Lord Reece, the astronomer royal, has recently expressed concern about the possibility of human extinction. He has proposed a unit to research this possibility.
Humans have survived millennia of famine, disease and many calamities of their environment. So humans believe the odds are in their favour. They feel no cause for concern.
Like a thief in the night. Of all cataclysms which will face the human race, the one which might prove to be the most destructive will most likely be unpredicted, and to an extent unpredictable. It is likely to arise surreptitiously and unannounced and begin to inflict its damage unnoticed as the population adapts. They will accept change with the consoling belief of past survival as their reassurance. It is the illusionary belief in complete adaptability which will kill humans.
However the structure of the human “social organisation” has never been assailed as it is now. This loss has hardly even been questioned. Quietly, surreptitiously and widely spread, are the changes in the structure of human social organisation to which we believe we are successfully adapting.
Individualism. Humans, over the last century, have chosen to promote the cult of “individualism”. Whether humans consciously understand the overwhelming biological force which controlles them as “social animals” seems unlikely. Even the concept of what is “a social animal” has been obscured. Certainly, humans recognise that they live in societies. Humans, if pressed, will concede that they are “social beings”. However humans carefully avoid any implication that they might be “social animals” in as much as they do not believe that they parallel the psycho-mechanics of other social animals closely. Indeed there is an active endeavour on the part of most humans to proclaim their distance from every other animal, believing that they have special qualities, including those of insight and an emotional supremacy. This was, and is, the basis of the Darwinism controversy.
Humans groups as a single organism. What many humans have failed to recognise is that each “group” forms one complex organism. The individuals of that “group” can be likened to a cell in a body, each (in the ultimate measure) entirely dependent for survival by mutual contribution to the whole social organism.
This will be rapidly denied on the basis that humans are “spatially separate” and distinct “individuals” and their allegiance to other humans is frequently denied outright.
The preconception of humans is that all organisms need to be structurally adherent in order to become a ‘biological being”. However, they have forgotten, or failed to recognize, the many analogies in the biological world. Perhaps the most obvious should be, because of its close relationship with humans, the analogy with the honey bee. Each bee is an “individual” in the sense that it is not physically adherent to other members of the community. However, no honey bee can survive outside the social bondage of hive membership, and the predetermination of that bee to be a member of a specific hive. The honey bee cannot survive beyond the hive (except in that relatively rare, sporadic but social event, “swarming”). Indeed it can be illustrated that humans also “swarm” given the appropriate context and circumstances – exactly the way that the honey bee does. However, demonstrating that phenomenon should not interrupt this discussion.
Illusion of control. Together with the rise of “individualism” has come an arrogant belief that humans “control their environment” by superior intellect, reasoning, and manual abilities (it is from these claims of manual capacity that the entire domain of constructive technology has arisen). “Individualism triumphant” is a pervading belief.
“Individualism” progressively divides (and so destroys) the social unit. This destruction is aided by the complex accumulations and compressions of differing “groups” of humans into cities – which practically, emotionally and morally perturb interdependence. In this way the entire social structure begins to fragment. This fracturing is accelerated, in no small part, by massive migrations of different “groups” of humans into previously homogenous communities.
What is “Homogeny”? This is a relative term, subject to dynamic evolving change. The dimensions of this change are also complex variables, measured numerically, genetically and by time. Therefore it is relevant to impose gene, time and number frames on any debate concerning the distinctions of human “groups”. There should be no debate about the relevance of the term. However denialist arguments abound which attempt to fragment the broad concept into particles, so identifying themselves by incapacity to conceive the compound holism.
“What is a Group”? This term illustrate the division between the easily recognizable and the un-definable. The concept will be explored later in the Posts on Linguistics. However people choose to aggregate intuitively into self-selected groups, easily observed and constitutionally protected in many domains. (US First Amendment). To be thwarted in choosing a group of association often instinctively produces marked (and at times) aggressive reaction.
The slow and therefore largely unrecognized destruction of homogenous populations has been promoted, almost entirely, by the malevolent aspirations of politicians, who, in turn, see themselves as “individuals” bent on self-prominence and material acquisition.
The truest evil, the greatest evil, will be the destruction of the species, already well advanced, predictably still unnoticed but unswervingly advancing.