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
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…
Author's Note: This piece is a continuation of my article "Survival of the Kindest" that appeared in Seed magazine.
As an undergraduate in biology and anthropology I read every one of Dawkins' books voraciously and would get into heated debates with my close friends about the Dawkins-Gould rivalry…
Life is about choices made in the context of scarcity and constraint. In an ideal world (OK, my ideal world) I would be dictator, and all would do my bidding and satisify most proximate desires. Alas, it doesn't work that way. We all have to jump through hoops to get where we want. Whatever…
Duane Smith at Abnormal Interests tagged me, and I loves me some books, so who am I to refuse to be mimetic?
1. One book that changed your life?
Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic
2. One book you have read more than once?
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of…
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) ?