The Brass Swan Cosmology
by
John Pallyn
© 1991 by John Pallyn

Introduction
This is the Brass Swan Cosmology. A Cosmology is a study of the Cosmos, or all encompassed by the structure of the Universe. A Brass Swan is simply a Brass Swan. I call this the Brass Swan Cosmology only to differentiate it from any other cosmology. No other inferences should be drawn from the title.
Obviously, this is not a complete study of all that is known. That would require a nearly infinite volume continually updated until the end of time. Being a finite inhabitant of this Universe, I have chosen a less arduous course. The design of these essays is to give a collective overview of the realm of Human experience. This is our Cosmos, our Universe. The following essays originate from an individual Human Being. As a result, they will not be accepted as the definitive word on the Human experience. The Human condition, however, is not so nebulous, nor knowledge so unattainable that we cannot arrive at some basic conclusions about ourselves and the Universe we inhabit. We therefore proceed on the best information available. When a new discovery is made, a new insight realized, previous concepts must change accordingly. Knowledge is a nearly infinite ladder with new rungs being continually added as new insights are proven a more accurate definition of our world. Each new step depends on the step before it. We will never reach the top of the ladder.
Yet, many have reached the top of the ladder simply because they have stopped their ascent. Most of the religions and political thought that currently dominate the world are rooted in thinking thousands of years old. While some aspects of the Human experience have remained constant during that time, most ideas about our place in the Universe have been radically altered. The philosophical truths at any time in Human history are dependent on the quality of the knowledge at that time. It is unreasonable to expect that the best thinking of three thousand years ago be readily transplanted to a relevant position in modern philosophy.
This is the underlying force behind these essays. The Brass Swan Cosmology is an exploration of the Universe based on our current position on the ladder of knowledge. After the first chapter, which explains the basis for our thinking, I will be taking major category topics, in turn, explaining the underlying principles of our perception of the Universe and ourselves. These conclusions are in no way dogmatic. With better information, I will change my position in order to fit more closely with the new information. I will no doubt, in time, make some revisions in what I have presented here. This is the nature of Human knowledge.
I have endeavored to present my conclusions as clearly as possible. Nothing should be inferred or read into, except at the most fundamental level. These essays are not designed to create a following of any kind. They are a personal exploration in a public arena.

Chapter One
Relatively Speaking
I live in a suburb of Los Angeles. This is a relatively simple statement of a fact. Unfortunately, it is open to a wide range of interpretations. First, let us examine Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a word that defines a major population center on the coast of Southern California. It is a physical area with its boundaries defined on a map. I would think, however, that the first thing that would come to the mind of a reader when reading the first line of this chapter would not be a geographical description of Los Angeles. A long-term resident of Los Angeles would have a different set of references from someone who has never been to Los Angeles. Writing that I live in a suburb of Los Angeles is hardly exact. The area in which I reside was not considered a suburb only twelve years ago. The area, in which I grew up, fifteen miles closer to Los Angeles, was not considered a suburb twenty-five years ago. A cartographer, however, might suggest that I actually do not live in a suburb of Los Angeles, but rather of San Bernardino, a population center to the east. San Bernardino, is after all, the nearest large city. The expansion of the suburbs however, has occurred outward from Los Angeles, not San Bernardino. In this context, the statement that I live in a suburb of Los Angeles is correct. I feel like a dog chasing its own tail. Where is the conclusion to this simple line of thought?
There is no end because there are no parameters to the question. There was no end to the above discourse because there were no boundaries. If the question were asked of me, “Where do you live?” the opening statement would have been quite adequate without further extrapolation. It depends on the parameters of the question. A casual acquaintance would be satisfied, but a foreign businessman looking to relocate in the area might enjoy my little demographic discourse. Here we go again, the boundaries are falling. The reason for this confusion is that included in language is information that is taken for granted. Like a geometric proof, Humans communicate with a certain number of givens, or preconceived notions about the communication. Unlike a geometric proof, Human communication does not establish rigid boundaries around the question or the answer.
This is a book, primarily about philosophy. This establishes a certain number of expectations in the mind of the reader. One of these expectations is that the author will not be discussing geography. When I started by discussing geography, the reader assumed that it was to illustrate some other point. In this instance, the assumption was correct. No harm was done. No expectations were dissolved. It is these assumptions that are inherited with the use of language that provide us with some of our greatest stumbling blocks on the road to understanding. Yet, without certain assumptions communication in the medium of language would be pointless.
Let us start from the beginning. Words are taught to us as symbols. We are shown a picture of a tree. We are told, "tree", and we are shown the written expression of that vocalization. We are taught to recognize objects in our environment, vocalize them, and memorize their written equivalent. It is this process that adds substance to something as ethereal as language. We learn the concrete nouns of our environment first because they are the easiest to represent and assimilate. They provide the basis for understanding the complex relationships that have to be expressed by language. It would be useless to try to explain the concept of time without first explaining the device we use to measure it. This method of learning has its drawbacks.
It is easy to mistake time for clocks. We feel cheated is our watches run down and lose time. We have expressions in the English language such as: "Time flies when you’re having fun", or "Where has the time gone to?” These expressions reveal our sense of time as some sort of physical quantity allocated to each individual at birth until your "Time runs out". Unfortunately, the physical Universe is not run on our clocks. One of the great leaps of imagination in this century was to realize that time was a dimension of space. Time, like three-dimensional space, is relative to the point of view of the observer. Time is not the same for an observer in an intense gravitational field relative to an observer on Earth. Despite this insight into the nature of the Universe, our language has not changed in its conception of time. There has been no need to change. The concept of time we teach to our children is more than adequate, as it is expressed in our language, to function with absolute certainty. It is not likely that any of us will need any advanced notion of time in our daily affairs.
It is this use of language that presents us with a dichotomy that pervades our language, and therefore the way in which we experience our world. Language serves as the template we use to express our cosmos to other Human Beings. Yet, as I have illustrated, it is often imprecise and on occasion completely inaccurate. An example of this dichotomy is the system of justice administered by the government. Someone accused of digressing the law is not immediately punished for his or her actions. Their digression must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a trial ensues, the representatives of the government will attest to the guilt of the person charged with the offence. The person charged with the offence will then attest to his innocence. Each side will present evidence on behalf of their positions. A judge or jury will decide which position is the more valid of the two. That decision can be rejected by another court. So it goes.
The problem comes back to the use of language. Laws in the United States of America are written in the English language. The laws are written is such a way as to be specific about their purposes. Any written law, however, cannot cover the wide range of Human activities. Written in the English language, it cannot be perfectly specific about what it encompasses in the social relationships of man. The inherent inexactness of the language opens it to interpretations that can take multifarious forms. Language is itself an act of imagination. We connect words with a mental symbolism that is unique to each individual. We create our own dictionaries based on our experiences. The six billion dictionaries running around this planet are nearly identical in general and individual in particular. When a person is on trial for a crime, he is either guilty of committing the crime or he is not. Very few cases fall into the category where it would be impossible to make a distinction between the two alternatives. Nevertheless, the courts are filled with such cases. Individual motivations, and the imprecise nature of the vehicle of truth, language, turn the prospects for finding the truth into something of a word game.
The dictionary is a circle. Definition of a word depends on knowing words. The word being defined is itself defined by words. This is the reason we are taught words like tree, dog and cat before we are taught catharsis, symbolic, and bucolic. The language works its way up from the concrete to the ethereal. In doing so, the impressions we learned in our childhood are reflected in the attitudes we express as adults. Our language provides a means of expressing ourselves. Yet we are influenced in our language by the way we were taught the language. We are influenced in our thoughts by language, for language is the most accurate expression for the way we think.
Science does not have this problem. Its language does not stray into the conjectural aspects of English. It is black or white, guilty or innocent. 2 + 2=4. S=KlogW. The circumference of a circle is equal to its diameter times pi. The language of mathematics is at the same time accurate and eternal. The geometry of Pythagoras is as useful today as it was at the time of its invention. The statement: 2+2=4, does not alter over time. Unlike most Human knowledge, mathematics and a large portion of science have been proven and are without dispute. No one chooses sides over calculus. There are no cults of true believers practicing a radical form of trigonometry.
This is true only when the answers are tied to a question that is fundamental in its nature. In mathematics, to the question 2+2=?, there is only one correct answer. The answer does not have to be deduced, only worked out. Computers are extremely proficient at mathematical analysis. As long as the rules and instructions are correctly followed, the result will be correct. The correct result is the only result that is correct. This is not the case in Human language.
The language of science is exact. Most Human interactions do not require this degree of accuracy. The requirements of math in daily life are not so great that we need to know much about them. We seem to get along very well with the inaccurate substitute of the English language. It would be incredibly cumbersome to conduct our lives using math as our means of communication. The very lack of precision in the English language is precisely what makes it the preferred form of communication. The ability to communicate effectively in a very short time those things in our lives that need to be related to others is the strength of language. It is the underlying concepts of language that are its weakness.
Children are brought up in a society and a language that reflects that society. Society, language, and mathematics all come with a number of preset fundamental ideas, which are assumed true. They allow us to explore increasingly complex concepts with certainty. If, however, we were to find out that 2 is not twice 1, but rather the square root of 1, everything we know about math would be wrong. The same conditions apply to everything we are taught in our own language. If our definition of a tree is inaccurate, it would follow that our definition of complex concepts based on an accurate definition of "tree" would also be in error. A person growing up in one of the more arid regions of the world might not have a full definition of a tree and would therefore have difficulty in explaining a familiar concept like "family tree". The same problem results from someone who is given an inaccurate definition for love, government, or people with black skin. The fundamental words we learn as children enable us to increase our store of knowledge. Incorrect or imprecise definitions can just as effectively stunt intellectual growth.
I would be hard pressed to find anyone with an inaccurate definition of the word "tree", or "dog". It would not require much time to find conflicting definitions for the word "God" or "love". The fundamental concrete nouns we learn as children are safe and secure in their meanings as long as they are expressed fundamentally. Even a complex word such as "God" can be defined without any consternation as it is in the dictionary. If I ask you, however, to define your God, we are going to run into trouble. Your definition will more than likely stray somewhat, if not completely, from the dictionary definition. I have changed the question. Instead of asking;" Define your God", the question may be more appropriately asked: "Explain to me your view of your existence in the Cosmos dependent on but not exclusive of an Entity, Entities, or Force that is responsible for your existence and travels through time-space including any influence exerted on your existence by aforementioned Entity, Entities, or Force". I must insist at this point that I am not being flippant. This is the shortest version of the question I could come up with, and still maintains some small measure of accuracy. A small measure it is. If I really want an accurate answer, the question must be equally as accurate as the desired response. Alternatively, I could simply ask you to explain your personal concept of God. I would probably get a satisfactory answer.
Along with the assumptions contained in the simplified version of the question, the likely response will be based on my assumptions about God and the Universe. If the question has been asked of someone with similar basic definitions of words and their meanings, the simplified question is adequate. If, however, the question is being asked by someone who has not acquired the same definitions of certain basic concepts, the differences will be reflected in the answer. It is taken for granted that a person whose origins lie in Japan will not have the same associations with words, even those in English, as a person whose origins are in the United States. People from different regions of a particular country can display variations in the exact meanings of many words.
In addition, these are just environmental considerations. The way in which each of us assembles our own lexicon, and applies meanings to our words depends on a variety of factors. Certainly, our religion, or the lack thereof, has an influential impact. Our social and economic status, gender, and abilities all contribute to our own particular definition of the world through the language. This is true of our own personal experience, but those who taught us our words carry their own intellectual and cultural baggage that was passed along with the meanings of words. Parents, in particular, encode not only genetic predispositions, but also moral and philosophical attributes in the presentation of language.
If, for instance, I were to go to a local shopping mall and begin to burn an American flag. I would no doubt be stopped from burning the flag, or at least chastised for my action. This is an assured response. The people passing by would have been educated using the same standards as I encountered, my parents encountered, and my children will encounter concerning the American flag. In a general sense, if I asked people why they stopped me from burning the flag, I would get some sort of answer relating to patriotism. All citizens are required to attend school. All schools have American flags and will instruct students that the flag is an important symbol of their country. As such, it requires that a certain amount of respect be accorded to it and it is to be handled only in those ways that do not create dishonor. This is precisely why flags are burned. The people who burn flags are symbolically fouling the highest attributes of a nation. These attributes have been instilled in nearly every person in the country. They have been instilled in the flag. Everyone knows it. It is the perfect vehicle for displaying discontent because although each individual has a particular set of meanings attached to the flag, most will show negative responses to its defilement, and some will certainly respond in an aggressive manner to its defense.
Unfortunately, only nylon has been defiled. Someone without associations tied to the flag will not be offended in the least by someone burning it. Another person with negative associations might feel pleased with the burning of the flag. It depends on our preconceptions. The words and symbols that are attached to ideas and things are mistaken for the ideas and things themselves. The burning or a colorful piece of nylon relies upon the institutionalized precepts of the people witnessing the act for its meaning. We all carry these meanings with us in every day life. They affect our judgment in both simple and profound ways.
In order to learn, in order to advance on the ladder of knowledge, it is necessary to realize not only what one knows, but to put that knowledge to empirical tests. Advancing intellectually based on information that is essentially inaccurate, or flawed, taints any advance thereafter. When the impressions of words or symbols we are taught as children are incorrect, or simply outdated, the resulting errors can be as simple as a dislike for tomatoes or as profound as an unshakable belief in a personal deity dispensing justice to all the Human Beings on Earth.
It would be helpful in the illustration of the above points at this time to play a word game. Start with the idea: “Everything you know is wrong”. Contradict any statement made to you as truthful. Support any obvious lie or fabrication. Do this on a strictly experimental basis. While you will find yourself suspect among your acquaintances, you will also find out how often the ideas taken for granted in routine of daily experience can vary wildly in their accuracy. Just as it is possible to fly to the Moon using the laws of motion set down by Newton, it is possible to go through life fairly self assured with the laws set down by your particular society and your teachers. If however, you wish to be as accurate as possible, in life, or in moon landings, it is imperative to use the best information possible. Playing the word game described above will not only illuminate some of the inaccuracies in the language, but in the logic we us to express our ideas, as well.
It is the practice of politicians, lawyers, advertisers, and priests to use the inherent logical constraints of the language to persuade others to their view. Persuasion is a particularly annoying aspect of the societal condition. In mathematics, in science, an assertion must be substantiated by proof. This is hardly the case in the public arena. Matters of public policy are frequently determined by some sort of debate. That is, sides are chosen after a particular question has been named. Despite the nature of the question, or the validity of the evidence, there is always a side to be chosen. For or against. A person who knows the inherent vicissitudes of the English language, or any language, is able to manipulate the language and its concepts to achieve an argument that, on the surface, seems to support the facts. Taking course work in debate is an introduction to these techniques. In formal debate, the opposing parties are prepared to present either side of the question put before them. In such a situation, the debate is won or lost, not on the best empirical evidence, but on the ability of the participants to use the language is such a way as to convince others of their point of view. It is this compromise of truth that occurs daily in courtrooms, legislatures, and in the various media providing news and information services.
The object is not to enlighten, but to persuade. Unless there is a vested interest in the presentation of evidence for enlightenment, the position of any person in an argument can be traced back to the set of principles or ideals that person hopes to advance. There are certainly many questions for which there are not adequate evidence to make a final judgment. Yet, decisions must be made without waiting for better evidence. It is at this point, where personal judgment, based on our previous concepts, ideals, and knowledge, is the overriding influence in decision-making.
There is a strong emphasis on being in the right. Children are presented with the black and white of right and wrong without any consideration to the areas of gray that lie in between these two poles. This is the system of achievement in school. We are tested for our knowledge on a black or white, right or wrong basis. There is no room for partial knowledge. Our achievement scholastically, is represented by the number of right answers versus the number of wrong answers. Knowledge is not all or nothing. Yet, it is treated as such, and not exclusively in the classroom.
Our moral knowledge and societal values are taught in very much the same way as we are taught math or English. A set of rules is set down which are meant to apply to certain situations in real life. To act in any way not stipulated in the rules is equivalent to immoral behavior. Life situations are rarely so easily distinguishable. The vast arena of Human interaction is played out in the gray areas. Christians are forgiven for their transgressions against their own rules. If this were not the case, none would reach their heavenly reward. I cannot think of any person known to me of legal age who has not committed a crime. I doubt if there is such a person. Most transgressions of the law are minor, though transgressions nonetheless. With the myriad of laws that have been enacted, it would simply be too burdensome to obey them all. Fortunately, while laws are written to be black and white, their enforcement is very much in the gray.
Yet, we still act as if there were absolutes of right and wrong and as if their parameters were clearly defined. While it is easy to discern the parameters of a geometric problem, the Human condition is astronomically more complex. While there are thousands of federal laws to govern our behavior, hundreds more are signed into law every year. One might expect that with so many laws covering the Human experience that each year would see a reduction in the number of laws enacted as the gray areas of Human activity are slowly covered. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. More laws are enacted every year because growth of change in the Human condition is expanding the gray areas of Human experience faster than legislatures can fill them in. There is a term in law called the loophole. Stated simply, a loophole is that circumstance or set of circumstances the lawmakers failed to recognize when writing a law that would allow someone to act in some way the law was designed to prevent. Loopholes regularly put felons back on the street. It is an act of pure optimism to think any legislative body could put together a simple set of rules governing the behavior of its citizens by using language to describe them. But like the search for truth, we try to get as close as we can, recognizing that the language we use as the principle tool is flawed and our efforts are expected to achieve only partial success.
It is vital to realize that language is not reality, but an analog of reality. Just as playing a vinyl recording is not the artist performing, but a close approximation. Actions take place in real time and have very real consequences. That is why it is possible to simulate real world events on a computer. The physical world is translatable into the language of mathematics, which is understood by the computer. Computers operate in a very black and white world. Either something is understood or it is not understood. The language that is used to instruct computers to perform tasks is exact. There is no room for error. Very small errors can render instructions useless. A single error in a mathematic equation will result in the wrong answer.
I have a piece of software than locate the position of any planet at any time a thousand years ago or hence. While complex, it is not state of the art. There is no program that can understand Human language with the accuracy with which a five-year-old child employs it. The problem, again, revolves around the complexities and inexactness of the medium. The subtleties inherent in the language are taken very much for granted by their practitioners. There is no great need to understand language, only to use it. Again, for all the common experiences of daily life, language performs superbly. It is in the accurate expression of our most intricate thoughts that language will fail.
Our thoughts are language. I find it impossible to think without words. Words are the vehicle for expression of my thoughts. They are also the medium for expression. I cannot think what I cannot put into words. This is the way I was wired to think. This is the way we were all wired to think, regardless of the language we use. People without the ability to speak simply use other means to make words. To explore new arenas of thought, it is often necessary to invent new words to describe them. New words do not arrive completely out of the firmament. They arrive attached to previously well-known words or to the experience, which they are describing. They often take well-known words as their root, and are subsequently changed to provide a new meaning. There are times when words are simply inadequate.
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These atomic constituents have a property that is called spin. However, it is not the property we can usually identify in our daily lives. In reference to atomic particles, spin is the closest word we have. Spin, in the case of an electron, means that it has something like an angular momentum. It has a spin-like quality in the way it acts. Yet, it many circumstances, when particles with a certain spin are sent on a collision course, they do not react in the way we expect spinning objects to act. There are many aspects of nuclear physics that are not fully understood. Perhaps, when we fully understand what is meant by the spin of an electron we will have to invent another word to describe it.
The work of physicists in this century has been a test of the Human language. The difficulty has been to describe a world in which we have no reference in our own experience. I can tell you that time is a dimension of space in the same way as the horizontal or vertical. But what would it mean? What causal relationships would be inferred from such a statement? The world of quarks, neutrinos, gluons, fermions and gravitons cannot be seen, let alone experienced. It is a world where discoveries are made without actually finding something in the macro sense of reality. Particles are studied by seeing their effects on other particles than can be detected. Discoveries in this area are made as much by reason as by physical evidence. Yet discoveries are made and researchers build large, fantastic machines to further probe into the exotic world of the sub-atomic. I am not a sub-atomic physicist and yet I believe that quarks exist. I certainly have not seen any, and I would have to rely on experts in the field to explain it to someone who was challenging my belief in quarks. What I have to ask myself is whether I am fooling myself into believing in something simply because I wish to believe it is so. Could I be the perpetrator and victim of my own propaganda?
Perhaps. This is always a consideration when we are dealing with a language that is inexact, relative, and constantly in flux. To prove the existence of quarks, I can summon up the language of mathematics. It would be exact, and incontrovertible, because the rules are fixed and are universally recognized. Math is the only universal language. It is the only common tongue of mankind. A problem with the higher mathematics needed in this example, or in any scientific explanation for that matter, is that the vast majority of people are mathematically and scientifically dysfunctional. The theories and discoveries made by scientists today are fully understood only by the handful of specialists in the field. The masses are treated to a distillation of the truth, which often as not confuses more than illuminates its recipients.
While I am not a nuclear physicist, I can look at the field with a discerning eye. I have a fundamental knowledge of physics, math, chemistry and atomic structure. Most importantly, I understand the scientific method and the rules of logic it employs to arrive at a conclusion. An example illustrates the point. In the spring of 1989 a team of scientists announced they had attained room temperature nuclear fusion. The cold fusion apparatus consisted of a test tube of heavy water with a palladium plate that had an electric current passed through it. The contention was that as hydrogen atoms passed through the lattice of palladium, they were brought in close enough proximity to overcome the natural repellent forces between atoms and would fuse, releasing heat and other by-products. I do not propose to issue a formal rebuttal of the issue of cold fusion, only to examine it with the tools I have available to me. My first impression is that it is a bit simple. Simple in the sense that it could have been passed over while so many investigators are actively involved in the search for cold fusion. Simple in the apparatus used to produce the effect. I could not make a judgment on this alone when it might have been my knowledge that had been simple. The most lucid point I had to make was that no one was able to duplicate the experiment and its results despite the simple apparatus. Duplication of experimentation is the proof of any scientific theory. Results were not duplicated despite the fact that nearly everyone who understood the experiment was trying it.
As of this writing, the case for cold nuclear fusion is still very much in doubt. Experimenters have been unable to achieve consistent results or explain the absence of certain phenomenon that would accompany the fusion process. My conclusion is that cold nuclear fusion is not operating in this case. I have no evidence to support a case for nuclear fusion. While I make these statements, I need to make some further comments that will apply to any case where the contention is found to be false.
My first point is that I may be mistaken. I acknowledge the fact that there may be forces operating that are not completely understood at this time. If this were a case concerning the driving force behind Quasars, I would be extremely careful in my condemnation simply because there is a large area of the question that is not understood. Test tubes holding heavy water and palladium with a current passing through them are very well understood. I am confident that claims of cold nuclear fusion are false, but not in an absolute sense. I cannot be one hundred per cent sure of anything. I can only be convinced to ninety-nine per cent. This is the nature of Human knowledge. Anyone who professes to absolute knowledge is both self-deluding and dangerous. World history is littered with the remains of ideologies and ideas that have fallen under the weight of their own pretense. History is also stained with the blood of countless millions who followed blindly, or were trodden upon, on the path to absolute knowledge.
Recently, there was a discovery of rapidly rotating neutron star, called a pulsar. Nothing had ever been seen with such an incredible rotational velocity. Scientists searched their theories to account for the observational evidence. It turned out that a video camera mounted near to the detector was emitting the unexplained signal. This is another proof of the fallibility of Human knowledge. It also points out another problem with Human knowledge that is only of recent experience. The sheer complexity of Human knowledge has been growing at a nearly exponentially rate since the turn of the twentieth century. Rising with that complexity is a fragility of knowledge, of certainty. Specialization has become entrenched in our society due in part to the amount of training and education required to master any field of endeavor. As we learn more, it seems, we have more to learn.
While the efficiency of specialization has subsidized the growth of material wealth, the specialization of knowledge has its costs. We rely on the specialists, sometimes referred to as experts, to make those decisions that are outside of our own specialty. We hand over our health to doctors, our money to bankers, our children to teachers, and our society to politicians. The extent of what we know about any subject has become voluminous while the capacity for the biological storage and retrieval has remained constant. Human Beings store and retrieve information differently from computers. We store information as connections. Like a dictionary, each piece of information is related to other pieces in the way that we use words to define words. This may be the reason it takes approximately twenty-three years of education in order to earn a doctorate in most fields. Twenty-three years to become an expert in one field. I am not attempting to insinuate that this time is a fixed biological parameter. The educational system is geared so that even below average learners will be able to advance with their peers. Yet, there are few people with multiple doctorates. By the time it would take an average person to obtain a doctorate in five different fields, the years that person would be in the work force would make it economically burdensome to pursue such a course. The solution is the current system of experts that provides society with the collective equivalent of everyone being an expert in every field. Unfortunately, on an individual basis, the society is represented by people who can function only marginally outside of their specialized knowledge. We are left with people whose only option is to trust the experts because they are not equipped to argue successfully against them. This inability by the masses to effectively understand the complex arguments that are being used to determine their laws and the policies of their governments results in a simplification of those arguments to the detriment of the truth.
We are not educated in such a way to possess the skills needed for an independent appraisal of the truth. Our earliest learning experiences of language and the world around us are given to us as fact without consideration. Most of our early learning is very accurate. The simpler concepts are hard to misconstrue or to have their meanings altered. If the fundamental words and behaviors we learn as children are very much in the wrong, it would show up early in life in the stages of more advanced learning. The way we are taught as children, the rote memorization of the language and actions of our teachers, is as much in evidence in kindergarten as it is in a four-year college. Success depends on the accuracy of the regurgitation of data presented at daily lectures. A good memory is the greater tool for scholastic achievement than ability to reason. The classroom is not an arena for discovery. While logic is taught to philosophy majors, business and liberal arts majors are not required to arrive at independent conclusions. The act of learning is a passive digestion of what the majority of educators would refer to as the truth.
The specifics are not so clear. It is possible to attend a university whose teachings are more liberal or conservative than other institutions. That is a very strange thing to say about knowledge. It is imperative at this point to realize the motivations behind any search for knowledge. Liberal and conservative institutions choose their curriculum with a certain philosophical leanings that support a particular point of view. The areas in which a slanted view of the Universe can be supported are slowly being diminished. The accuracy of scientific investigation has ruled out many contentions based solely on a particular point of view. As I stated earlier, there are no religious sects practicing an alternate form of trigonometry. There are areas in which the solutions to problems cannot be worked out arithmetically. These areas are concerned mostly with Human and societal problems. It is in these areas that a position is taken to be the correct course of action dependent on previous philosophical predispositions. These are roughly defined in our society as liberal and conservative points of view. They can also be defined as left or right, so that an individual may take the "middle ground" as a point of view. This system may make positions easier to describe or defend, but it does little to support accuracy.
A public discussion of a societal issue will usually involve a representative of the left and right of the political spectrum. This is a daily event on certain news programs. Another daily event will be the complete denunciation by each of the participants of the other's point of view. This is particularly evident in political debates, where the sides are clearly defined. The members of Congress are designated as Republican [right] or as Democrat [left] to identify which side of the argument a Representative will take on a particular issue. Although the voting that takes place to enact the laws that govern the nation will fall mostly along the lines of left and right, there is usually some leakage from one side or the other depending on the particular issue. A Republican can be liberal or conservative within the restraints of still being classified as a Republican. The most interesting aspect to this predisposition in decision-making is the minor role the search for truth plays in making public policy. It is not uncommon in political debate to hear one side of the issue completely reversed by the other side, while each side lays claim to the truth. Every day, the forces of the left and right engage in debate over artificial boundaries set up by the dogma they have inherited and dispense as the truth.
That a problem is reduced to a question of right or left does not mean that either side is incapable of grasping the intricacies of the problem, but rather that their constituencies prefer the simplicity endowed in two party politics. It is far less complicated to align oneself with a philosophy or point to view than to examine each question individually as it arises. It is far easier to communicate with other Human Beings on a daily basis in the vernacular than it is to precisely explain your thoughts in every instance. The cost for simplicity and speed of communication is accuracy. While this cost is negligible in daily conversation, it is when it extends to matters of public policy the cost can be enormous and far reaching.
Opinions are placed in categories such as left, right, radical, neo-Nazi, or Christian fundamentalist, to name a few. This categorization of knowledge in effect reduces the parameters of thought and reduces the channels of communication. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, elected officials take a certain category of political predisposition and proceed to act along the lines dictated by the dogma of that particular category. Serious questions about the integrity of a public official would be raised if he were to be elected as a Democrat and voted along Republican lines. People are expected to act and think in ways that correspond not only to political affiliation, but also in terms of their sex, geographic location, social status, color of their skin, and any number of factors identifying their individuality. It is ironic that those features that distinguish us as individuals are used to place people in a group that emphasizes uniformity.
Prejudice is a term used mostly in terms of dividing people according to their skin color. Yet our pre-judgments abound from our interpretation of the word "tree" to our political and social leanings. We carry with us the prejudices of societies that have long passed into obscurity. Ideas concerning numerology or astrology still invade our language and our reasoning ability. Familiar concepts such as fate or destiny are very much a part of our understanding of the world. Yet, they have not been proven by any empirical evidence. Traditional concepts and ideas played a vital role in the cohesiveness of a society. The languages and customs of people that have survived the ages provide the basis for the societies and nations we define today. The cultural distinctions that have arisen through the centuries are fading with modern global communication and interaction. With such a diversity of ways of perceiving the world, conflicts arise about the nature of the truth from what foods are to be eaten to the understanding of the Universe.
Explanations arising from the prejudices of cultural and social precepts are doomed to inaccuracies in predictable ways. An explanation derived from the scientific method of investigation is often surprising. It comes from the areas of our imagination that have not been shaded by the intellectual rose-colored glasses of our preconceptions. Just as the vote of a Congressman can be deduced with no small amount of certainty by his political labels, so it extends to each one of us that our intellectual preconceptions lead us to certain conclusions. The identification with a certain group, cause or philosophy, is a constriction on formulation of an individual viewpoint. Subscribing to a particular belief system requires a substantial commitment to all the positions of that belief. The following of any religious or political view does have its benefits.
As in the case of language, political and religious affiliations give us shorthand of communication. We can align ourselves with certain well-known philosophies that are capable of being disseminated with very little trouble. Everyone has a basic understanding of the concepts of Christianity in this country. Calling oneself a Christian carries with it a set of practices, concepts about the Universe, and association with a particular type of literature. Of course, these are very wide parameters. Yet, they are very limiting when the incredible diversity of religious thought is taken into account. While claiming membership in the Christian faith leaves a lot of room for variables, just as many possibilities are excluded. I am assuming that anyone, of any philosophical predisposition is still searching for a more complete truth. That is usually not the case. Subscription to an article of faith or a point of view is the end to the search for truth. The intellectual energies of a true believer are dedicated to defense of the truth as it has been told to them. Like a lawyer, defending a client he knows to be guilty, he uses the inaccuracies of the language to assert that which is unproven or false.
The search for truth becomes a game, a debate, in which the semantic skill of the debater determines the claim to truth. As with most games, the winners and losers are temporary fixations. The debate continues ad infinitum because there are no real advances. The real search for truth in any field is directly related to advances that have come before it. It is a process of building on the tested principles that have achieved some degree of certainty. One cannot build a nuclear reactor without atomic theory. One can, however, start a religion or philosophy based entirely on dogma. It is because the realm of science and the realm of religious and philosophical matters are perceived to be mutually exclusive. There is usually some sort of claim to a universal truth or phenomenon that is outside of Human understanding. It defies the conventions of science and is therefore taken to be the truth by the sublimation of logic known as faith. While a person's faith may guide him in his moral reasoning, he will not count on faith to start his car in the morning.
The line of scientific reasoning that has increased our life span and improved our comfort on this planet is removed like a fallen chess piece in matters of personal philosophy. Faith does not move mountains, plate tectonics is responsible. Faith healing is not being practiced at any accredited medical institution. Understanding is built in phases, not created whole and complete. Any major advance in science is predated by any number of smaller advances. It can be traced without much difficulty to a line of accomplishment that invariably sets the stage for its emergence. The faiths of this world appear to rise in completeness from a single event. This is not the case in any seriously researched religion, but such a relationship is espoused in dogma. Human culture is devoid of any cultural singularities. Myths, fables and historical preconceptions are found at the root of all religious beliefs. We would not fly in airplane built on the constructs of faith rather than aerodynamics. We are fully prepared to abandon the scientific method to adhere to a belief system based on information that is not available to everyone in the same way.
The scientific method of learning is the cornerstone of the structure of our knowledge. Yet is it tossed aside in most of the Human and societal decisions we make in our daily lives. Whether we are buying a new television set or subscribing to a set of moral principles, the scientific method is left to the scientists. This is not only unfortunate, but also leads to most of the conflict between people and nations. Society would be best served by a system of dealing with the inevitable differences of opinion that arise in any problem that is without sufficient evidence to support a particular view. We need to simply proceed on the best information available.
The information available now is greater than it has ever been at any time in history. Like the growth of Human population, it is realizing exponential growth. The rate of change has increased dramatically because we are at a stage in our development in which pace of learning is greatly accelerated. The dramatic increase in knowledge has the effect of increasing the possible answers for even the simplest questions. Designing and constructing an airplane just twenty years ago was much simpler because of what we did not know. What we did not know included things such as new types of materials, precision aerodynamics, computer controlled flight and navigation systems, and the problems of stress on already existing materials. Our solutions to problems are expanded with the increase in information. Information is available on every subject in ample quantities. Knowledge is the distillation and formation of information into concepts that able to withstand critical exposure.
It is the avalanche of information that can result in over simplification. In many instances, we simply do not have the time or inclination to examine the evidence in its totality. This is a mistake. Lying behind the concept of language, of mathematics, is the promise of understanding. To understand the basic words and constructs of language or mathematics is the foundation on which all further understanding can be built. While the world of the astronomer may seem intellectually as distant as the stars, it is comprehensible. If it were not, there would not be such a thing as astronomy. Astronomers, physicists, doctors and lawyers are all using the basic symbols and logic that we use in common everyday experience. We have all been taught to use language. It really does not matter which language one learns as long as one learns a language. To understand another language requires only the substitution of sounds and symbols for those of the native tongue. To understand antimatter is simply more complex.
A basic understanding of language and an understanding of empirical evidence and the rules of logic allow for unlimited learning. I will take a back seat to the experts when it comes to designing an aircraft. The consequences of lift, drag, and thrust, however, are not lost to me. While I cannot design an aircraft, I can project with some accuracy that Human powered flight cannot be made to be practical. The understanding of the fundamental forces and laws of nature are the basis for any exploration of the Universe. It is also the key to discrimination between fact and dogma, knowledge or certainty. We are able to know what we know, not because of the words that we use, but because of the nature of the Universe we inhabit. We know that the Universe is not random. The burning of hydrogen inside of a star millions of light years away is using the same forces and materials to ignite the furnace of our own Sun. Our Universe proceeds in such a way as to be describable and predictable. Prediction is a fundamental aspect of proof. Predicting the rotation of the planets proved Keppler's laws of motion to the accuracies attainable at the time. Economists are notorious for their lack of predictive powers. It is because they are not able to explain and account for all the variables present in any economic system. Economics is not a naturally occurring system. Although it does mimic some of the attributes of a physical system, it is strictly a Human invention. This is another reason predictions in economics are so difficult to make. Economics is subject to Human interventions that can alter the basic premises on which predictions are based. The laws of nature cannot be compromised. It is impossible to turn lead into gold through alchemy. It always has been and always will be the case here as well as every other place in the Universe. We advance on the ladder of knowledge because the rungs on which we ascend are not being cut out from under us.
We are able to seek greater understanding because the universe we inhabit is immutable in its form and processes. The areas of our experience that remain a mystery to us are the result of lack of evidence, lack of insight. It is simple matter to invent solutions to those areas of Human experience that are lacking in empirical evidence. Could a light moving across the sky be interpreted a visiting extraterrestrial? Of course not. Because something is not understood does not mean that anything is possible. Anyone wishing to assert the existence of extraterrestrial life is burdened with the proof of evidence. I cannot disprove the contention and I do not need to do so. The contention for extraterrestrials, supreme beings, or hair growth tonics must be accompanied by evidence and experimentation that can be duplicated by anyone else using the same procedures. As our technology becomes more complex, it becomes essential that any assertion be subject to basic understanding of what evidence is and how deductions are to be made. Yet the police fraud files contain numerous incidents of perpetual motion and other machines possessed of equally impossible qualities.
Throughout this chapter I have been exclusively concerned with the frailties of the language and the detrimental effects it has on ability to discover the best truths about ourselves and the Universe we inhabit. It is because we so closely tie our thoughts and actions with our words that a critical analysis is imperative. There is not a Human situation that cannot be worsened with a few well-chosen words. Human Beings are quite capable of taking the life of another over some certain specific sound waves propagated through the air. We attach great emotional significance to our words. This is no great mystery as they are the medium of all we know and feel. Unless we use words as accurately as they are capable of being used, we lose a measure of truth.
It is the accurate use of words and symbols that provides Human Beings in this country at this time with the greatest comfort and fulfillment man has ever known. We have been able to use the language to penetrate the atom as well as travel to the end of the Universe. We exist at a time when we know more than we ever have and that knowledge is increasing at a rate never before experienced. The influx of information can be overwhelming at times. It is the invention of language and its proper use that allows anyone to reach their own intellectual potential. We owe it to ourselves as individuals to realize that potential. We owe it to the community of Human Beings.
It is required of us in the survival of life on this planet. At this time in history, more than at any other time.

Chapter Two
The Universe and Life
The Universe has been in existence approximately 13.7 billion years. The Earth has been in existence for nearly five billion years. These two figures are an abstraction for Human Beings. They have meaning only in a mathematical sense. Our references for time are infinitesimal compared to the time scales represented in Astronomy or Geology. 13.7 billion might as well be a hundred billion. Distances in space are equally remote in our ability to grasp their full meaning. Whether it is the number of light years to a quasar or the size of an atom, we are limited in our ability to understand their meaning in a cognitive sense. It is therefore difficult to appreciate the significance that astronomical time and distance have played in the formation of the Universe and life around us.
We live in a Universe around 13.7 billion years old. We cannot be exact about the time because of the lack of the evidence that would ensure accuracy. We can be reasonably sure that our estimate of the age of the Universe is not off by more than a few billion years. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation and of distances to the farthest detectable objects in the cosmos are calculated to determine the age of the Universe. As I have said, the calculation could be off by several billion years, which would hardly disturb the sleep of most people on this planet. Consider how old the Universe might be and the calculation takes on added significance. Estimates could range from several thousand to an infinite number of years. It is not, however, anywhere near those two extremes and that realization helps to put Human Beings in a particular place and time.
The state of the cosmos as we see it could not have originated yesterday and cannot have continued in this way indefinitely. The galaxies are racing away from each other like dots on the surface of an expanding balloon. The farther away in both space and time, the faster a galaxy appears to be moving away from us. The galaxies and stars are obeying the laws of gravity that we must obey on this planet. The Universe is consistent, knowable. We have been able to construct a picture of how the Universe originated. We see the galaxies expanding away from each other and we can trace their movements back to their original state. The discovery of the cosmic background radiation provided the necessary evidence for a suspicion widely held. The theory of the Big Bang, which gives us the origin of the Universe in a expanding fireball, is our best explanation for the evidence we can collect. Collecting evidence about the size and age of the Universe has been a difficult problem. The currently accepted view of the origin of the Universe was still very much in doubt only thirty years ago. Technological advances in optics, computers, and instrumentation have given us a view of nature our predecessors could, quite literally, only dream about. It has given those of us alive in this age an appreciation and accuracy of the workings of the Universe that has been denied to the best intellects of any previous time.
An understanding of the structure of the Universe may not seem to be a vital in one's philosophical positioning, but it is important. The Universe as we see it is expanding in all directions at once. Near objects are receding away from our point of view at lower velocities than those objects further away. Quasars, some of which are the furthest objects from our point of view, appear to be receding the fastest. This inflationary Universe will conclude in one of three ways: fire, ice, or some sort of continuing regeneration (unlikely, but not completely ruled out.). It depends on how much matter is contained in the Universe. Beyond a certain quantity of matter the gravitational attraction between objects will eventually stop the expansion and reverse it. Under a certain quantity of matter and the Universe expands forever and eventually dissipates. If the Universe contains exactly the right amount of matter to halt the expansion but not reverse it, [I doubt if we could ever make such an exact measurement], it would prove the existence of humor in the Universe.
At this time, there is not enough evidence to support a halt to the expansion of the Universe. The possibility that the expansion will be stopped has not been discarded. There is a question about the mass of the neutrino, a subatomic particle. Black holes and neutron stars may be more abundant than we realize. There exists substantial but unknown quantities of dark matter, which eludes exact observational analysis. Most of our observational evidence comes from the visible and radar frequencies of light. There may be enough invisible matter in the Universe to stop the expansion. Until we can decide one way or the other, the evidence supports an ever-expanding Universe.
This esoteric argument has real value in one's philosophical disposition. If the expansion of the Universe continues ad infinitum we can conclude that we are a singular event. The Universe came into being and was then was extinguished after some tremendous epoch. If we should find enough matter in the Universe to halt the expansion, the Universe is cyclical in nature. We would simply be one more expression in an infinite number of expressions of the Universe.
There are some loose ends. The absolute fate of the Universe is one. Another is the absolute beginning. Whether or not the Universe is cyclical or singular, the problems of its origin remain. We can trace the evolution of the Universe back to about the time of the Big Bang. We are unable to say with certainty what preceded the Big Bang. Where did all the matter in the Universe originate? A question of this kind is often referred to as a chicken or egg question. Unfortunately, this is a misnomer. The answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is simply: neither chickens nor eggs.
Chickens and eggs are not reliant on each other for their origin. Egg laying took place before the evolution of the chicken but was not the immediate precursor to the chicken. Some sort of protective casing evolved in species somewhere in the lineage of the chicken. Questions of this kind reflect a lack of understanding rather than a mystical mystery. We have been conditioned to think of origins in a linear sense. Most things, including life, have an original starting time and place. This is a reflection of the world, as we perceive it. The Universe has already been created and what we see in our own experiences are the permutations of the manifestation of that beginning. We run into a verbal, and therefore, mental block when attempting to describe the ultimate origin or fate of anything. Ultimately, the origin of anything lies at the origin of everything, of the cosmos.
We insist that there had to have been a beginning. As has been the case numerous times in the past, the Universe is under no obligation to bend to our preconceptions. If we seem to be chasing our own tail every time we try to figure out the primordial beginnings of the Universe, perhaps it is because we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps a more complete understanding of the nature of the architecture of the Universe is required before we are able to ask the right questions. In any event, we lack the information necessary to make an effective judgment of the matter. What conditions existed before the Big Bang are inaccessible to scientific observation. The Universe as we know it came into its recognizable form around 13.7 billion years ago. What was occurring or not occurring before that time is not known and any evidence of the pre-Universe Universe has so far been imperceptible. The evidence we have at hand is that the current expansion will continue indefinitely. The possibility of a cyclical universe will depend on acquiring new insights and evidence. We are left with the implication that although the Universe has an order and direction, its purpose (if there is one) remains unresolved.
The Universe as we see it is as we see it due to the fundamental laws that govern its action. A thrown ball will continue in a straight line until it is acted on by some other force. This statement is true on Earth or in any other place in the galactic sphere. A star with over a hundred solar masses will burn its fuel relatively quickly and eventually supernova. There is nothing mystical or magical about the way things work on earth or in deep space. Students learn about the laws of nature by very fundamental examples. The fusion of atoms is usually described by the interaction of two hydrogen atoms that form a helium atom and a release of energy. Fusion in our own Sun is not different, only more complex. This complexity stifles our understanding in the macroscopic world.
We may know how nuclear fusion works in the Sun, but we are at a loss to determine exactly how much longer it will continue to do so at the current rate. Any substantial fluctuation in the energy output of the Sun would have important consequences for life on Earth. The Sun is a complex, although very stable system. While such features as the sun spot cycle are discernible, the reasons for its appearance or regularity are not completely understood. In complex systems such as the Sun, predictions are restricted by the data available and the ability to effectively discern the consequences of that data. Our own biological limits and the limits of the material extensions of our processing capability place boundaries on our understanding of complex systems. Understanding the fundamental laws of nature, on the other hand, is limited only by the imagination. This is the distinction that allows us to describe why we have weather, but limits our ability to predict it tomorrow. The inability to predict the weather or the output of the Sun is not a failure of theory but of application. If we allow for an expansion of the parameters of time and accuracy, predictions can be made with greater certainty.
The age of the Solar system is around five billion years. This estimate would not have an error similar to that of our estimate of the age of the Universe. We are able to obtain significantly more evidence from our immediate locale than from the Universe as a whole. Rocks are considered inanimate objects because we see them from a position in space and time that does not reveal any motion. On the molecular and atomic levels, however, something is always happening even in the most mundane piece of silicate. Electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom and the molecules vibrate in the latticework of their structure. Earlier I mentioned that the Universe has a certain sense of direction. Atoms decay in a very predictable fashion. The scientific term for this is called a half-life. This represents the number of years it takes for half of a sample to decay. The half-life for Uranium 238 is four and a half billion years. If we take a sample containing Uranium 238 and measure the amount of the products of its decay, such as Thorium 234, we can determine the age of the sample. The Earth, during its initial phases, erased most of the evidence for the first billion years. Meteorites have remained virtually unchanged during the formation of the Solar system. They have provided the most accurate specimens to determine the age of the Solar system. Samples gathered from the Moon also support the current estimate of the age of the Solar System.
Our Solar system lies on the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy. It appears to be a spiral shaped galaxy very similar to the Andromeda Galaxy. The shape of our galaxy can only be deduced because we are looking at it from the inside. The Andromeda galaxy is one of our nearest neighbors and lies at a distance of 2.2 million light years. Light travels 5,880,000,000,000 miles in a year. The Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies are part of a cluster of about twenty-four galaxies known as the Local Group. The visible matter in the Universe is not spread out evenly, but rather clumped together into regions of greater and lesser concentrations. There exist great formations of galaxies interrupted by great voids of visible matter.
That matter tends to lump together is the product of the gravitational force. Gravity and Electromagnetism are the only forces among the four fundamental forces whose range is infinite. Gravity is extremely weak when compared to the other forces and its influence was minute until the Universe had cooled and expanded sufficiently to allow for its current predominance. Matter accumulates into clusters of galaxies, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and asteroids. We can readily observe stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Planets outside of our solar system have been optically resolved.
Our own solar system was formed from the remains of the primordial hydrogen that dominated the early Universe as well as the Universe we see now. All of the heavier elements were forged in the interiors of stars and then cast into the void during the last stages of the star's life. It is these heavier elements that coalesced to form the Earth and the other inner planets. The lighter elements were evaporated by the thermal energy of the Sun. The outer planets are composed of mostly lighter elements because of their distance from the Sun. Most of the mass contained in the Solar system is in the Sun. That is why the planets are locked into orbits around the Sun, and the same logic applies to the Sun's orbit around the galactic center.
While the details of planetary formation are still debated, the basic premise of gravitational attraction is without dispute. The probability that planetary formation is not an integral part of the fabric of the Universe is nearly negligible. The notion that ours is the only solar system in the Universe is contrary to the evidence we have been able to gather. It reflects an anthropocentric attitude about our place in the Universe. When all we knew of the Universe was the Solar system, we put ourselves at the center of it. Despite the current state of knowledge, a view that we are a singular, special, unique, or divine act of the Universe persists in popular thinking. Along with being naturally anthropocentric, we are unable to fully appreciate the vast dimensions implicit in astronomy or subatomic physics.
A chemistry professor I once knew would use an analogy to try to explain the size of the atom. His contention was that if one were to increase the size of an atom and diminish the size of the Universe incrementally, the two would meet at a size about that of the Earth. I am not comfortable with this sort of analogy because I have no firm grasp of the size of the Earth without numbers. The size of the nucleus of an atom is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of a meter. A quick calculation I have done gives a little more perspective. If one were to take a meter stick, divide it in half, and keep dividing it in half at the rate of one division per second, it would take well over ten million years to reach the size of the atomic nucleus. Huge numbers such as the size of an atom or of the Universe are hardly transferable to everyday experience. Comparisons made to physical systems are limited in the amount of information they can convey.
It is in the knowledge of and appreciation for large numbers that the Universe can be brought into the realm of understanding. The Human population is estimated to be around six billion people. I cannot imagine more than a hundred thousand people, the largest crowd I have ever personally witnessed. I can quantify this figure by playing with it a little. The population of the United States represents only four per cent of the world population. The Chinese are nearly seventeen per cent. The population of Hong Kong is roughly one one-thousandth of the world population. I still cannot visualize six billion people, but I have established a small measure of appreciation for the numbers. The astronomical figures used in describing the Universe must be given meanings when they have no basis in experience. To say that we are but a speck of dust in the Cosmos is to exaggerate our place in it. The volume of space occupied by the Solar system in the Universe is so minute as to make the atomic nucleus voluminous by comparison. We use terms like infinite to describe things that are very large. To describe something as infinite in common usage is not the same as it is used mathematically. We use infinite and infinitesimal to describe something beyond our ability to comprehend its value. It may very well have an actual numerical value, but it lies so far beyond our abilities to appreciate it that it takes on the proportions of a mathematical infinity.
It is not only space, but time that is subject to the same intellectual and conceptual boundaries. The time a Human Being is alive gives us a very limited idea of the time scales on which the Universe is operating. Human Beings in the industrialized countries of the world commonly live to be seventy or eighty years old. Less than a hundred years ago, the average life span was twenty to thirty years less. For the nearly all of our history as a species, the average life span was close to thirty years. Our species is long lived compared to the other animals on the planet. We are not equipped to examine with any relevancy the vast dimensions of time that have been calculated since the formation our planet. Both the age and size of the Universe are discoveries of this century. Efforts to place an age on the Universe were constricted not only by technological advances, but also by the ability of the Human imagination to conceive of the tremendous epochs and distances that are the fabric of the Universe.
The Universe is filled with objects and processes of such diversity and complexity that it seems unreasonable that it is the product of four fundamental forces and a handful of elementary particles. Any system that has the potential for complexity can be rooted in a few fundamental laws of operation. The binary system is an example. A computer reads the binary signals as either off or on, zero or one. This simple system is the basic premise on which any computer functions. Whether a computer is designing micro circuitry or playing chess, its fundamental structure is zeroes and ones. It is the complex and specific arrangement of the binary code that determines a specific task. The binary system is capable of providing a great diversity of tasks in information processing.
The same principle applies to the Universe. It is the very specific combinations of quarks that form protons, electrons, and neutrons. Protons, electrons and neutrons combine to form ninety -two naturally occurring elements. Different combinations of neutrons and electrons produce a wide range of element isotopes. The elements combine to form molecules. It is here that the mathematical possibilities take off exponentially. There are literally millions of possibilities for the molecular structure. More are being continually discovered or created. Molecules and atoms make up the perceived structure of the Universe. They follow the four fundamental forces in their reactions. Balls do not spontaneously start bouncing from rest. Although there does exist at the edge of possibility a chance that all the molecules in a ball might line up in order for that to happen, it is unlikely to the extent of absurdity. Work cannot be reversed. Heat does not flow spontaneously from a refrigerator into a warmer room. Entropy increases.
The atoms and molecules and the way they interact are the Universe revealed to us. The galaxies, stars, planets, and life are all composed of the fundamental particles and are guided by the fundamental forces of nature. The complexity of the Universe rises from the flexibility of its fundamental nature. The rules of nature are the same for particles in an accelerator or in a large galactic cluster. Our current understanding of the processes and particles of nature issues very few surprises at the most fundamental levels. Scientific research has turned to the extreme cases of the natural world. Particle accelerators are built to give us a glimpse of matter in the first few microseconds following the Big Bang. Telescopes are designed to study the furthest reaches of the Universe. Tunneling microscopes study the contours of atoms. We are engaged in these activities because there is still much to be learned about our Universe.
The extent of our knowledge of the Universe changes our place in it. Human Beings, for most of their history have lived in a Universe controlled by unknown forces. The forces of nature were seen in terms of their effects on Humans. As a result, mankind was placed at the center of the Universe. In what is commonly referred to as Western Civilization, man was acted upon but distinct from the forces of nature. In Eastern Civilization, man is an integral part of the natural world. Both of these views came from the study of the molecular world at a macroscopic scale, and the Universe at a microscopic scale. In the scientific community today, there are no East-West philosophical boundaries when discussing the nature of the Universe. Yet, outside of scientific investigation these same general boundaries still exist. What the scientific community cannot quantify in very real terms becomes the fodder for speculation. Understanding the results of scientific investigation is not nearly as important as understanding the method by which those conclusions are made. People must necessarily work with the results of science in their everyday lives, but unless they are engaged actively in pursuit of empirical reasoning they are quite able to function without it.
It is this gap between the knowledge necessary to survive in modern industrialized society and the knowledge necessary for the understanding of the Universe that allows for the preponderance of misinformation concerning the world around us. Explanations that are not based on reason, experimentation and empirical evidence reduce the Universe to a system that seeks Human explanations for a physical reality.
On personal level, a comprehensive understanding of the Universe is not necessary. The substantial majority of Human beings in modern society are able to negotiate their travels through space-time without having to encounter calculus or trigonometry, let alone particle physics. A single individual is not the problem. It is the cumulative effect of scientific illiteracy and innumeracy that lead people in democracies to support people and policies that are detrimental to the continued survival of our species on this planet. Increasingly, there is evidence that our survival, or at least, our standard of living, is uncertain. It is now, at the beginning of the twenty first century, that we are beginning to assess and mediate the consequences that the exponential growth of Human Beings is having on our ability to survive. Apocalyptic predictions have always been with us, but for the first time, it is science, not superstition, predicting our fate.
The life on this planet is the only life in the Universe for which we have physical evidence. It is illogical and highly anthropocentric to think that life exists nowhere else in the Cosmos. No observations have been made which would suggest that our minute locality possesses some unique attribute that has allowed life to evolve into its present forms. While the Universe is not overflowing with life forms it is not very convincing to suggest our planet is unique in the Universe. The search for extraterrestrial life has been very recent and very sparse. The Viking Missions to Mars were designed to search for the existence of organic chemistry on the surface of that planet. The results were inconclusive. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence project is currently searching the electromagnetic spectrum for signals from other advanced civilizations. The project is still in its infancy and the task before it is enormous. Positive results, while high in probability, are not to be expected for some time. We do know that life is on this planet and evolved here because of the favorable conditions that have prevailed for nearly five billion years.
Unfortunately, like the evolution of the Universe, much of the evidence of the evolution of life is inaccessible. Our understanding of the first and ancient life forms comes mainly from the sparse fossil record. We add to that understanding through the study of modern life forms. As with the Universe, we can employ reason to look back in time to discover the origins and changes that have molded the life forms on this planet. Unlike the Universe, life exists at a scale that makes it accessible to Human investigation. In the latter half of this century the instruments and imagination of biologists have allowed us an understanding of the molecular structures of life. The life forms on Earth exist on a time scale that allows Human Beings to observe change. It may take thousands of years for the Milky Way to make a complete rotation, but the fruit fly will complete an entire life cycle in only twenty-four hours. The Universe and life do run parallel in that both are difficult to explain when taken as a complete system. While we may understand the life cycle of individual cell of the Human body, we are at a loss to fully understand all the cells that describe a Human Being. We understand the structure and function of DNA, yet we can hardly build a Human Being from scratch. Again, it is a case of great complexity being derived from a very fundamental, but flexible structure.
We can start with our investigation of life with the same tools that guided us through our investigation of the physical Universe. Life is composed of the matter that surrounds us, and obeys the same physical laws as anything else in the Universe. There are no physical processes going on in living matter that cannot occur in nonliving systems. There are no special atoms, or arrangements of atoms, that are exclusive to life systems. Life is, however, the most complex arrangement of atoms and molecules in the Universe. This complexity gives life in this Universe its singularity and fragility. There is no life on other planets in our Solar System because the environments of those planets are hostile to the intricate structures that are required for life, as we understand it. It would be far stranger to encounter life on any other world in our Solar System than it would be to encounter the lifeless worlds we already know to be there. It would be stranger still, to find a planet identical in history to the Earth, and find it lifeless. All the ingredients for life were here at the origin of the Solar System, and all the best opportunities were present on the third planet from the Sun.
The Earth lies at a distance from the Sun that allows water to exist in a liquid form. No other planet in the Solar system has this property. Not only can liquid water exist, but also it dominates the entire surface of the planet. Water also dominates all the life on the planet. Nothing on Earth can live without it. There is some evidence that liquid once flowed over the surface of Mars. Whether or not it was water, it has either evaporated or frozen. On Earth there has been liquid water for about 3.6 billion years. There has also been a consistent amount of energy input from the Sun. The Sun is rather average star. It does not vary significantly in its output and will probably continue very much the same for another five billion years. This has been a significant part of the evolution of life on this planet. All the elements are here: proper temperature range, a medium for mixing and concentrating organic compounds, and about four billion years of stable environment.
Life arose in the oceans and colonized the land much later. The ocean provided the protection from ultraviolet radiation that is now provided by the ozone layer. Ultraviolet radiation is harmful to the to the DNA molecule, among others. Early on, however, ultraviolet radiation assisted in the assembly of complex inorganic molecules. The early Earth contained no free oxygen until plants were able to release it. The early species of life were anaerobic, and there are still a few species today for which oxygen is poisonous. I can speak of the earliest forms of life with only a small degree of certainty. We can deduce the environment and the elements that were present when life arose on this planet from ancient rocks and the study of planetary evolution. It is speculation to describe what life was like with any degree of certainty. It may have arisen with many different solutions to the problem of life of which the current solution is simply the survivor.
No matter how many alternative forms of life arose on the early Earth, one clearly predominated and eventually worked its way up to Human Beings. All life on Earth can trace its lineage back to the primordial life form that first began to extract energy from its surroundings and replicate itself. All life uses the fundamental structure of DNA or RNA molecules to produce the proteins that describe it. The proteins that make up living things on this planet are built from around twenty-two different amino acids. Amino acids have been found in asteroids that have fallen to the Earth. They date from over four billion years ago. The building of life forms from amino acids and various other elementary molecules is no way certain or predictable. Complex structures passed through intermediary stages between lifelessness and the ability to metabolize and reproduce. The precursors to life as we understand it may not pass our current tests for life.
The fossil record of life is minute until the Cambrian Age. Before the Cambrian Age, life forms did not build skeletons or hard outer shells. These are what are normally discovered as fossil remains. The Cambrian Age started about five hundred and seventy million years ago. The first life appeared almost three and a half billion years ago. The first mammals appeared only two hundred and thirty-five million years ago. The evolution of complexity grows exponentially. Life existed on a very simple level of complexity for around 1.8 billion years. The progress of complex life forms moved very slowly over its early history. This is to be expected. The amount of variation available from a handful of different organisms is minimal when compared to the variations possible with thousands of different and very complex species. The number of species on Earth grew exponentially after reaching a certain complexity that allowed evolution to proceed at a quicker pace. One of the most important inventions of life was sexual reproduction. It allowed for the exchange of genetic material between individuals producing unique but very similar offspring. Sexual reproduction, along with natural selection, drove the diversification of life exponentially around a billion or so years ago. At this time, the life on this planet reflects the products of nearly three and a half billion years of evolution, natural selection, and chance.
The role of chance in the evolution of our species cannot be understated. If the biological clock could be turned back and rerun, the results would certainly not be the same. Just as life on this planet required certain conditions before it could arise, so Human Beings required a certain set of circumstances before we could evolve to our present level of development.
Human Beings evolved in a way that is unique to life on this planet. We meet the challenges of our environment by changing the environment, rather than ourselves. In response to cold, we wear clothing instead of waiting for natural selection to create a Human Being with five inches of blubber. We use our imagination, not the forces of mutation and natural selection to succeed in our survival. We are equipped to do so. Our brain is the most complex structure on the planet. Dolphins have a very complex brain, a large brain for their body weight, and are comparatively very intelligent. Nevertheless, dolphins do not build bridges. Dolphins do not have hands. Chimpanzees have hands similar to Human beings but they use their hands for locomotion. The Human hand with an opposable thumb is as unique as the brain that controls it. Humans were able to seek out solutions to survival from their environment because they had two free hands with which to manipulate that environment. The hand helped to drive the evolution of the brain by developing skills far beyond grasping or climbing.
Human Beings are certainly the most complex assemblage of matter on this planet. However, we live in a world filled with complex life forms. Dolphins do not build bridges but they are highly skilled in the use of sonar. Tigers do not use sonar but they are faster and more powerful than any Human Being is. The enormous complexity of the life forms that share this planet at this time with us is a reflection of the enormous amount of time that life has been evolving on this planet. Nearly every species of plant or animal has achieved a degree of complexity that will leave us with mysteries about life for some time to come.
It is easy to remark on the complexity and predominance that the Human species has obtained on this planet. Our solutions to the problems of survival have been the most successful of any other species. We now dominate the planet. All life forms are complex. Earlier, I noted that we are far from a comprehensive understanding of our own biology. We are far from a complete understanding of bacteria. We have deciphered the fundamental elements of the genetic code, but we find it difficult to understand how that code translates into complex life forms. The insertion of a strand of genetic code into a living organism is far removed from designing an organism from scratch. Life on the macroscopic scale is easily observed while the capacity for producing that life remains outside of the boundaries of Human knowledge. It would be roughly equivalent to deciphering a large software program by studying the strings of ones and zeros used to describe it. Life is built on microscopic building blocks because that is the most efficient way to convey the information. Life is very complex and it is very economical.
Economy is one of the most important survival strategies. There is not a grossly energy inefficient creature on the planet. Our own mechanical inventions are not nearly as effective in conserving energy when compared to the natural world. Life arose and evolved based on the best possible solutions to the problem of survival. Those forms of life that were unable to successfully meet the challenge of survival were simply removed from existence. Every living creature removes from the environment the essential nutrients that it then must metabolize into both energy and structure. All of the extinct species that were on this planet having failed because they could not meet the challenge of extracting the requirements for life from their environment. Some have had some help in this matter. A significant percentage of species have been detained from acquiring nutrients from their environment by other species acquiring them as nutrients themselves. In either case, the surviving organisms have overcome the inequities present in their environment and have passed those characteristics vital to survival on to their progeny.
It is the result of the forces of chemical bonding, natural selection, and random mutation over three and a half billion years that has resulted in the myriad of complex life forms on this planet. Three and a half billion years is a very long time for any process to take place. If we find ourselves in awe at the diverse and intricate life that has evolved, we must also be in awe of the time that has passed. We must also recognize the abundant resources and hospitable environment that have existed on this planet for that epoch. It is the complete understanding of these forces that lead to the conclusion that life arose and evolved within the boundaries of our knowledge of the Universe. It is an incomplete appreciation for the forces of nature and the time scales involved that leads to erroneous or extra physical explanations for life.
It is understandably difficult to appreciate the time scale involved with our evolutionary path and equally easy to speculate that life had arisen en masse from a singular event. From the point of view of a Human life, the Earth is complete, whole, and unchanging. The order of nature seems resolute and unwavering. Life is mutable, however, and we have exploited that mutability for our own benefit. All of the breeds of dogs alive at his time are descended from the handful of wild dogs that first became an ally to men. We have manipulated the genetic material of wheat, rice, cattle, sheep and goats for thousands of years. We have done it without the aid of recombinant DNA or artificial insemination. We have been able to genetically alter other species because of the inherent pliability of sexual reproduction. This capacity for change is not exclusive to Human manipulation, but a fundamental trait of life on this planet.
Evolution and Natural Selection are not simply theories, but a well-established phenomenon that can be demonstrated readily with some of the more rapidly reproducing life forms. A farmer who uses a particular pesticide on a particular pest over an extended period of time will find the pesticide increasingly less effective as the population of pests breeds only those of its species with a resistance to the pesticide. This is the essence of Natural Selection. Natural Selection was operating before life as we would describe it had appeared. The fundamental long chain molecules of amino acids were selected by the availability of the surrounding medium to provide the essential ingredients for a sustainable structure. Life is also subject to the random mutation of the genetic code. Ultimately, all variations in the genetic code arise from mutations. The overwhelming majority of mutations are useless. It is the long history of life on this planet that has allowed mutation to play a significant role in the evolution of life.
The evolution of Human Beings has been an abundant source of misinformation. To this day, school districts debate whether to include texts that suggest the evolution of Human Beings from our simian ancestors. The opposition to currently accepted theories of the origin of our species comes not from the scientific community but from theologians and dogmatists. The fossil record will never be as complete as we would like. The best fossil remains are the result of an unusual and fortuitous death that left the remains preserved and intact. Another fortuitous event is required to locate the fossil remains. The remains must then be excavated in a manner that provides the most information and preserves the integrity of that information. There will always remain some doubt as to the details of Human evolution as long as the fossil record is the foundation of our knowledge. The fundamental laws and guiding principles, which have guided us to an understanding of the evolution of our species, is no longer a subject for debate in the scientific community.
Human Beings evolved from apelike ancestors. Gorillas and Chimpanzees also evolved from the same branch of that family at least seven million years ago. We are not descended from the current simian species. While they are our closest living relatives, we have been following diverging evolutionary paths. The Gorillas and Chimpanzees will continue to evolve directed by the same forces of Natural Selection and random mutation that have molded every life form in existence. Human Beings will not follow the same path.
Human Beings have replaced much of the effects of Natural Selection with technological and cultural selection. Humans are no longer selected against reproduction because of polio, measles, or an impacted wisdom tooth. In the developed areas of the world, Human Beings who do not die by accident, die from the results of having lived in a body that can no longer successfully repair itself. Death usually takes place many years after the reproductive capabilities of the individual have ceased to be operational. Babies are born under or overweight that would not have survived only a century ago. The advances of medical technology have eliminated the threat of an early demise from most common diseases, accidents, or environmental hazards. The beneficiaries of medical science are able to breed as much as any other person. It is impossible to predict what effects our technological capabilities will have on our future evolution. It would be absurd to assert that people should not receive the benefits of the modern world in order to stay in line with our evolutionary past.
Human Beings will certainly become more heterogeneous. The great effect of modern transportation is to eliminate the isolation of any group. The geographic barriers that previously allowed groups of people to follow an independent evolutionary course have been all but eliminated. The results of the geographic isolation of the past have given us the differences we commonly ascribe to race. Further proof of the evolutionary process is that all of the so-called races can mate with each other. We are not so different and obviously share the same lineage. These lines of distinction will certainly fade in the next ten to twenty thousand years. It would be a rare set of circumstances that would allow for any group of Humans to evolve independently in the modern world. The political boundaries now pose the greatest impediment to migration at this time.
99.999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. What we refer to as Modern Man will certainly become extinct. The extinction of Modern Man will hopefully be accompanied by a replacement that is better able to survive on this planet. Any other extinction will most certainly come by our own hand. There are no animals that can successfully survive by predation of Human Beings. Our population is genetically diverse and numerically prosperous. It is unlikely that any disease or agent, curable or not, would be able to decimate the entire Human population. We are the only species that shapes the environment around it rather than being shaped by the environment. In order to insure our survival it will be necessary to not only shape our environment to our needs, but also quite possibly, shape ourselves. This would be the ultimate act of Human invention.
The realization of genetic manipulation in Human Beings will be the province of science fiction well into the near future. Our immediate problems must be solved with the abilities we now possess. The problems we have created for life on this planet have been on Human time scales. Evolutionary remedies would require thousands of generations if they were capable of remedies at all. Human Beings have realized such a profound potential for changing our environment that we have already altered life significantly and have brought into question its continued presence on this planet.
The problems of life and the environment tend to run the course of chicken and egg questions. Life both responds to and changes the environment around it. The conditions on Earth at any given time are predominantly the result of solar and geologic activity. Small changes in the output of the Sun or degree of inclination in the Earth's axis of rotation will result in very different conditions for life. Various environmental calamities of the past have resulted in mass extinctions. The most famous occurring with the demise of the dinosaurs approximately sixty-five million years ago. Evidence suggests that either a collision with a large meteor or a period of profuse volcanic activity was responsible. In either case, the change that precipitated the extinction was as simple as the result of less energy from the Sun making its way to the surface of the planet. The Sun is the predominant source of energy for life on Earth as well as for the physical processes of the Solar system. The Ice Ages are precipitated by a slight wobble in the rotation of the Earth about its axis. This small perturbation in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface can determine whether Iowa has glaciers. Life has adapted to the extremes of temperature available on Earth during the present conditions. Life is not adapted to the conditions that are possible in the Solar System. The eight lifeless worlds accompanying our circuits around the Sun are mute testament to the exacting conditions that must prevail for life to flourish.
At the time of this writing, there is no empirical evidence that the Human alterations to the global environment have inexorably altered that environment in a way that will lead to the demise of life supporting conditions. There is ample evidence that Human activity can irreparably harm the local environment and the life forms dependent on it. The life span of Human Beings tends to make for a short perspective on the future. Many ill-advised practices can be sustained by the environment over a short period. If we were anticipating inhabiting this planet for next few thousand years it would be in our best interests to preserve it in a life sustaining condition. Currently, the waste products of nuclear power plants and weapons factories are being disposed of in underground caverns or at the sea floor. The waste will be toxic to life for many thousands of years. The choice has been made to pass the burden of safe disposal to future generations. I doubt very much if I will live to see a time when nuclear waste will present a personal health hazard. This lack of foresight, however, is not what has allowed our species to dominate the planet.
Extinction is inevitable, predictable, and an integral aspect of evolution on this planet. It is, however, in our interest to maintain the status quo for some time. The biosphere at the present time ensures our continued existence. To irrevocably change our biosphere, without knowledge of its impact on the environment, the air we breathe or the food and water we consume, is to invite disaster. Unfortunately that is precisely the current policy of the governments of the most influential nations on this planet. The complexity of the biosphere and the limits of our ability to gather and process information has left us with conjectures about the future that cannot be empirically proven. While we are aware of an increase in greenhouse gases and deforestation, we are unable to discover what effects it will have on the climate. While Human population expansion is resulting in loss of habitat and species, we simply cannot know what contribution any single species may make to the understanding of life and of ourselves. There are some indications that Human activity may be absorbed by the environment without any great change in the biosphere that currently exists. There are also indications that the observed changes in the composition of the atmosphere could portend great changes for life. At this time, the proper behavior is to act as if the worst-case scenario is a certainty. The repercussions from making an error in this realm are at the very least unwarranted Human suffering and at worst, ecological disaster. What we do know with a great degree of certainty is that life has prospered under the relatively stable conditions that have preceded Human emergence. Our disruption of that stability could inevitably be our undoing.
Life is not mysterious, but very elaborate. We have been taught to identify life forms on this planet by emphasizing their differences in relations to ourselves. This anthropocentric view of life has given us Human Beings as the ideal life form and the rest of nature as deviations from that ideal. We look at other life forms and see them in a light that reflects only the differences between us. We concentrate on the differences because it is the differences that provide the most meaningful relationships. The similarities of life are equally astounding. All life requires water in the liquid state. All life uses DNA or RNA for defining the proteins that in turn defines its structure and its methods of maintaining life. All life existing at this time evolved from a single ancestor. Life on this planet is the result of three and a half billion years of variations on a theme.
Life is a variation on the theme of the physical laws of the Universe. Every form of life on this planet is constructed from the elements that were present on Earth approximately three and a half billion years ago. Life uses carbon as the essential building block of the various proteins and amino acids that provide physical structure to complex organisms. It has been speculated that life may use different elements, depending on their availability, for their fundamental structures. The speculation on what shape life may take in other parts of the Universe lies mostly in the realm of science fiction. In the extremely unlikely chance that we should encounter any extraterrestrial life form, it would certainly exceed our own imaginings. Life on this planet stills holds an enormous potential for intellectual investigation. The Human mind is the most complex and most powerful result of the processes of life on this planet. While the Human mind was not designed for the complex task of understanding itself, it can create machines that will make up for any shortfalls that evolution could not provide. Yet, while we may build machines with the ability to process gigabytes of information every second, we are not building machines capable of replication, self-maintenance, or metabolism. Of course, we have not had three and a half billion years. We have only had forty or fifty thousand.
No life will have another three and a half billion years. Life has already taken the best years our Sun will provide. Another few billion years will find the Sun unstable and life on this planet intolerable. Four or five billion years from now the Sun will be a Red Giant and the Earth and all the inner planets will have been incinerated. It will violate no physical laws for the Human species, or all life on this planet, to become extinct. Our survival is dependent on our ability to shape our environment to ensure our survival. We are the only life form on this planet with that choice. There are no rights or wrongs in the Universe. The Universe is without a sense of morality or justice; these are Human inventions. As a Human Being, however, I would feel a great loss at our inability to realize the potential of life. We have come a great distance; we have a greater distance to go.
Chapter Three
Society and Morality
Human Beings are animals as much as any other creature on Earth. We assemble into large groups in much the same way as other creatures for many of the same reasons. We do not; however, refer to Human groups as herds, flocks, or packs. These are names applied to animals without any regard to the activity of the animals within that classification. We arrange ourselves in a number of ways dependent on both size and function. We all have ties to families, extended families, clans, nationalities and societies. We may have ties to political or religious groups that further classify Humans in respect to each other. Political classification can reveal the type of existence a person may lead. Race is another category into which we place ourselves but which has grown to have vastly more importance than it deserves. In general, people with more pigment in their skin tend to enjoy less of the benefits of modern civilization than do people with considerably less pigment. This is a result of the different groups to which people belonged when technological advances changed the fundamental structure of society. Societies running relatively behind in technological knowledge were often sublimated by societies whose control of technology allowed them to exert that technological superiority in a very physical way.
I was told early in my early education that the continent of North America was discovered by Columbus in 1492. That was the date that Europeans discovered the continent. It had been discovered by people from Asia thousands of years previously. These people developed several complexes and flourishing societies by the time people from Europe developed the means to explore across the Atlantic Ocean. The Europeans exploited their technological superiority to subjugate the people and plunder whatever material wealth they could gather. The aboriginal populations that dominated the North American Continent lacked the weaponry and material sophistication of the Europeans. The current population of aboriginal people in the United States is less than one per cent of the total population. Societies, like all species, run the risk of extinction when confronted with an environment ill suited to their survival. The survival of our society depends on a continuing effort to maintain and improve our physical and social environment.
Societies are able to evolve and distinguish themselves by long periods of isolation from other societies. It is possible to speak of European society collectively despite the many nationalities and independent states that define it. It is possible at this time to speak of Western society as a single society because the advances in communication and travel have had a homogenizing effect. Certain tribes of Human Beings living in New Guinea have been unaffected by technological change only because they have not been exposed to it. Every society will in some way affect any other society with which it communicates. The technological innovations that have revolutionized communication in this century have set the stage for a global society. A complete assimilation of Human Beings into one society is not on the horizon. Yet, the credit card I obtain from a bank down the street can be used in Japan, Europe, Australia, or Africa. I can reach by telephone nearly anyone else in the world with a telephone. The most prominent obstacles to a universal society are language and custom. Our reality is shaped by language and our concept of the Universe is molded by the collective perceptions held to be true by the vast majority of our associate populous.
To belong to a society is not simply to wear a tag of nationality but to act and think in a way that reflects the values of that society. As we are imprinted with a language, we are imprinted with the standards of behavior and thought that are taught and continually reinforced from an early age. As we are in no position to question the legitimacy of the language taught to us, customs and morality are learned without much intellectual investigation. Societies are often distinguished only by the language they use. The influences of language have not only distinguished the society in which they evolve, but have isolated people from one another. The current advances in communication have left only minute areas of the world without communication with the rest of the world. The mass media have standardized most notably the English language with the accompanying loss of local dialects. The standardization of weights and measures, currencies, clothing, and symbols all point to a global perception of what it like to be a Human Being on this planet at this time. Strong differences remain and will remain in attitudes towards religion and morality. The physical world that we employ in our daily lives will continue to be the best example for the homogeneity that advances in communication and transportation bring to the global society.
Human Beings gathered to form societies as a technique for survival. Society allows for specialization among its members. I do not have to grow crops, slaughter animals, make clothing, or build shelter. I do not have to dispose of my waste, protect myself or my possessions from exploitation by others. These are the most fundamental advantages of belonging to a Human collective. The advantages of living in a modern Western Society are too numerous to list in detail. Generally, the largest and most complex societies also provide the greatest number of advantages. Societies evolve to states of greater complexity because it is advantageous for its constituents to live in such a society. Human Beings living in this country at this time are for the most part more comfortable than any other civilization at any previous time in history. Civilization could not advance as nomadic tribes following the migrations of the animals they needed for survival. It was the invention of agriculture and domestication of animals that allowed Human Beings to create civilization. It was an attachment to the land that enabled people not only to build permanent structures, but to make permanent progress as well. The specialization that this type of organization provided has been able to make technological progress and to build on previous knowledge.
A scientist is able to focus all of his intellectual energy on a single problem because the problems of daily survival are solved for him by specialists in other fields. Specialization is the modern equivalent of occupation. We are identified by the specialized function we perform within the framework of our society. Nearly everyone is identified with a particular skill or endeavor that we perform. This is our support of the collective to which we belong. As an individual, a Human Being has a limited potential. The potential of several billion Human Beings working toward a common goal is practically unlimited.
Perfect societies, however, exist only in the imagination of Human Beings, not in their cognitive experience. Societies are frequently involved in self-destructive behavior or conflict with other societies that are resolved by physical annihilation of one kind or another. Our occupation, or job, in some way helps the society to function as a cohesive whole. Yet people rarely aspire to become accountants or lawyers to fulfill society’s needs. They are, for the most part, fulfilling their own needs and aspirations. At this time, in this country, no one is told what career they should pursue. Nearly everyone in this society is allowed to choose for him or herself what function they will perform within society. Even the duty of defending the country from foreign attack is performed by volunteers. Given a large and diverse population, filling the manpower requirements of a modern industrialized nation does not require conscription into certain professions. It would undoubtedly instigate no small amount of unrest should a government undertake such a policy. The required occupations for survival are ensured by above average material compensation. It works much like the system of supply and demand that operates in fixing prices in a free market economy.
People expect certain fundamental amenities from the country in which they live. The freedom to choose their own path in life is certainly one of those amenities. It is the fundamental conflict between individual needs and the requirements of the support systems of society that generates the greatest conflicts. Acting individually in a society as large as the United States will not greatly disrupt the status quo. Fifty per cent of the police force of a major metropolitan area not showing up for work would certainly be cause for apprehension. Fortunately, people who choose professions that are the most elemental to safe and efficient operation of society tend to attract people with a highly developed sense of duty and loyalty.
No society can attain the status of a clearly independent society without the cooperation of the vast majority of its populous. The rules of behavior and law must be observed without significant deviation in order for the people to reap the benefits that a sustainable society can provide. The overwhelming majority of people in the United States do not commit serious crimes. They act in accordance with the norms of behavior set down by law and custom. While deviant behavior is certainly a problem, it does not bring our civilization to the point of disintegration. At this time, crimes are substantially no more rampant nor are people more corrupt that at any other time in the history of civilization. It may seem otherwise because mass communication, literacy, and reporting of deviant social behavior stimulates our awareness of it in ways not even dreamt of only fifty years ago. We are shown hideous crimes in real time on our televisions or the Internet while police department's computerized statistics provide a wealth of information on aberrant social behavior. There are twice as many people on this planet as there were only forty years ago. The numerical incidence of crime could have doubled without any proportional increase. The relative stability of the major global societies over the past fifty years indicates not only maturation, but also an acceptance of the social contract.
An acceptance of the social contract implies adherence to certain rules of behavior. Most of these rules are known as law. Fundamentally, laws are designed to prevent the unwarranted deprivation of an individual's personal or material well being. The complicated relationships of Human Beings within a societal structure and the inherent ambiguities in language have taken my single sentence on law and expanded it into volumes. A society must have both accessible rules of behavior and an authority to enforce those rules. I would not think that there has ever existed a society in which one or more of its members did not act in a way that would prove injurious to the society as a whole in order to meet individual goals. Human Beings will act for the collective good within a society as long as a majority of their individual needs are met. The difference between the needs of the individual and the requirements of a society is the amount of deviant behavior within that society.
The rule of law and the law of morality were at one time the same concept. This is no longer the case as we see law and morality as distinct, yet complimentary entities. The majority of activities considered immoral at this time are also illegal. Morality has become the rules beyond the scope of law. A person who seeks to live morally is exceeding the minimum standards for behavior set by the law. It is quite possible for someone to be well within the law at the same time behaving in an immoral manner. While the law tends to focus on the extent of Human interaction that can be quantitatively defined, morality seeks to regulate actions and thoughts that arise from subjective Human values. Morality is subjective. It arises out of a particular set of circumstances. Once removed from that particular set of circumstances it may or may not be relevant. If I were to murder an enemy of mine in the context of a normal social setting, I would certainly be sent to prison for most of my life or even executed. If, however, I were a member of the United States Marines and engaged in combat, I could slaughter as many Human Beings as I liked on the battlefield. This would not result in my imprisonment but rather would be viewed as an act of great benefit to society. Moral issues are hotly debated because there are no absolute answers. Each issue must be dealt with both individually and with a clear idea of the circumstances involved. The law as it is written implies not only standards for behaviors, but also the conditions under which the law is applicable. That is why there are thousands of laws trying to cover the multitudinous aspects of the Human condition. It is also the reason for loopholes that allow the law to be circumvented under unusual circumstances. Morality changes with the times. Many of the standards of moral behavior thirty years ago are not applicable at this time.
Moral doctrine usually arises from a religious source. Religious leaders are usually seen as a valid source of moral direction. It is the state, however, that decides the rules of law and has the ability to enforce them. In some societies there remains no difference between civil and religious authority. Religious authority is limited in its responses to immoral activity. In this country religious beliefs, while respected, are subject to the rules that have been elucidated for everyone. Perhaps the most volatile moral issue of our time is the issue of abortion. It was, at the latest confirmation hearings of an appointed Supreme Court Justice, the topic that received the greatest amount of coverage by the news media. The question of abortion has become not only an issue of morality, but one of politics as well. Moral issues are able to take center stage in our lives because they address the fundamental question of any cooperative collective: How should the individual in a society behave for the greatest good of both?
In the case of abortion, or any other moral issue, the above question is the best guide to a solution. An abortion is the removal of a developing Human Being from the womb of its mother for the purpose of termination of that development. The cases that are considered immoral by most of the opponents are those in which abortion is used as a form of contraception. There are a small percentage of people who assert that an abortion under conditions of rape, incest, or the endangerment of the mother's life, is also immoral. The assertion that abortion is immoral stems from the belief that all Human life is sacred and that from the time of conception a developing Human Being is entitled to all the rights and protections provided by the law. Abortion is then seen as the legal equivalent of murder.
It is easy in a society that is as stable and affluent as the United States to refer to the sanctity of Human life. The sanctity of Human life is unfortunately a condition alien to most of the people on the planet. Human Beings have slaughtered millions of each other several times in this century. Yet, it is illegal in this country to take another person's life from them. Abortions are legal, so it must be that in reference to the law, a developing Human is not afforded the same legal rights as fully developed Human Beings. That is a consistent statement. A one second old zygote or a six-month-old fetus is not a fully functional Human Being. It has the potential of becoming a Human Being. Life may start at conception but complete development is not finished until birth. At birth, it would be illegal to take the life of the infant. It has become a living Human Being and is subsequently in receipt of the rights and protection afforded to it by society.
Abortion is, however a very traumatic and complicated solution to a problem that would be better solved by improving birth control methods. The problem with abortion is not the sanctity of Human life or the legal rights of the unborn. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. Protecting Human life from its earliest inception with the rules of law would lead to a cascade of questions concerning the rights of the mother versus the child. Giving a fetus full protection under the law would put the mother in a position of defending herself against charges of child abuse should she smoke, drink alcohol, or become malnourished. Women routinely have fertilized eggs that do not attach the uterus or do not develop properly without their knowledge. Fecund women would have to be monitored for fertilization to protect the rights of the zygote. It would be impossible to provide full legal protection to an unborn Human Being without violating the established rights of the mother. Until birth, the unborn are physically and legally a component of the mother. The sanctity of life is hardly a relevant point in a country whose elected government commits more of its resources to the weaponry designed for the taking of Human life rather than the technology used in its preservation.
Abortion is not in the best interest of the individual or society because there are less costly, less intrusive, and safer alternatives. The moral opponents of abortion do not see contraception as a viable solution. Their alternatives bring the unwanted pregnancy to term or suggest abstinence from sexual encounters. The cost of bringing an unwanted child into the world is paid for in no small measure by the society into which it is born. The costs can vary greatly from a minimal additional burden on society to a lifetime of support. In 1985 in this country there were 1.3 million abortions. Eighty one percent of those women having abortions were single, separated, or divorced. This would imply some cost exceeding minimal expectations for those 1.3 million children. The problem of population is not addressed by the opponents of abortion. It is not simply the millions of children who were not born, but the tens of millions of their children and grandchildren who will not inhabit the planet. This planet is, at this tim