When humans appeared on the planet the species that preceded them already had all the tools needed for their survival; their DNA had adequately defined them in terms of appearance, function and behavior. Their anatomy was fixed, their diet was fixed, their markings were fixed, and their reactions to external stimuli were also fixed. Given the success of this model one would expect that human DNA would be the same. But this was not the case. There was one marked difference between the instructions for cultural behavior found in human DNA and those found in non-human DNA.
Most noticeable is the fact that humans do not inherently know how to react to external stimuli. No species has changed the face of the earth the way humans have, yet it is also true that everything we know has come from observing other species and the environment.
This does not mean that we arrived here with an incomplete DNA. That would be a complete departure from the successful state that existed. But it does portray human DNA as being subject to change, with a concomitant change in what it means to be human as time passed. Our identity as humans has changed as we have increased our understanding of the world around us. There was a time that humans could be defined as being cave dwellers or hunters and gatherers. Today our identity includes space travel, nano technology and mastery of nuclear energy. This change in identity is acknowledged in the various eras used to identify the progress of human history.
But the changes in our cultural DNA are never permanent, neither is the direction of change a controlled concept. The fact of change is hard-wired into our nature but the direction of change is not. The direction and timing of any change depends on our ability and willingness to pursue knowledge. Change can be fast or slow; it can be progressive, regressive or neutral. A good example of this is what happened when Galileo demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the universe and we rejected geocentricism. Many people know the story but most forget the more important parts of this story, like the fact that 1500 years before Galileo, Aristarchus had suggested the very same thing, or that there was never a time when the Earth really was the center of anything but the relationship with its moon.
Aristarchus lived from 310 BC to about 230 BC. This is what Archimedes wrote about him in The Sand Reckoner:
You ['you' being King Gelon] are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.
Interestingly, some wanted his head for making such a suggestion. According to Plutarch:
Cleanthes (a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of the Stoics) thought it was the duty of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus on the charge of impiety for putting in motion the hearth of the universe … supposing the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis.
We now know that a proper understanding of the structure of the space was essential before man could explore beyond this planet. By how much was our space exploration delayed because we did not pay attention to Aristarchus but followed Aristotle instead? Change happens but rarely does it move forward without coaxing.
2 comments:
Darius,
Very insightful. My interest in the topic of DNA has been renewed. Any recommended reading? Thanks in advance.
Understanding the progressive stages through which individuals, organisations and cultures evolve provides the key to resolving major conflicts and global problems. So many of these "stages" stem from clashes between different ways of thinking. I have always suspected that our DNA makeup played a role.
The human species has become very, very good at solving complex problems for a long time now. As individuals and societies become more complex, something in us as a species comes to the rescue by creating a complex or sometime not so complex solution. Solutions non-the-less.
It would seem that human nature is not fixed, therefore our lives and the situations around our lives continue to evolve. My question then is this: If the above is true, is the master DNA module evolving as well? Will peace be ever harder to achieve or is DNA the penultimate solution to this quest?
Post a Comment