THE EVIDENCE: CHAPTER
9 (p336-338)
The
Greeks seem to have a lot of the same opinions David Shenk has about how our
communities should be run so that everyone’s potential could be drawn out of
them. However, are the Greeks and David Shenk too idealistic in trying to help everybody? If all humans reached their maximum potential, what would be the fate
of the Earth? In biology, a recurring theme is regulation. Both positive AND
negative feedback is necessary for homeostasis, and to achieve a “dynamic
balance” on Earth.
On one
hand, our race should have biophilia and try not to overpopulate the Earth.
According to many environmentalists, we are already disrupting the homeostasis
of the Earth because of our rapid population growth and exploitation of Earth’s
resources. By pushing everyone to
their maximum potential, we have the potential to dominate the world and avoid
then negative factors like death and disease; however, the “Goldilocks
Principle of Biology” states that too much of anything is a bad thing, and too
little of anything is a bad thing. Everything in biology should be in balance.
On the
other hand, it is only natural for a species to strive to pass on as much of
their genetic information (in the form of offspring). Are we justified in
maximizing each individuals’ potential, and consequently maximizing the potential
of our species?
So, do you think that we be more
eco-friendly and promote “artistic, intellectual, and athletic mediocrity,” (336) or
should we model our society so it runs like a Greek one, where we accommodate for
everyone?
(Tina Ding:
yuning.tina.ding@gmail.com)
I do not want to sound evil in any way, but I believe that the Greeks and Shenk would be too idealistic in trying to elicit everyone’s maximum potential. If every human being were to reach their full potential, evolution would find some way to naturally select and eliminate some of the population. Regardless, humans are still subject to the Goldilocks principle of biology because our environment, Earth itself, has its own limits to how much of our population it can sustain. In biology, negative feedback is prevalent in achieving homeostasis, and in this case the biology theme of regulation will be applied to humans. Even if our population is not growing exponentially, our population is still growing rapidly, and the population will eventually be brought down to a level that Earth can handle through negative feedback including competition for resources, disease, wastes, and many other density dependent factors. When people draw out their full potential, more resources are bound to be used up, and along with the growing population, that is bound to exceed at an even faster rate. There is definitely the possibility that humans have a carrying capacity, and after the environment runs out of resources, the population is bound to decline.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is idealistic to help out everyone, there is certainly nothing wrong with allowing people to try to reach their fullest potential. The problem is that the environment simply cannot accommodate for everyone and a Greek society would be too idealistic instead of practical. Natural selection will take place and competitive exclusion is bound to eliminate inferior competitors. But, more individuals would be able to reach their fullest potential if the environment can accommodate for the resources, and the first step humans can do is try to replenish the resources being wasted. Human activities dominate most of the chemical cycles on Earth, and many natural resources are being destroyed without being replenished. If humans change their lifestyles, then the environment can replenish itself, and allow us to go out and reach our full potential. “The poor are numerous, but as we shall see, consume far less resources of the planet, for example” (http://www.globalissues.org/issue/198/human-population). If everyone simply consumed only necessary resources, that would make way for everyone to try to reach their full potential. But of course as idealism this would work entirely, but humans can surely reach their full potential and prosper if we don’t destroy the land that we occupy.
There is nothing wrong with humans reaching their full potential and it is justified through the biological principle of survival of the fittest. In the constant struggle to survive and pass on genes, of course each individual would want to reach their full potential. But people should watch the cost and moderate how much of the environment’s resources are being wasted so that future generations would not suffer from a lack of resources. If people were more conscious of the environment in the present and the future, humans can dominate and strive to try their hardest on Earth without suffering the consequences of negative feedback the environment would initiate to keep the human population in check.
(Kirk Chiu- krkpchiu@gmail.com)
Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks thrived for a reason; their societal culture that fostered maximum potential in everyone spawned unmatched artistic, intellectual, and physical achievement and should still serve as a model for today – a model that would NOT end up compromising Earth’s homeostasis for the human population.
The first assumption that we must tackle is this: the Greeks did not aim to have everyone reach his or her full potential. Rather, the Greeks implanted catalysts among their people that drove more individuals to arduously pursue their ambitions; in essence, there goal was merely “to assist as many Greek citizens as possible in their aim to attain the human ideal” (148), which is completely different than a goal to actually have everyone reach ideal potential. Perhaps the Greeks tackled the issue in the same way that Kenyan running coaches approached their training; by having athletes undergo the most gruesome and cruel physical sessions, they knew that the process would be able to create at least a few incredibly aspiring, unwavering, and skilled athletes, while the others would quit of fatigue and flagged resolve. Their goal was NOT to have everyone one of their recruits succeed, but implement a method that would guarantee at least countable numbers of star runners. By interpreting the Greeks in this manner, the Greek practice does not seem to be so idealistic anymore, but rather pragmatic; fostering agonism guarantees that there will be winners and underdogs constantly vying with one another, determined to improve at all costs, but at the same time guarantees that there will be losers unable to be the best.
But setting the Greeks aside, the issue at hand of overpopulation also assumes that a population where everyone reaches their full potential equates to a population that grows at maximum rate. This has been a widespread connection made amongst many of the blog posts: too often we are comparing the skills that constitute a genius to the skills that constitute an organism whose sole purpose is to survive to reproduce. Shenk’s book would take on whole new meaning were it called “The Survivor in All of Us.” Whenever Shenk mentions potential, he refers to a very specific potential – a skill or ability that can be developed through rigorous practice and mental determination, which does not necessarily correlate to increased survival or reproductive rate; being an expert at playing the violin could hardly be considered a selective advantage.
I suspect, however, that you may be referring to an increased intellectual capacity which could allow humans to defy death and death-related symptoms through new innovative practices such as developments in medicine. But advances in technology simultaneously nullify our issue of homeostasis. In mentioning the goldilocks principle and regulation, we must understand a crucial idea first: we cannot know what is “too much” or what is “too little” when we do not know what is “just right.” The biological theme of homeostasis involves the use of various feedback mechanisms in order to hover around a HOMEOSTATIC SETPOINT. How can we know whether or not we are defying the principals set forth by homeostasis when we have not strictly defined our homeostatic setpoint? James Hopkins argues that “overpopulation applies when the number of people in an area exceeds the resources and the carrying capacity of the environment necessary to sustain human activities,” (http://www.cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm) but has the human carrying capacity been defined, and would it be subject to change? Campbell suggests that “because of our ability to develop technology, human population growth has no practical limits…technology has undoubtedly increased the carrying capacity for humans” (Campbell 1194). Thus, a society maximizing intellectual potential may be able to make its own rules regarding regulation.
-Mark Zhang (mzhang59@gmail.com)
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteConsequently, Kirk, your statement that humans maximizing their potentials equates to an increased depletion of resources does not necessarily hold true if that potential can be used to increase our resources at the same time. I do, however, agree with you on the fact that humans must be wary about their resource consumption in order to preserve future generations because no population can grow indefinitely. At the same time, though, allowing humans to achieve their full potential could possibly lead to greater resource management and production. New technological advances could provide for more efficient renewable energy attainment, which would subsequently uncap what many would consider a once numbered resource.
-Mark Zhang (mzhang59@gmail.com)