Read KM's comment

I came on to publish a few thoughts but decided to recommend that everyone read KM's response (Jan. 30) to Kafo in the last blog post. It raises many questions of its own but it is worth the read.

How did we know?

I want to deal with the K.M.'s reminder that the religious claim that god/God has indicated something is not right about our current state. Given my Christian upbringing I was fully aware of it when I wrote that "we have not been informed by another superior species our condition need to be adjusted."

Those who make that claim convenient forget that the God they are referring to in that context is the same God they claimed created the entire universe in six days. Consequently, His state of mind is very important to this claim. As the Creator is stands to reason that He would know whether the human species is functioning as it should. But, as the Creator His reaction would not be to tell us that we are malfunctioning. He would make the necessary repairs because the problems that plague us were all created and sustained by us. We are doing what our human nature allows us to do and we received that human nature from our Creator.

Normative systemic behavior

On January 26 Clay said that "humans seem not to embrace the concept of sharing resources with others." This truism points to an important distinction between humans and other species systems on earth.

The best way to explore this is to imagine a time before humans appeared on earth. It is axiomatic that before the arrival of humans all previously existing systems had embraced this concept. They knew how to share resources with each other. It was written in their purpose as systems to nothing that would threaten their own existence. The delicate balance of the food cycle was preserved. Grazing animals did not overgraze and predatory animals did not overhunt. These living species were able to preserve this balance without the benefit of human intelligence and guidance.

As we noted in our first posts humans must have arrived with the same properties. Additionally, they could not have learned to do otherwise because they could only learn from the species that preceded them on the earth.

Where did this self-destructive behavior come from? It could only have come from whatever it is that defines human nature and that would make it natural to humans. On the other hand we appear to disapprove of this behavior, yet we prompted in that direction by any other species. How do we account for this confusion.

The explanation is very simple. Nature is not a unitary concept as we have been led to believe from our investigation of other species. There are actually two aspects to identity or nature: physiological and behavioral. In all other species the two aspects are fixed or hard-wired. This leads to the conclusion that human nature is also fixed. In truth, the behavioral or functional aspect of human nature is not fixed. This explains why humans are able to resort to self-destructive behavior and also abhor such behavior.

More on this later.

On being a system

I want to take this opportunity to review the situation as we know it. It is always good to distinguish what we know from what we believe.

We know that humans are generally dissatisfied with the global conditions, but reality is not based on general belief. General dissatisfaction with global conditions is not an indication that these conditions are not normative, or need to be changed.

We also know human interference with the natural scheme of things usually results in unintended negative consequences. So, it is important for us to be certain that our efforts to change these global conditions are warranted.

It appears that these global conditions are the result of human influence, leading to the conclusion that humans are just being human. On the other hand, if humans were just being human they would not be making any attempt to change those global conditions. Herein lies a contradiction that needs to be resolved before we can solve the problem of the human condition.

As "realitycheck" noted earlier, humans have no other equivalent species with which to compare themselves. We also have not been informed by another superior species our condition need to be adjusted. It also appears that in our search for world peace we are attempting what our knowledge tells us is impossible: to heal ourselves.

I can only conclude that the identity functions differently in humans than it does in the rest of the species on earth. Humans are the only species that seem to be capable of identify a threat to their own existence as a species as well as the existence of other species. We have made several unilateral attempts to rescue endangered species and we are engaged in an ongoing effort on several fronts to rescue our species from the danger it faces. The lack of success suggests that we may not have correctly assessed the situation.

Since the human race is part of the larger system we call the Universe, a closer more focused look at Systems Theory is warranted. Instead of the utilitarian approach to which we are accustomed we will take a more fundamental approach.

What's the Problem?

One notable feature of natural systems is the fact that they are generally problem free. Each system exists for a particular purpose and it functions within the larger purpose exactly as it is designed, if I may use that term, to function. This appears to have been the case until humans arrived on the planet. As I noted in an earlier blog humans have had a greater impact on the earth than any other species. The changes we have brought have not always been positive. Some species have undergone significant pressures because of human activity. In response to these pressures we have sometimes embarked on programs to preserve endangered species. A significant, though seemingly irrelevant, point of these programs is the fact that humans are the ones who determined that these species were endangered. Our conclusions are limited to those species we can observe and we have acted only in those cases where we have determined that our actions contributed to these species being in an endangered state.
I have raised this as an issue because we have similarly determined that our species is in peril. We have taken to saying that the planet is in peril but we are really referring to the human species. We may be able to affect the planet's capacity to support life but nothing we can do will lead to the destruction of the planet itself.
Not only have we decided that our species is in peril, we have determined that we must do something to reverse the trend. This raises several issues. How do we know that the species is in peril? It is possible that what we are going through is just a part of the cycle of our development or evolution. If this were to be the case, how wise is it for us to interfere with the natural cycle?
I will attempt to address this in the next blog.

In transition

In a couple of days Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. In that capacity his primary concern is with governance of the United States but it is obvious that the human condition is of concern.

He is probably the first US president who has caught the imagination of the peoples of the world. I read an article which quoted a French official as saying that Americans had held an international election, or words to that effect. In his post election speech at Grant Park President-elect Obama spoke of "a planet in peril" as one of the three major challenges we face. Interesting thought from a man who is not the President of the planet. On the website of his transition team his words are headlined, "Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little better than the one we inhabit today." And in her prepared remarks during her confirmation hearings, his choice for Secretary of State said that ""America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America."

How this challenge should be approached is what this blog is all about.

The Miracle on the Hudson

The Miracle on the Hudson holds important lessons for us, occurring as it did on the eve of the inauguration of Barack Obama. It has shown what can happen to a system when one sub-system fails as well as what happens within a system when all the sub-systems perform their functions. The blown engines crippled the aircraft but rescue systems saved all 155 onboard.

Most significant is the fact that during the rescue no one stopped to ask, "Is she straight or lesbian? Is he gay or straight? Is he Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Non of these artificial divisions mattered when lives were at stake. Why do they have to matter when the danger is over? What has infected our system?

Just thought I would raise this here.

Explaining the logic

On Jan. 12 realitycheck suggested that "The logic in this post is convoluted and the thinking/analysis flawed and self-serving" even though willing "at first blush [to] accept the definition of Systems." However, he/she departs from the definition of Systems to suggest that "it is a quantum leap to then say that humans may be assessed by comparing them to the other component parts of this system, i.e. the other organisms that exist on this planet etc." The comment does not explain why the complexity of the human race means that "any attempt to measure/analyse the more complex by comparison to the less complex/advanced is not sustainable, and destabilises the foundation of this discussion."

Humans are more complex than all other sub-systems on the earth. It is also true that all the systems on earth exist on a sliding scale of complexity. Hence, complexity is a matter of the role or function that each system plays in the system to which we belong. But beyond function there is the matter of identity. By definition a system maintains its own existence. Suicide and self-destruction are contrary to the idea of a system. Equally important is the fact that a system does what a system does. The fact that we are working hard to reverse the self-destructive behavior of the human race indicates that we do not believe that this system is functioning as it should. If it were otherwise we would be engaged in a futile attempt to reverse the evolutionary process.

This takes us to the world of autoimmune diseases and cancers. We recognize that the body should not be attacking itself because these attacks lead to other disorders. The only true cure is to reverse the change that has occurred in the organism's DNA that causes it to see "like" as "unlike." In the absence of such cures we are left to resort to destructive cures that destroy parts of the organism in order to preserve the rest. The same is true of humanity.

Systems application

Jeanette has timely focused on the relationship between system balance and anomaly. In living systems it is the immune system that maintains homeostasis. Since the human race is a living system then it also has something that is analogous to an immune system and functions within the human race the same way that the immune system functions in any organism. (Later we will determine whether the human race is an organism or an organization.)

Before an organism's immune system can fight off an attack it must first determine that the organism is under attack from an "unlike" that threatens the existence of the system. Once that determination is made the unlike is attacked by the immune system and destroyed. As we have seen with autoimmune diseases and cancer, problems arise when the immune system incorrectly parts of the organisms as being "unlike."

Everyone seems to agree that humanity is an endangered species but the attack has not come from an outside source. This is interesting because we believe that without being prompted by any outside source. Somehow we have come to the conclusion that we should not be attacking ourselves as we have through war and violent crime. Apparently, the immune system of the species is at work.

Anomaly or Difference

In this blog I want to address some of the issues raised by realitycheck .

Let me first reiterate (and I may have to do so often) that this blog addresses issues about humanity rather than human beings. Human beings derive their behavior from the human race or humanity. As individuals human beings cannot engage in behavior that is not associated with the human race.

Every anomaly is a difference but every difference is not an anomaly. An anomaly is also not a defect. An anomaly is defined as a deviation from an established rule. An introvert in a family of extroverts would be an anomaly, but I would not say the same about a 5 footer in a family of 6 footers. The latter would be a mere difference. I believe we can learn more from anomalies than from differences. For starters, I would suggest that a difference is a more permanent aspect of an organism's nature or identity than an anomaly. A short person will always be short and attempts to increase that person's height may do more harm than good.

Let us consider the implications of the idea that suicide and self-destruction exists in the human species because humans, unlike the other species, have the ability to think. Not all humans succumb to suicide and self-destruction. On the other hand the negative impact of humans on the eco-system has caused isolated cases of self-destruction among other species.

It is useful to explore where humans as a species derived these unique cognitive AND limbic functions that the other species do not have. As I noted in the previous blog, they are not indicated by the creative act or the evolutionary process. Yet, they exist. But, the focus is not on the incidence of suicide and self-destruction among human beings at the level of the individual but in the species itself. If it were not normative for the human species to exhibit such behaviors, these behaviors would not be seen among human individuals.

Finally, the fact that all humans find the suicidal and self-destructive behavior of the human species to be abhorrent is an indicator that they do not view it as a difference but as an anomaly. It is illogical that an organism would object to being what it is.

The Human Anomaly

Even though humans have arguably had the most impact on our ecosystem we are only one among the many species that call this earth home. This fact is significant.

Whether one subscribes to a creationist or an evolutionist view of origins, we all seem to agree that humans are the last species to appear on the earth. It is too bad that this point of agreement between these two factions has not been emphasized.

With this in mind let us consider the moment in earth history just before humans appeared. The system was functioning as natural systems do. There was perfect harmony and balance among the species. More importantly suicide and self-destruction did not exist. We know that because systems exist to maintain their natural lifespan. It is illogical that an organism should seek its own destruction. None of the earth's species was a threat to its own existence.

It was in this environment that humans appeared. This is significant regardless of one's philosophical position on origins. For those who believe that the earth is the product of a supreme creative mind humans must have been creative with the same cohesive properties that the other species possessed. It is illogical to think that this logical mind would create "the crowning jewel" of his creation devoid of the one characteristic that would guarantee that it would continue to exist. For those who believe in the evolutionary process, it is illogical that this process would suddenly reverse itself so that this final species in the process would lack this characteristic essential for its survival.

Yet, suicide and self-destruction are part of our human existence.

As we were taught in school: One of these things is not like the others; one of these things does not belong.

Understanding the system

The important feature of a system is that, in addition to each of its components being a system in its own right, each component of the system reflects the characteristics of the system. In natural systems the components of a system are what they are because of what the system is. There is no need to focus on individual componental development because it is driven by system-wide development. Whenever we find ourselves conceerned about the development or nature of the components of the system it is obvious that we are not discussing a natural system. What we are discussing is the difference between a natural system and a synthetic system.

Natural systems are organisms. Synthetic systems are organizations. In operation they are essentially the same but there is an essential difference. In a natural system the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts, but in a synthetic system the whole may or may not be greater than the sum of its parts. It is the difference between synergy and emergence.

Emergence refers to a unique characteristic of a system that exists solely because of the interaction of its parts. Synergy is similar to emergence. The difference lies in the fact that both organisms and organizations may display emergence or synergy, but organisms display only synergy. This difference is crucial for the future of humanity.

Exploration

In exploring the evidence of human anomaly let us take a look at why humanity is in the condition it is and why they find there is such universal agreement that these conditions are unnatural as well as undesirable. I would like to suggest that this issue involves basic and fundamental aspects of human identity that have been overlooked because they are not as exotic as the detailed discoveries we have made about ourselves and our world.

It is obvious to all that the human race has undergone a process of development from the moment humans first appeared on the planet to what we are today. But when we discuss human development it is not that larger process of development we are not concerned about. Instead, human development addresses the development of individual human beings within the parameters defined by the identity of human beings. The same is true of almost every academic discipline or body of knowledge which is associated with the term human.

Systems Theory lies at the heart of this philosophy. Generally, a system is any set or group of interdependent or temporally interacting parts and Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of General Systems Theory, defined a system operationally as “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts. Every part of a system reflects, in whole or in part, the characteristics of the system. Under the terms of General Systems Theory, which posits that a system is composed of systems, or more precisely subsystems, humanity is a system and each human being is also a system. In the same way that we can assess the development of an individual human being by comparing it with the collective development of other human beings we can also assess the development of the human race by comparing it with the development of other systems that comprise the ecological system we call planet earth. We should expect that the human race will operate according to all the rules that govern the operation of systems. The first of these rules is that each component in a system functions according to the parameters that have been defined by the system to which it belongs.

Welcome to my blog. This blog is about everything. I chose the name HumANomaly because my focus will be on Humanity and the Anomaly that it is on this planet, and quite possibly in the entire universe.

Humanity, the species we know as homo sapiens, is unique among all other species on planet earth. The impact that we have had on the face of the planet often overshadows the fact that we are only one of an unknown number of species that vie for space on this planet.

In the context we are an anomaly. We are the only species that poses a threat to its own existence. We often try to excuse the violence that marks our species by pointing to the violence that exists in nature. But the deadly violence we observe in nature is usually inter-species violence. The lion is a threat to the gazelle but not to other lions. And even then lions don't engage in gratuitous killing of gazelles.

In addition to the personal threat we pose to other humans we are a threat to our species because of our misuse of other species.

This blog is based on the idea that nature presents a model of how humans can live together in peaceful coexistence as the other species do, as well as how we can reverse the threat we now face to each other. We need to pay more careful attention to what nature has been trying to teach us. If we do we will find that we will no longer have to speak of "A Planet in Peril."