Articles

The moment I heard the word "Astrosociology" I was hooked.  I remember similar excitement in 1975, when the great Harvard Naturalist, Dr. Edward O. Wilson, introduced me to Sociobiology, and later, Biophilia and Group Selection. Many decades passed before my background in evolutionary biology merged with my career on the forefront of technology. As the pace of innovation quickened, governments and businesses experienced new pressure to get in front of change.  I became known for my work on "predaptation" - the ability to leverage predictive analytics, AI, reconnaissance and foresight to adapt before-the-fact.

Then along comes Astrosociology - the study of social, cultural and behavioral patterns in outer space.  And just like that, the door to the next frontier is thrown wide open:  What will human societies look like on the Moon, Mars and elsewhere in the cosmos? Will we build prisons, churches and strip malls replicating life on Earth?   How will multi-planetary citizens be governed?  What new institutions, regulations and laws will be needed?  What will it be like to be born and raised in a closed, artificial environment?  Will human physiology adapt to the absence of oxygen, sunlight, gravity, etc.?  What new creative arts will emerge?  When we encounter alien cultures will we co-exist, assimilate, conquer, obliterate or submit?  What is the future of the human species?  What is to become of the planet we call home?

The questions are endless.  The answers yet to come. . .

But no matter where we venture, there is one thing of which we can be certain.  Whether it's here on Earth, or some far away galaxy, humans will remain tethered to our biological origins.  We'll bring our physiological, social, psychological, behavioral and other biologically mandated prerequisites with us.  That is, until adaptation waves its magic wand and curbs or dispenses with them.

Along those lines, we seem to have no problem addressing the physical conditions optimal for human life. When we explore environments absent these requirements - such as the bottom of oceans or 30,000 feet in the air - job number one is to create a suitable habitat, one complete with oxygen, water, nutrition, optimal temperature, etc. So, it comes as no surprise much of our initial focus has been on physical must-haves for safe human transport and life in space.

But what about other biologically mandated needs?  Complex, immaterial needs that are not fully understood and therefore, remain unmet on Earth.  What's our plan? Along with music, mathematics and language will we export inequality, wholesale genocide, disregard for the natural world, addiction, racism and dog-eat-dog economics to space?  Will depression, wars, and disease follow us the way that guns, syphilis and religious tyranny followed 15^th Century explorers to new territories?  Will our long history of cultural imperialism and eradication of indigenous peoples carry forward?

Thus far, the entire point of our venture seems to be to get to space.  Build safe transportation, livable environments and reliable supply chains, then figure the rest out later.  Yet, it's precisely this lack of foresight which has led to many of the most shameful acts in human history.  From the forced migration and annihilation of the American Indians and appropriation of land, to the colonization and exploitation of the African continent by European powers, to the pollution of the air, water and soil on which all life depends, to the plundering of rainforests and oceans and slaughter of animals to the point of extinction - these are the acts of a reckless species. A species that prizes expediency over sustainability, coffers over compassion, satisfaction over sacrifice.

It is convenient to treat these as past indiscretions - lessons necessary for modern man and societies to mature.  It is convenient to think we have learned our lesson, tamed primeval urges, and are now on a path to right these and other misdeeds. But facts suggest otherwise. Today, the carnage continues in Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq and Syria, Central African Republic and places too small for the media to take notice. Global suicides, addiction, mental illness, mass violence, income inequality and government distrust are rising. Reproduction rates are dropping. People living in the wealthiest countries in the world report they are less happy than their parents, and parents before them. And over a million species will permanently disappear from Earth in the coming decade.

In the words of E.O. Wilson, we live in a time of "Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and God-like technology." A kind of three-way tug-o-war is playing out between biologically inherited imperatives, irrelevant institutions and lightning-fast breakthroughs in science and technology. Left unchecked, we run the danger of exporting the unresolved conflict to space.

So, what is to be done?  How do we ensure the best of who and what humans are propagates the universe?

The answer is simple.

The task daunting.

We must come to terms with our nature - the true history, talents, limits and potential of humankind.  That means dispelling three beliefs upon which we have built modern societies - three tenets which are largely responsible for how we see ourselves, our needs, our future.

The first of these misconceptions occurred in 1859, when Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species.  This was a time when people were asked to choose between science or God in a frightful false dichotomy - a choice which would have colossal ramifications on how societies advanced. Once we discredited our biological history, it wasn't difficult to see ourselves as separate from the living world.  This gave us permission to treat other life forms with disregard.  And the environment with indifference.  Over time, pillaging the planet became a God-given right - the intended riches of a
sacred species.

In truth, we have drifted so far from our natural origins, that, short of what DNA can tell us about our predisposition for disease and which country our ancestors migrated from, our biological inheritance has become irrelevant.  Evolutionary biology has no role in policy decisions, education, urban planning, law enforcement, or any other aspect of modern life, resulting in societies which are gravely misaligned with embedded imperatives millions of years in the making.

For example, in survey after survey people cite money (wealth) as one of the top necessities for happiness.  Yet, science reveals that once we reach a certain level of economic security, every additional dollar produces diminishing returns in life-satisfaction.  Which explains why the most wealthy among us are no happier than those who earn a good living.  What's more, the threshold after which money begins to have less impact is much lower than you think.  In the United States, it's an annual income of around $200-$225K.   Not millions.  It turns out, far more critical than money is having at least one person we can turn to in times of trouble. The happiest people in the world have three or four people they can count on.  And at least one of those people lives within a mile of their home.  When you stop and think about it, this makes perfect sense. Troupe living offered tremendous survival advantages to early man.  It allowed us to fend off larger predators, hunt bigger bounty, collectively protect and raise our young and more.

Yet, in spite of our evolutionary needs we are now intent on making it easier for people to live without others.  To deliver everything they need to their front porch.  From food to a new automobile, self-sufficiency is just the click of a button away.  But what about love, meaning, belonging, touch, security?  As we move rapidly toward total sustainment, we ignore the alarm bells along the way.  We ignore a growing epidemic of mental illness and pharmaceutical dependence. We ignore isolation, despair, desperation and distrust.  We assign the blame in violence to guns, racism, income inequality, unemployment, and every other thing. We turn a blind eye to the consequences of living in a manner nature never intended.

What we must now do is correct an error made 160 years ago.  Instead of taking the position that evolution and religion pose a threat to each another, we must embrace both.  We must not succumb to making science wrong for the sake of making religion right.  Instead, we must take the position that we have not yet resolved areas where they appear to conflict. Given time, we will uncover more knowledge and will understand how they fit together.  Just not today. This is the position I and most scientists have taken.  We are not Godless.  We have decided to live with ambiguity.

The second misconception which has produced societies that are out of alignment with human nature occurred in 1943, with the introduction of Maslow's Theory of Human Motivation.  According to the American psychologist, humans are first and foremost motivated to meet our physiological needs. Then, once those needs are met, we go to work on safety, followed by love and belonging.  At the top of Maslow's famous pyramid, are higher motivations such as self-esteem and self-actualization.

Maslow's hierarchy made so much sense, it wasn't long before it became the defacto blueprint for how to prioritize and organize societies. Start by meeting a citizenry's physical needs and then, over time, higher levels, such as self-actualization, will follow.  Every government leader, every scientist, every school, in every nation, bit.

But something has gone terribly wrong. The overall standard of living around the world has increased manyfold in the last century.  Child mortality is down, lifespans longer, and food and water are more abundant today than at any other time in human history. So, shouldn't we be seeing an increase in self-esteem, love, belonging and self- actualization?  More contentment and satisfaction?  More peace in the world?

But that not what's happening.  Global suicides have skyrocketed 65 percent in 45 years, becoming one of the leading causes of death. Drug, gambling, alcohol, sex and other addictions are also up.  Domestic abuse, child abandonment, and loneliness, too.  If we thought meeting humanity's physiological needs was all that was needed to put us on the path to becoming enlightened, we were mistaken.

It was never a given that once we satisfied humanity's physical needs, the rest would take care of itself.  Just as we have created institutions and processes to meet our physical requirements, we must acknowledge and make immaterial biological mandates a social priority.  If science has proven that loneliness is more toxic to our health than smoking; if research reveals that 50 to 75 percent of our capacity to be happy is inherited (longitudinal studies of twins separated at birth); if empirical data demonstrates that any prolonged period of involuntary unemployment negatively impacts us for the rest of our life, then we must put this knowledge to work.  We must build societies which cater to more than our physiological needs.  More than efficient output and consumption.

Rejecting Darwin and our biological heritage along with misapplying Maslow's social blueprint may have scrambled our social priorities, but there was one final assumption which drove societies further askew.   

This occurred in the 1800's, when Sigmund Freud began treating trauma through psychoanalysis.  According to Freud, human personalities and behaviors are determined by our experiences beginning in utero and, as a result, extreme events during our formative years have life-long consequences.

Freud's research was so well accepted that it was soon embraced as fact.  No one dared question why some people who experienced insufferable ordeals went on to lead fulfilling lives.  These individuals were treated as exceptions in spite of the fact the overwhelming majority of humanity seemed to have avoided mental illness just fine.

The psychoanalytic movement began a march to eliminate anything which had even the most remote possibility of being a negative experience, hence scar a person for life.  Every child received a participation trophy regardless of who won, teachers advanced students to the next grade for fear of stigmatization, incompetent employees were given every reason but incompetence for termination, everyone's opinion suddenly had merit and was to be respected even if they had no knowledge or experience in the subject, and strong alpha personalities were slapped with labels like "bully" and "abuser."  But this was just a warm-up for the recent WOKE movement.  Overnight, humans became so fragile that an insensitive joke, unwelcomed hug or a "strange look" from a co-worker was elevated to suffering.

But it's not true.

We are not now, and never have been, a fragile species.  We did not rise to the top of the living pyramid because we curled into a fetal position every time we encountered adversity.  Fact is, our resiliency, our quick-fire ability to adapt, is chiefly responsible for our species' evolutionary prosperity.

In 1978, social scientist, Philip Brickman, proved our resiliency.  He decided to study the long-term effects of two of the most extreme positive and negative experiences humans encounter in life. He chose as his subjects large lottery prize winners and individuals who suffered an accident and suddenly became paraplegic. Though his sample was understandably small, much to everyone's astonishment, within a short period of time both groups were not much happier, or less happy, than the general population.  Lottery winners returned to levels of happiness they experienced prior to their windfall, and paraplegics began finding satisfaction in small, everyday victories as they made their way back to some emotional equilibrium.

Brickman's study sent shockwaves through the field of psychology.

Much later, we learned that, similar to atoms that become excited and return to their "steady state," humans have a "set range" to which we rebound following positive and negative encounters.  Positive psychologists speculate that as much as 50 to 75 percent of that set range is inherited.   So are personality traits such as extroversion and introversion, aggression, etc.  Fact is, the further we have strayed from accepting our genetically inherited assets, predispositions and limitations, the worse our situation has become.  In no time we have created institutions, and sanctioned behaviors, to protect people from things they needed no protection from.

In this short essay I have delineated three misunderstandings which have largely shaped modern societies.  In spite of an abundance of resources, wealth and knowledge, we have never been more unhappy or more lost.  And now we turn our attention to outer space where we imagine a better life. And hereon lies humanity's great irony: Most people can imagine a better life in space which we cannot imagine here on our own planet.  We imagine cooperation, fairness and equality in space.  In space there is no traffic or pollution, no religious conflict or violence.  In space, people help one another because it's a matter of life or death.  Racism, sexism, and other ism's disappear.  Fact is, nothing comes closer to our idea of utopia than what we imagine life on other planets will be like.  We're like a four-time divorcee who believes with all their heart number five will be different; like the perpetual dieter who's positive the next quick weight fix will do the trick.

While there's nothing wrong with being hopeful, it would be infinitely more constructive to come to terms with why we have failed to create the kind of societies on Earth that we can imagine elsewhere in space. To come to terms with the good, bad and ugly of our nature and begin instituting safeguards that ensure we propagate the best of us as we venture into the great beyond.