BIG11.EASTER PLANET

BIG11.EASTER PLANET

“There is no plan B, because there is no planet B.” – Ban Ki-Moon

Can humankind adopt an 11th commandment?
BIG outline: By the time we get to this point in Lecture 11 we’ve covered a lot. You’ll be aware of all kinds of “I didn’t know that” stuff, and this final BIG is about something current and pressing, our impact on the natural world.  Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is an example of how humans overran nature to the point where their civilisation collapsed, and this BIG frames our current predicament with nature as one of Easter Planet. If nature had a vote, or a voice it would NOT go along with evolutionary theory as an explanation of what humans do. What we do is unnatural, artificial but very real, with very real consequences for the natural world. It was the early 1800s before we reached one billion humans. We’ve added another billion in just the last 12 years and it has tremendous impact on nature’s aggregate to support the array of human lifestyles we have the billions and billions of artefacts we’ve made. As discussed in BIG04 ‘energy slavery’ means our impact on nature could be up to one trillion humans, and with this new metric and the ‘nature’s eye view’ we need something BIG in terms of appreciating our real impact on the natural world, on species, rivers, oceans, climate, landscapes, even geology. Geological periods last for millions of years, but the Anthropocene is an idea gaining traction as testimony to the pressure we put on the planet from just 300 years of human industrial activity. We also need something BIG that shows we are taking this situation with the gravity it merits. Edward O. Wilson (who has tried to Darwinise culture with 3 approaches now) is aware of the creative and destructive power of humans, particularly on nature and his current Half-Earth "visionary blueprint for saving the planet" proposes humankind dedicate half the surface of the Earth to nature. There is no doubting Wilson’s commitment to the natural world, and while we need to consider this and other measures, we need something more.  Cue Rene Dubos, and the BIG outcome.

 “Earth and humanity are thus two complimentary components of a system that might be called cybernetic, since each shapes the other in a continuous act of creation….To strive for environmental quality might be considered as an eleventh commandment.” – Rene Dubos

We’re not Gods, we’re humans. I (and Rene) are not changing any commandments, what we are advocating is the addition of a commandment that (a) recognises our impact on the planet, and (b) recognises our current state of knowledge and the responsibility we need to take in the light of this. Culture is different but not detached from the natural world. It is a difference of dimension, beyond the measure of evolutionary theory. I’ll say that time and time again as a person into his third decade on scratching, digging and drilling away at how culture works. All that work brings us back to this point where I’m arguing the need, through evidence, for humankind to express and adopt an 11^th commandment. We’re the only species without a natural environment and through culture and the expressive process we’ve reached a point where we can override nature in part, a creative-destructive part. While nature is there with every breath we take, we can’t ignore the impact humankind and culture have on our planet. We’re right at the centre of the earth problem. Seriously, look at that word again: e(art)h, human expression is right at the centre of it. We need a statement from our time, to all of time and the biggest, most justified statement we can make is an 11^th commandment. It crystallises the notion that we’re different, we’re more and we’re taking responsibility for our actions individually and collectively and making the future respectful of our present. Our gift.

BIG10.THE GOD QUESTION

BIG10.THE GOD QUESTION

“God is the only being who need not even exist in order to reign.” – Charles Baudelaire

How God is Human?
BIG outline: Richard Dawkins (evolutionary theorist & author of 'The God Delusion') writes that “we are all atheists about most of the Gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.” This statement is borne from a lack of critical thought around the subject matter of God, religion and how culture works. Instead, ponder on this question: Is it possible for different peoples and cultures over time to express God in the exact same, or similar way? Bear in mind that humankind has around 7,000 different languages, which are all different modes of expression as a consequence of culture's inherent relativity. Understanding that multiple, diverse expressions of God would be a logical outcome IF God existed, then having many, many expressions wouldn’t underline God’s existence but that alone wouldn’t undermine it. This BIG isn’t about proving whether God exists or not. It is about critically thinking through the question 'How God is human?' and what that means for an understanding of humankind and culture, and the place (if any) that plays in the outcome/solutions to the problems any of these BIGs highlight. God isn't just in churches, ways of living, across art and the humanities. God is across many fields of knowledge, including a noticeable presence in science. Historically, Francis Bacon called the human mind “divine fire” centuries before neuroscience illuminated neural firing at the heart of mental activity, and Isaac Newton thought the universe was “God’s sensorium”. In mathematics the Mandelbrot set is referred to as “the thumbprint of God”, and more recently the Higgs boson particle was nicknamed “the God particle”. In these senses God is a powerful metric for how humans see(m) the world. Full disclosure moment: I believe in God. I haven't always, in fact only since 2007. I'm the father of 3 kids and if they all grow up non-believers and good people, I'll take that from them, so the idea I'll ask more of you, we can knock that down straight away. You can understand culture, mind and time through all of these BIGS without believing in God. However, if we're interested in what makes the human world tick, then there has to be an understanding that God (real or not real) has a part to play in the outline, and as we'll see, in outcome. 

BIG outcome: The broader issue here is the question of how God is the sum total of human expression. In the superpower nation of America the motto “In God We Trust” was adopted in 1956 and is displayed on all US paper currency. There are over 4,000 different faiths and religion that have expressed God, and more than 80% of the world population have some form of belief system. Again, the question is not whether God exists, but for a lot of humans God is real and that means that serious, rounded attempts to solve some of the problems for humankind (and as we’ll see in the next BIG, nature) have to accept that enough. Any humanism that denies how God is human can only be niche/fringe humanism, until that wider reality changes. So when we’re crafting social capitalism and range economics as a move away from consequence free market capitalism, or getting some science to understand religion more as real human phenomena, or getting  some religious people to understand evolution and science more, or a range of other issues, no more than our relationship with the natural world the idea of God is present. This is not a battle of genes, it is one of knowledge and we have to win that battle of hearts and minds through reason, and other human cultural expressive areas, and that includes religion and science. This BIG challenges the ID of intelligent design, and the UD of Universal Darwinism as well. With that in mind, and through all the BIGs we’ve covered we’re laying a platform for the biggest BIG of all: an 11^th Commandment.

BIG09.NOBELS & an ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PRIZE

BIG09.NOBELS & an ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PRIZE

“Everyone knows that the social sciences are hypercomplex.They are inherently far more difficult than physics and chemistry, and as a result they, not physics and chemistry, should be called the hard sciences.” – Edward O. Wilson

Should there be an Economics and Social Science Nobel Prize?
BIG outline: You'd think the idea of winning a Nobel would be a big thing, and you'd be right. The BIG institute however is dealing with 11 BIGS that are BIGger than big. The central idea here is that while there is currently a Prize in Economic Sciences, there is no Economics Nobel for the social sciences and to be honest with you, I think that is wrong. For me, the Nobels are kind of like the Olympics of thinking (and/or a body of work) and the current Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace do just that. However, there is something missing and this BIG provides a remedy for that.

In 1968 the central bank of Sweden created a new prize, "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". While the financial/funding commitment came from the bank, the award is given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles for the Nobel Prizes since 1901. The award itself though it not a Nobel. What is being proposed in this BIG would change that. The goal of this BIG would be to replace its original sponsored name of The Sveriges Riksbank and reposition it alongside the original Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. This new, bigger Nobel would be administered and managed fully by The Nobel Committee in the same way, with the same standing of the other five Nobels. These are the other five Nobels that have not generated the BIGs that are being advanced here. That is not to downplay their contribution to knowledge and society, but to highlight the relevance of The Nobel for Economic and Social Sciences.

BIG outcome: When we say the social sciences we mean the human sciences, and its always worth reminding ourselves of that. The current Economics Prize is not just a newer award from 1968, but from February 1995 the criteria of the Economics Prize was widened to include contributions from the social sciences, like sociology, psychology and political science, albeit relating to economics.

When you work on a body of work like what is being outlined here for 20,000+ hours you’re aware that this is Nobel-level thinking, but its bigger than that. It is BIG enough to redefine the Nobel awards themselves. Moreover, by stressing the importance of the social sciences (and I consider myself to be rooted in the social sciences) I think I’m giving something BIG back to the field of social sciences. Newton and Darwin didn’t ‘end’ thinking across their domains, something wonderful started with them. To have a Nobel prize, the Olympics of thinking and science, recognising their contribution, can encourage more BIG thinking and work across the social sciences. It will also enrich the Nobel awards themselves and pay renewed and lasting testimony to Alfred Nobel’s legacy that the prizes were awarded for those who had “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. The social sciences really are ‘the human sciences’ and becoming an acknowledged sixth Nobel would encourage bigger, broader thinking from across the entire spectrum of social science, not just economics.