One implication in this post that stands out to me is that humans inhabit a position of observing, interpreting/theorizing, and forecasting the patterns we now call evolution. To me, this suggests we hold a position of potential intervention in the pattern(s) of evolution--which could be quite a powerful position (or perhaps a doomed one...)! I'm curious if you consider your call to "align ourselves with the cosmic patterns" to be within the realm of intervention, or quite different? Either way, are we involved in a kind of "meta-evolution" (heh) attempt?
On another note, my average-level knowledge of evolution did not include the four features you lay out here. Nor do I think the average person typically considers evolution through the lens of patterns; I think we are used to assigning it the role of a scientific law or principle (despite some controversy in the U.S.) in the same way we think of Newton’s Laws. I’m finding this new info and framing interesting to munch on—and it does make me want to consciously re-examine the links between “pattern” and “principle.”
Yes, I do see alignment with cosmic patterns to be within the realm of intervention. Historically, evolution has been driven firstly by stochastic trends of non-interventional entities (galaxies, cells, animals) and secondly by death, which culls the unfit. For the first point, we should aim to mimic the stochastic trends to reap their persistence/survival benefits. For the second point, we should be more interventional to avoid death. Dinosaurs contributed to the evolutionary project, but they were unable to intervene at scales beyond their own lives, and so they died.
The human species is the first conglomerated entity with the capacity to intentionally intervene against much larger forces. I argue that we should do so, leaping to larger scales instead of allowing short-term concerns to guide us, lest we succumb as the dinosaurs.
On one level, this could be meta-evolutional in the sense that we are choosing our own pattern of evolution. On another level, this may just be evolution as usual. Such intervention could be just another selective trait. We may one day meet other civilizations who began intentionally intervening earlier, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. This is why I feel some urgency in making humanity more thoughtful and long-term-focused. In the same way Earth is dominated by the most long-term species on the planet, the future may be dominated by the most long-term species in the universe. Hopefully it's us.
One implication in this post that stands out to me is that humans inhabit a position of observing, interpreting/theorizing, and forecasting the patterns we now call evolution. To me, this suggests we hold a position of potential intervention in the pattern(s) of evolution--which could be quite a powerful position (or perhaps a doomed one...)! I'm curious if you consider your call to "align ourselves with the cosmic patterns" to be within the realm of intervention, or quite different? Either way, are we involved in a kind of "meta-evolution" (heh) attempt?
On another note, my average-level knowledge of evolution did not include the four features you lay out here. Nor do I think the average person typically considers evolution through the lens of patterns; I think we are used to assigning it the role of a scientific law or principle (despite some controversy in the U.S.) in the same way we think of Newton’s Laws. I’m finding this new info and framing interesting to munch on—and it does make me want to consciously re-examine the links between “pattern” and “principle.”
Great questions!
Yes, I do see alignment with cosmic patterns to be within the realm of intervention. Historically, evolution has been driven firstly by stochastic trends of non-interventional entities (galaxies, cells, animals) and secondly by death, which culls the unfit. For the first point, we should aim to mimic the stochastic trends to reap their persistence/survival benefits. For the second point, we should be more interventional to avoid death. Dinosaurs contributed to the evolutionary project, but they were unable to intervene at scales beyond their own lives, and so they died.
The human species is the first conglomerated entity with the capacity to intentionally intervene against much larger forces. I argue that we should do so, leaping to larger scales instead of allowing short-term concerns to guide us, lest we succumb as the dinosaurs.
On one level, this could be meta-evolutional in the sense that we are choosing our own pattern of evolution. On another level, this may just be evolution as usual. Such intervention could be just another selective trait. We may one day meet other civilizations who began intentionally intervening earlier, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. This is why I feel some urgency in making humanity more thoughtful and long-term-focused. In the same way Earth is dominated by the most long-term species on the planet, the future may be dominated by the most long-term species in the universe. Hopefully it's us.