Sometimes the long way ends where it started. (Popular wisdom)
Don't explain the how, just use it in benefit of Gaia. (Thoughts of new humanism, I.S. Lerak)
The universe, then, is God, of whom the popular gods are manifestations; while legends and myths are allegorical. The soul of man is thus an emanation from the godhead, into whom it will eventually be re-absorbed. The divine ruling principle makes all things work together for good, but for the good of the whole. The highest good of man is consciously to work with God for the common good, and this is the sense in which the Stoic tried to live in accord with nature. In the individual it is virtue alone which enables him to do this; as Providence rules the universe, so virtue in the soul must rule man. (Marco Aurelio, Meditations)
Conference taken from the Symposium "New Humanism and Society" held in the City of Ideas, Puebla, 2016, presented by Nonamemind
Sometimes science seems to tease us willingly: recent research shows that the popular wisdom is right! Scientists discover annoyed that what humans have collected as ancestral truth has a biologic or scientific reason. Makes it sense? Shall we be happy for it or on the contrary cut the funding that allows them to continue?
Let me just centre the issue and see the implications. Man as human being has been in the beginning the centre of the universe. Humans had to learn to survive, first alone later grouped as family, tribe or society. All this time they considered themselves as the clear centre of the universe. Elected by the Gods to rule and use nature to our convenience we didn’t care not even consider that our actions may have consequences in Earth. “All what is there is for our use and benefit.” This was the starting point; created religion and law (at the end the same), survived as a group and discovered the world. Man explored and conquered nourishment and richer territories. Later came art, all possible type, from music to painting or architecture ... all the seven classical arts end even a new one. Stability and the need to calm all natural questions about the reason of life and the value of mankind created philosophy. Caught between the two unknown points limiting life, the origin and death, a reason was needed to explain and give sense to our presence in the world. All was accepted as there was no way to determine which, if any, is the true one. For some groups Man is the elected instrument to fulfil God’s willingness, to other groups Man is on earth to suffer. All is equally possible and what we believe determines what we are and what we do.
Curiosity created knowledge and structured knowledge became science. A science that explains the how and the first level of the why, but that can’t give with a single answer to solve problematic questions. But this science that has been growing and widening knowledge had a strange effect: Science dethroned Man’s idea of being the centre of all. We started to understand that we are not here to take advantage of the environment, that we are part of it. Moreover, we have discovered that we are not only part of the environment but that we influence it strongly to the point of being one of the problems affecting it. To arrive to this point science made big steps, analyzed and explained all around us. This done, the only missing point was Man himself and now, once we dominate technology, biotechnology and start to dominate biology the only what rests is the mind.
And this is the point. We return to the ancient disjunctive: shall we use the knowledge to describe how our brain works (excuse for it: If we know it, we can cure many diseases) or shall we use the power of our brain to work all together now that we dominate our surroundings? (excuse for it: we would have a better living world population) And here appears the amygdale yelling to our brain that survival is the most important we have to look for. While we study how to cure mental and physical problems we are enlarging our survival possibilities. This means that we can go on. Nobody will say anything against it and only a few will see or predict problems. In fact if we know which part of the brain creates emotions or affects memory we can use it to go against other people. No more guns needed, just dominating chemically or electronically the brain we can oblige people do what we want.
And this is the point of science now. We discover that emotions are more important than reason. That we all are subject to the same biological laws but that we can modify many more things than imagined. We can develop part of the brain or fool him, and we can even transmit to other generations what we modify. At the end what we are discovering is what we already knew since long time, that heart is more powerful than reason and many other similar items. But ...do we need to have a scientific validation for it? Really? Now? If Man could live thousands of years without proving it, is it so important to invest in benefit of a very small part of the population? With all the risk of manipulation shall we invest in proving what we know?
We can do many things in name of science and discover many useful things that can later also be applied negatively. True. But the question is not about stopping something only because it can be used against us. The topic is priority. Are these type of researches needed urgently? Shall we use our capacity to follow with them? Possibly having in hand and dominating technology we should apply our knowledge in making all efforts that Man, all the members of the group in Earth live better; WE have other higher priorities that just to see that what we learned in years of history is right. Is our time to change priorities and stop useless or less important investigations: is time to see that Man expands not only geographically but mentally and that the group is not a tribal one –no matter how big it is-- but a global that cover the entire population of the world. We have the technical media, we know how to control resources, we can send whatever is needed in terms of hours or a few days at most; we can reach any corner in the planet. Is time we investigate but not the brain, we need to investigate the mind to make Man more supportive and solidary. Not only to help but to evolve together. This is our challenge, not to explain what we already know.