What if human consciousness isn't the end-all and be-all of Darwinism? What if we are all just pawns in corn's clever strategy game, the ultimate prize of which is world domination? Author Michael Pollan asks us to see things from a plant's-eye view -- to consider the possibility that nature isn't opposed to culture, that biochemistry rivals intellect as a survival tool. By merely shifting our perspective, he argues, we can heal the Earth. Who's the more sophisticated species now?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At this stage of the game, I almost feel sorry for David Kirby.
Think about it. He's made his name and what little fame he has (which isn't much outside of the tinhat crowd that thinks the guv'mint is intentionally poisoning their children with vaccines to make them all autistic) almost entirely on…
I read this article in the NRO, and the author actually made some interesting arguments. 'Basically,' he said, 'I am questioning the premise that [global warming] is a problem rather than an opportunity.' Does he have a point?...
While I am no expert in giving out answers to global warming I do…
Things have been a bit too serious around here lately. After all, yesterday I wrote about obesity and chemotherapy, while the day before that I did an even lengthier than usual deconstruction of some claims by anti-Obamacare activists, which seemed particularly appropriate to me given that a group…
There is a shifting pattern of spam email that I get. A while back, it was practically non-stop gay porn; I commented on this a while back, and laughed it off, which apparently annoyed the people who'd been sending it to me. I think they expected me to be stressed and conflicted and angry at…
I would argue there are a plethora of bacterial species that are more sophisticated than a lot of relatively inconsequential multi-cellular mammals.
I am not sure that any single prokaryote should be considered more "sophisticated" than the complex amalgamations of complex cells that pass for most people's common perception of "animals". But in terms of numbers they have definitely done better than us. After all, in simple numbers, then the modern factory-fed chicken is probably the most successful bird in history. It's just a more sophisticated argument than Douglas Adams' suggestion that it's the lab mice who really control human development.
What do you mean by "What if human consciousness isn't the end-all and be-all of Darwinism? " Evolutionary theory has no end-all or be-all, although that is a popular misconception. Is that what you are addressing - the misconception (or as I have not yet viewed this talk, is that what the speaker is getting at) ?