Cells and Systems
“Cyte” Means Cell, and as used on this website
is of course meant to pun on “site” and “sight.” I’ve chosen cells (of all kinds) as a dominant metaphor for
this website for a number of reasons, but perhaps mainly because I
find it a good way to think about systems of all kinds, including
individuals, groups, government, language, and the arts, among other
subjects.
Systems Theory. A psychiatrist friend of mine once
gave me an article on “General Systems Theory.” The gist
seemed to be that any so-called entity can be viewed as a system persisting in accordance with certain principles that enable it to perpetuate its own existence and identity
yet regularly exchange material with its environment. The following
discussion reflects what I’ve worked out in relation to this
idea without any further research on the existing body of theory
known as “General Systems Theory”, so I won’t use
that term again, but will just refer to “systems theory,”
meaning the ideas expressed below relating to systems.
How Do We Identify or Define a Thing, Entity, or Category
of Entities? Such definitions are always arbitrary to some
extent. A person can be defined as an entity; so can a nation. There’s
the thing called “snow”, or if you’re an Eskimo,
there may be as many as 49 distinguishable snow-things (see http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/eskimo_words_for_snow_derby.html ). (B.t.w., we should be concerned about the currently ongoing extinctions
of whole languages because of the resulting depletion of available
conceptual diversity--an important topic in itself.)
But going beyond semantics, even things whose delineation seems less
arbitrary are less distinctly bounded than we commonly realize. First,
any thing or entity is constantly changing and interacting, however
slowly, with its environment. A rock seems like a stable object, easy
to identify; but is it the same rock an eon later, after it’s
been packed against other rock so long and exchanged so many molecules
with the other rock around it that it can no longer be cleanly chipped
apart? We’re never exactly who we thought we were, for at each
instant, we’ve already moved on from whatever could be known
about us a moment ago.
Various disciplines come up with ways to draw distinctions to define
discrete entities or categories, because they find these distinctions
useful. A carpenter distinguishes among different tools and kinds
of wood; a physicist may deal with the universe in terms of galaxies,
or sub-atomic particles. The distinctions we make enable us to define
and identify something as an object or phenomenon having a discrete
yet continuous existence through space and time. Such definitions
are artificial, however, in that they are based on whatever bits of
data can be lumped together roughly but usefully for the particular
purpose at hand, rather than on any boundaries inherent in nature.
Our definitions are artifacts of our own goal-directed physical
or mental activity; they can and do change when our purposes change.
Any “entity,” whether a nation, a person, an amoeba,
or a rock, can be viewed as a system, an agglomeration of processes. Continuous and inevitable change in the boundaries and nature
of any defined entity occurs both as a result of processes within
the entity and as a result of interaction with the environment outside
the entity. We should realize, however, that there can be no definitive
distinction between those processes we think of as internal to an
defined entity and those that involve interaction with the outside,
since all such processes ultimately connect to or affect one another
at some point, directly or indirectly. An entity is just a subset
out of a universe of systems in which everything is connected
to everything else. “If the doors of perception were
cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.”
(William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.) “Inside”
and “outside” are meaningful only relative to one another,
as different points on a continuum. The considerations set
out above appear even more obvious with entities that change or interact
more easily or quickly than rocks, such as living beings. Even the
concept of one's own self as an entity separate from one's surroundings
is an acquired one and is malleable.
This
view of things is consistent with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
in quantum mechanics, which states that it is impossible to simultaneously
measure both the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle.
The principle is sometimes described as explaining that the actions
of the observer in taking the measurements necessarily disturb the
particle being observed, but while that description as a statement
may itself be true, it does not accurately characterize the Uncertainty
Principle; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle as of July 9, 2005. Rather, even with perfect instruments and technique,
the uncertainty is said to inhere in the nature of things. The principal
is also said to apply to any system that cannot be fully characterized
by one unique "position" and one unique momentum (including
its direction); see id.
I’ve
found seeing entities as agglomerations of systems located within
larger systems to be extremely useful in thinking about many areas
of life. E.g., I think languages, cultures, religions, bodies of "knowledge,"
and artworks (among other things) can also be usefully viewed as systems.
“Full
fathom five thy father lies;
Of
his bones are coral made,
Those
are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing
of him that doth fade
But
doth suffer a sea-change
Into
something rich and strange.
Sea-nymphs
hourly ring his knell--
Burthen
Ding-dong
Hark!
now I hear them,--Ding-dong, bell."
--Act
I, scene ii, The Tempest, Shakespeare,
Moby
ed., available as of this writing at
http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/tempest/tempest.1.2.html ,
with
minor emendations by me.
In The Tempest, the lead character, Prospero, uses his magic
to put other characters through certain tribulations that result in
a transformation of their vision of themselves and their world—a
“see-change.” He shakes them up and opens
them up to new feelings and ideas. It is these changes in
how they see that midwive changes in their conduct.
The systems within themselves and of which they are part have been
forever altered.
In using ideas about systems to think about the world, I’ve
found it useful to revisit certain information about living biological
systems. The following information was obtained from a website maintained
by the University of California at Berkeley (please visit http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu for the complete, original information; see also http://regentsprep.org/Regents/biology/units/organization/life.cfm ). The anatomy and physiology of plants and animals show the complementary
nature of structure and function. Living things have structures that
carry out functions that make survival within their environment possible,
including respiration, taking in nourishment, digestion, circulation,
waste disposal, and immunity. All living things are composed of structural
and functional units called cells, the fundamental unit of life. Cells
carry on the functions needed to sustain life, including the processing
of food, growth, and cell reproduction. Disease is a breakdown in
a structure or function of an organism. Some diseases are the result
of intrinsic failures of the system; others are the result of damage
caused from outside the organism such as infection by other organisms.
The nucleus is the repository for genetic information in biological
cells. Cells divide in order to reproduce, creating daughter cells
with identical sets of chromosomes. The chromosomes contain DNA, which
is the genetic blueprint for the organism’s structure. Reproduction
is a necessary life function for the survival of species though not
of individuals.
It
seems to me that most if not all of the foregoing observations have
analogues in other kinds of entity-systems.
Perhaps the key characteristics of a living system can be
summed up as having to do with the regulation and processing of material
passing in and out of the system so as to maintain itself as a recognizable
identity or form. The article from my friend on general systems
theory pointed out that boundary and identity maintenance are key
functions of any living system. The boundaries or skin of any living
system should be neither too yielding or permeable, on the one hand,
nor too rigid or impenetrable, on the other hand. If the boundaries
are too rigid or impenetrable, interaction between the entity and
its environment will be overly restricted and the entity will likely
starve, explode, stagnate, or be unable to respond or adapt as necessary
to changing external conditions or events. An individual or group
can be destroyed through failing to take in new information or resources
quickly enough. On the other hand, if the boundaries are too soft
or permeable, the entity may be too vulnerable to deformation by outside
pressures or to attack, or to being depleted, or otherwise destabilized
or overwhelmed to the point that it either disintegrates or is changed
beyond recognition.
This model is also consistent with other theories to the effect that
entities need contact with the environment around them, but that it
can also be a problem if there’s unmoderated “boundary-crossing.”
E.g., isolation is hard on most people’s emotional health; while
on the other hand, in response to someone who bullies or is unduly
intrusive, it’s usually best to stand up to her or him and maintain
firm boundaries.
Similarly, we are both attracted to that which is foreign, or "other,"
and afraid of it, sometimes to the point of xenophobia. We probably
evolved both propensities, though at odds with one another, because
having both is more helpful to survival than having either alone.
My theory also suggests there may be optimal velocities or rates at
which various functions might be performed, i.e., rates of change
that balance the need for growth and the need for stability, given
the exigencies of the environment in which the system exists. For
a system to be healthy in the sense of surviving in identifiable form,
it seems a balance is needed between softness and hardness,
openness and closedness, and between rapid and slow rates of change.
For
example, if a language becomes too closed and fixed, it can cease
to evolve, become less relevant, and stagnate. On the other hand,
if it's too open, with new usages being adopted before most of the
population using the language have time to learn them, or without
regard for whether the new usages enhance or degrade the power of
the language, then its usual main purpose--clear communication--can
be undermined.
The systems model also highlights the importance of various factors
affecting the merit of a given system of government. For example,
among
the things that make the U.S. system of government great are that
it tolerates great diversity and permits a great deal of interaction
among individuals within and with those outside its borders (in the
free flow and exchange of information and in distributed decision-making,
among other respects), while still assuring considerable stability
through “checks and balances” and other structures or
safeguards that take into account the inherent tendencies (predictable
processes) within various constituencies.
It also seems likely that aspects of systems theory could
shed light with respect to the appropriate size or scale in which
various functions might best be performed. For example, when
we decide to provide for decision-making or funding with respect to
any function to be handled nationally or at a state or local level,
be it education, environmental regulation, stock market regulation,
reproductive rights, or whatever, the decision should not be based
blindly on mantras relating to states’ rights or federalism
but upon intelligible reasons having to do with where such functions
might naturally be better performed.
This model is also consistent with experience in suggesting that it
can be very difficult to “help” an individual or group
to achieve what the helper considers a higher level of development
before such individual or group is “ready.” Obviously,
the factors that affect such efforts are very complex, but it would
seem that an attempt to force a system to make a great developmental
leap would have to involve (1) destroying and replacing significant
portions of the system’s existing structures and functions or
(2) forcing the system to ingest and incorporate large amounts of
new material. Either would likely destabilize the system, with the
risk that the organism might resist or be traumatized or destroyed.
(A recent example might be the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. purportedly proposed
to bring democracy to Iraq. The first thing
done was not only to remove Saddam Hussein
but to eliminate most of the systems for maintaining public order. This was like decapitating an individual and expecting either that the body would
quickly sprout a new head or that one could slap
on a replacement as easily as a new hat.)
A question that has recurred to me in the course of writing various
portions of these essays is, what is the relationship between
process and structure? Is it meaningful to distinguish between
processes that result in structures and structures that generate processes?
Each seems to determine the other, posing the chicken-and-egg problem
that neither can be said to come before or be more fundamental than
the other. Or are process and structure two sides of the same thing--perhaps
we’re more likely to identify as “structure” those
aspects of a system that change relatively slowly, while we’re
more likely to identify as “process” those aspects of
a system that change relatively quickly? (I once noted an idea for
a work to be called, “The Speed of Burning.” The concept
was that everything is burning, and that what primarily distinguishes
different kinds of things is their different burn rates. To be related
to the urban legend about people spontaneously combusting. Creation
being some kind of reverse burn?)
Attempts to Repress or Wall Off. Another appealing
aspect of this theory is how it illustrates the results of attempts
to cut off communication or amputate or repress portions of a system
deemed troublesome or undesirable. If you try to cut off circulation
to your foot, the foot is without blood and nourishment, and you are
cut off from sensory information from the foot and from the use of
the foot. At some point, the foot sickens and dies. At best, you lose
the foot; at worst, it may take you with it.
Similar phenomena occur in the psychic lives of individuals and groups
in the forms of repression, denial, and disregard. Generally, when
an individual or group attempts to systematically cut off a portion
of itself from expression or other contact, sooner or later the attempt
fails, and meanwhile the whole has suffered at least some harm from
the repression--often more than would have resulted if a way had been
found to allow the expression or contact to take place. The repressed
feelings or ideas don’t disappear. Rather, they may accumulate
until the internal pressure so great that they “explode”
in an inappropriate outburst, or they may “leak out” by
being diverted toward different and usually less appropriate objects
than the one that originally incited them, or by being vented in disguised
forms, such as inappropriate behavior or mangled expressions that
have unintended effects. Such repression may also have effects such
as that: (1) the isolated portion is deprived of the possibly beneficial
effects of interaction with the other portions of the system, and
any hope of growth or development for the isolated portion is foreclosed;
and (2) the rest of the system is left to cope without any of the
assistance or information that might otherwise be available from the
isolated part. Moreover, the rest of system may no longer even know
what the isolated portion is up to.
Of course, there are times when completely cutting off interaction
with part of a system is the least of evils. If your foot is gangrenous,
amputation may be absolutely necessary to save your life. But because
of all the detrimental effects of complete ex-communication, there
are relatively few instances when total or near-total ex-communication
or annihilation is truly the best option. (See the discussion regarding
the death penalty in the essay on this website entitled, "Governmental
and Economic Systems.")
I would argue that these considerations should make us reluctant
to wall off or destroy portions of the universe of systems of which
we all are part, that even if we determine such measures
to be absolutely necessary, we should carefully weigh the destructive
consequences--the losses on all sides of information, resources, and
growth--against the hoped-for benefits, and that we should make sure
that any such measures taken are no more drastic than truly needed.
It may take more work in the short term to create ways to
safely permit interaction, but that effort often pays off in the long
run.
(If
you feel you already grasp of the perils of repression within individuals
and groups, you might want to skip to the heading, "Value of
Diversity," below.)
Repression or Denial Within Individuals. Individuals
attempting repression of internal parts of themselves don’t
usually recognize the full extent of what they lose by it; or if they
do, they nonetheless believe the danger threatened by the repressed
part warrants the repression. With some effort and imagination, however,
it is often possible to find a way for the repressed part to be expressed
safely, such as verbally, to a therapist. And psychologists tell us
that through such expression, the person may come to better understand
the true causes of her or his disturbing feelings or ideas, find better
ways of dealing with them, not only becoming less prone to inappropriate
outbursts or poorly-directed or -masked behavior or expressions but
also becoming better-integrated internally and in relation to the
person’s environment.
A recent New York Times article discussed the view of a minority of
psychologists that people who repress with respect to traumatic experiences
fare better both in the short- and long-term than people who don’t
repress. See “Repress Yourself,” February 23, 2003. I
think there are some important distinctions that should be considered
in connection with such a view.
First, and most importantly, repression or denial doesn’t occur
just in response to trauma. Some individuals or groups engage in a
great deal of denial or disregard simply through misguided self-interest
or neglect, because of concerns regarding cost or convenience or guilty
feelings that may not be warranted or helpful. For example, we’ve
used affirmative action for a while to try to remedy the effects of
racial discrimination. Now that bandage has begun to chafe, but some
of us fear that to really solve the problem might be very expensive
or difficult, so we prefer to pretend either that significant discrimination
no longer exists or that the problem is insoluble. We’d rather
blind ourselves, that is, than admit we’re not willing to do
what it takes. But by kidding ourselves about the facts, we close
ourselves off from any discussion of alternative solutions and any
cost-benefit or other analysis about them.
It seems pretty clear that when the purpose of denial is not
to protect us from being overwhelmed by traumatic experiences, but
rather to protect us from inconvenience, expense, or our own guilty
feelings, then denial cannot be helpful and may likely be harmful
to some degree. We can’t solve all problems; but we’re
usually better off at least acknowledging their existence and analyzing
their causes and alternative solutions in an open way.
When denial is used in response to actual trauma, the analysis is
more complicated. I believe it’s quite possible in the course
of talk therapy for a therapist to inadvertently encourage the patient
to elaborate and expand a trauma or troubling incident beyond what
the patient actually experienced, even unconsciously. Memories are
incomplete and malleable constructs. I experience a troubling event;
my senses take in only so much of it; my cognitive faculties make
only so much of it; I have certain conscious and unconscious emotional
reactions both at the time and perhaps later; some but not all of
all this is actually retained in various places in my brain. Subsequently,
even without any intent to distort my experience, I may elaborate
on it, either consciously or unconsciously, in my efforts to integrate
and make sense of the information. These elaborations may or may not
be accurate relative to the facts of what actually happened, and they
may or may not be of such a nature as to be helpful to me in the short-
or long-run. Nonetheless, whatever I’ve retained or fabricated
about the experience may include genuine emotions or useful information.
If I’m encouraged to spend more time re-living my pain than
I otherwise would, or to re-construct my memories in such a way as
to feel the experience to have been more painful than it “really”
was, that would certainly seem to be harmful.
On the other hand, I believe that at least sometimes, “talk
therapy” can be truly helpful in two ways. One way is in simply
retrieving factual information that had been repressed or disregarded
because one felt powerless to act on it, it was too upsetting, or
other reasons. Once retrieved, the information might be useful in
understanding one’s own role in the past, perhaps recognizing
the ways one's own reactions played into unfolding events and at the
same time realizing that one has felt excessively culpable given the
small degree of control one may really have had, avoiding unnecessary
repetition of the same reactions in the future, and in validating
one’s past and present feelings.
This raises a distinction that may not have been addressed in the
research mentioned in the NYT article: whether or not the traumatic
event is of a nature that the patient can avoid it in the future.
In other words, if the traumatic event is a brush with death, well,
in some ways we can reduce our risk of premature death, and attaining
a full understanding of how the brush with death came about could
be useful both in helping us to avoid repeating it and also in gaining
some sense of control over it. On the other hand, we’re all
going to die sooner or later, and if the brush with death was of such
a nature that the patient is warranted in concluding that she or he
cannot get any real control over the risk and could die at any moment,
then it may be less likely that dwelling on the traumatic event will
be helpful.
For at least some of us, however, there’s another benefit of
talk therapy or similar efforts that might be worthwhile even in that
extreme case; that is, catharsis. A lengthy and illuminating cathartic
process that I went through helped to diminish what once seemed to
me to be a bottomless ocean of grief. And although the prospect of
my own death feels sufficiently far off that I’d just as soon
not think about it too much right now, I grieve it at every funeral
I go to (along with, of course, the death of the deceased), I know
the prospect of my own death has motivated much of my work on this
website, and once my death appears more imminent, I hope I’ll
have time to vent a lot more about it, because I believe that going
through that emotional process will also make me more aware of facts
and priorities that I’ll want to express or act on before I
die.
Also, I believe some people are subject to greater extremes of emotional
reaction and intensity than others. I am not sure how this affects
whether or not repression might be harmful, but it seems it could
be a factor.
Repression Within Groups. The same patterns can be
observed in larger entities such as nations or other groups. Attempts
to repress, eliminate, banish, or isolate individuals or groups have
similar effects. (E.g., see discussion of the death penalty in the
essay on this site entitled, "Miscellaneous Other Systemic Issues.")
Consider the reactions of New York City and Washington, D.C. residents
to 9-11, the anthrax mailings, and the D.C. sniper. Understandably,
they--perhaps particularly people working in government and the media,
since they were the targets of the anthrax mailings--seem more traumatized
by those events than the rest of the country. I have the general impression
that some are also more willing to acquiesce in what I consider to
be extreme, unwarranted and unhelpful reactions to the perceived terrorist
threat (I put the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq into this category).
It seems to me we have three basic options. We can go into denial
about the danger, and risk doing too little. We can recognize the
dangers only too well, but fail to recognize the effects on us of
our own emotions, specifically, that our emotions are causing us to
overreact or to react inappropriately--by, e.g., fearing everything
different from ourselves, or ceding too much power to police authorities
without requiring them to focus its use appropriately--and to do ourselves
more harm than good. Or we can try to recognize both the dangers and
our emotional reactions, to face the fact that as mortals, we are
subject to a degree of vulnerability and helplessness that can never
be fully remedied, to take what reasonable actions we can without
overreacting, and for the rest, to try to understand that we must
live with a certain level of irreducible fear and horror--but that
that needn't destroy all our joys. This may be difficult and at times
even impossible to do; but I think it’s extremely worthwhile
for us at least to make the conscious effort. (The decision by the
U.S. to invade Iraq certainly appears to me to have been irrational.)
Personally,
I think we need to hear more from psychologists about the emotional
disorders of societies at large.
Value of Diversity. Systems seem to benefit from
diversity, if not so extreme as to overwhelm the system. By this I
mean some level of diversity both within the organism, in terms of
its capabilities, as well as in the system’s environment. For
example, I understand children’s exposure to various pathogens
is believed to help them to develop robust immune systems.
Similarly, a species as a whole benefits from some level of genetic
diversity within itself. I once read of a study purporting to show
that twins separated at birth tend to share liberal or conservative
political persuasions. It would make sense for diversity in such tendencies
to be perpetuated genetically, since populations that include both
people who tend to be “open” to change (progressives)
and people who tend to resist it (conservatives) probably survive
better than populations in which just one of those two attitudes is
expressed.
Even traits that you might think could safely be presumed defective
sometimes prove to have unforeseen benefits. Sickle-cell anemia results
from a genetic mutation and causes chronic anemia and severe infections,
usually beginning in early childhood. However, while people who inherit
the sickle-cell gene from both parents are more likely to die before
reproducing, people who inherit the gene on just one side have some
sickle cells and some normal cells and so are less affected by the
disease, plus they have an advantage over people who don't have any
sickle-cells at all, in that the sickle cells are much less vulnerable
to attack by the malaria virus. Accordingly, in parts of the world
where epidemics of malaria tend to recur, higher rates of the sickle-cell
gene persist. (See the National Center for Biotechnology Information
website at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/sickle.html for confirmation
of some of the foregoing.) The gene may not be good for the individual
that carries it on both sides, but the persistence of the gene in
at least a portion of the population is good for the survival of the
population.
I have a suspicion that similar processes might account for the persistence
of individuals prone to depression, anxiety, or paranoia. Even though
it may be true that individuals' own personal welfare is usually better
served by optimism, it's quite possible that depressives or paranoiacs,
anticipating and preparing for the worst, might survive better under
adverse conditions and might also serve as "canaries in the mine
shaft" for their communities. Indeed, I believe it's pretty well
conceded among many psychotherapists that many depressives have a
more realistic view of the world than their more optimistic brethren.
Diversity
in sources of information seems equally important to the welfare of
social organizations; for more on this subject, see the essay on this
site entitled, "What Can We Know?"
Consistency with Other Philosophies. Various philosophies
also seem consistent with my systems point of view. Energy
and information are like water in the sense in which that
image is used in the ancient Chinese oracle, the I Ching.
You can dam it up, but you must then engage in continual maintenance
and repairs to the dam; and despite such efforts and expense, your
success will never be more than partial. The water continues to flow,
and sooner or later, most of it either overflows the dam or escapes
through evaporation.
Similarly, to summarize very roughly, Lao Tzu recommends in the Tao
Teh King that we observe nature and try to work with
it rather than against it.
A concept from Buddhism and Hinduism that's consistent with the systems
point of view is that of "dharma." There
are many varieties and nuances of this concept, but as I understand, dharma basically has to do with the essential natures or natural
tendencies of things, and Buddhists and Hindus believe it's
generally preferable for many reasons to try to live in such a way
as to work with these natural tendencies rather than against them;
for my purposes, perhaps the best synonym for dharma might be "efficiency."
Similarly, in Plato's Republic, justice is defined
as that state or condition in which each part of society performs
that function for which it is by its own nature best suited. For further application of this principle, see the essay on this website
entitled, "Governmental and Economic Systems."
I believe in the future we will further develop our understanding
of the general principals applicable to systems, including among other
things such factors as the balances between diversity and homogeneity,
scale (i.e., the trade-offs or balances between large- and small-scale
systems), velocity (slow vs. fast rates of change), operational structures
or procedures that enhance flexibility while maintaining stability
and productivity, and the processes of self- and other-identification.
Founding Principles; Natural Life-Spans. The axioms
or principles on which a nation or other system is founded, its constitution,
are like its DNA; they constitute the blue-print for the structures
that will shape the processes necessary for the nation's or other
system's survival and welfare. We can infer that such a blue-print
might provide for versions of the functions mentioned above for living
cells: ingestion, digestion, circulation, excretion, and immunity.
Plato proposed that if the founding principles of a republic are chosen
carefully, it is more likely to thrive as long as possible. Nonetheless,
in a passage in the eighth book of Plato’s Republic,
Plato
| |
“refers
to a mysterious geometric or 'fatal' number in order to explain why it
is that even perfectly constituted republics—those that do not
contain within
themselves the seeds of their own decay and ruin—decline nevertheless
after the passage of many years into the first of four degenerate forms
ending in a tyranny: into a contentious timarchy governed by the passionate
pursuit of honor and 'a fierce secret longing' for money instead of
justice and the good.” |
(description from Nuptial Arithmetic: Marsilio Ficino's Commentary
on the Fatal Number in Book VIII of Plato's Republic, by
Michael J.B. Allen, Berkeley : University of California Press, 1994,
at http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6j49p0qv ). It seems that, no
matter how successful any system or entity is, none is immortal; all
systems have a natural life-span.
J. Richard Gott III, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, has
argued that the length of time that an individual, species, or event
is likely to continue or endure can be predicted by a formula based
on the Copernican principle that, absent contrary evidence, any given
time and place in the universe should be assumed not to be exceptional.
According to Gott’s theory, a prediction can be made as to how
much longer a person, species or event will survive in the future
if you know how long it’s already existed and you know how long
similar types of things have survived in the past. The vast majority
of species known to have come into existence on Earth have already
expired. Based on what’s known about the periods of time that
other mammalian species have survived, Gott’s formula indicates
there’s a 95% chance that the human species, which has existed
for 200,000 years, will probably die out sometime between 5100 and
7.8 million years from now. See The New Yorker, July 12,
1999.
If
you find that thought disturbing, please see the other essays on this
site, especially What Can We Know?,
What Do We Mean by Meaning?, Good
and Bad, and The Meaning of Life.
(Proceed to the next Essay, The Arts and Literature, or . . .
