, are of just this sort of exclusionist mentality.

    We all know the above to be the usual state-of-affairs among young teenagers.  We write it off as the result of immature individuals trying to figure out what they believe as they are, often for the first time in their lives, exposed to serious discussions of some of the great problems and issues of human society.  But why would this situation continue to govern the workplace dynamics among so-called mature adults?  Can we simply write it off here as "Because most adults aren't really all that mature."?  I don't think so; that simply begs the question of how to define maturity or 'when does a person reach adulthood'.  We are a social 'pack animal'.  Why would so many feel the urge to engage in social dynamics which can seriously harm or destroy the general pack dynamic in the workplace, thereby harming or risking harm to the work itself, not over questions directly related to the work, but over matters which do not directly relate to or affect the work at all?

    When so much of what we love about our society and our lives can be shown to have resulted from the interplay of social diversities, why do the majority continue to fear and loath that diversity so much.  I've always found that diversity of opinion is something to be actively sought.  Far from threatening my opinions, opposition helps me to correct and refine my opinions and, of course,  many many millions of people around the world feel the same way.  Why do the majority reject diversity of opinion so strongly?  Any ideas on the matter would be very welcome.

Coalition Governments in Canadian Politics

    Currently, in Canada, we have a do-nothing, minority Conservative Government which appears determined not to do anything until it can form a majority government; a position the Canadian public, thankfully, has to-date been unwilling to give them. What we are left with is a continuously unstable parliament in which the governing party will not take major action and the various opposition parties cannot effectively take action. This situation will not change until we get leaders who have the maturity and genuine public interest it takes to work in coalition with a majority of the elected Members of Parliament, rather than serving only their own selfish and narrowly-defined party interests. Whatever his drawbacks (and I suspect they are far fewer than Harper's), Michael Ignatieff at least has the proven ability and willingness to form and work with a coalition government of all of the opposition parties.

    Rather than deriding him for this ability and fear-mongering about coalition, as Harper and his cronies have been doing, we should be praising Ignatieff and the other opposition party leaders for showing just the kind of maturity and co-operative spirit that leads to good, effective parliamentary action in service of Canadians, rather than of the agenda of any single party. Let's be very careful, as concerned Canadian voters, not to forget that our parliamentary, party-based system of government has the ability to form coalition government deliberately built-in. It is our last defense, other than through armed insurrection, against our own bad government. Michaelle Jean did Canada no favour in granting Harper a 'stay-of-execution' late last year.

    In order to form a coalition government, a majority of the duly elected members of Parliament must come together with the intention of working co-operatively with each other to govern the nation. What else is any majority governing party than just that? A coalition government, given our current party breakdown in Canadian politics, cannot consist, as our current Conservative government does, of a minority of those elected members. A coalition government is, thereby, far more democratic and inclusive in its makeup and in its actions. Let us as Canadians reject the Conservatives' fear-mongering about the other Members of Parliament elected by Canadians to represent them. A coalition government may not be as un-defeatable as a majority government, but that can be seen as a good thing, requiring that our governance be based on a more inclusive cross-section of the wishes and expectations of Canadians. I recommend that we embrace the concept of a coalition government as much to be preferred over any minority government and over some majority governments that we have had in the past or may have in the future.