I find it interesting to watch the progression of the development of my understanding and points of view. I seem to jump around in a lifetime of education, touching on a topic that makes very little sense, only to find it popping up in another totally unexpected context that brings me back to the start with a very different point of view and insight into the original topic. That just happened to me, once again.

My deepening understanding of the concept of “consilience” as suggested by Edward O. Wilson began with a chance encounter with an old guy in a funky little bar-and-grill in the town of Davis, California. I like this particular venue because it draws from an extremely diverse group of people. Being in a major university town, there are students of various flavors – from the arts to the sciences, from freshmen to post doctorate fellows – there are professors, politicians, and a range of “working class” folks including carpenters, electricians, plumbers, arborists, building contractors, ranches, farmers, etc. The conversations are varied and always interesting.

One day about five years ago I sat next to a guy named Dr. Gerald A Cory, Jr. Dr. Cory’s varied and interesting background of being an author, senior military intelligence officer, a high tech corporate CEO “Legend of Silicon Valley”, a Rock-and-Roll impresario, a university professor and president, and others really caught my attention. He is just the kind of guy I really enjoy talking to.

We started our conversation around the topic of economics – one that I am interested in, but one that I am best described as an interested amateur. Dr. Cory has written many books on the topic, priced far outside of my budget. Being interested in hearing more of what he has to say on the topic, I purchased one of his books out of curiosity, “Delusions of Economics and The Way Forward.” The discussion of economics theory quickly turned to a new topic for me that he called “consilience,” referencing Edward O. Wilson’s book “Consilience and the Unity of Knowledge.” The general idea is that decisions should be made that are in consilience (alignment) with the total environment that they are related to. For example, when considering the creation of new shopping center the design needs to align with the needs of not only the owners and investors – it needs to also in alignment with the needs of the customers, the local community, the environment, the global economic situation, safety, law enforcement, community planning, etc. This use of the term seems reasonable, and partially implemented. However, there are obviously situations where ALL interested parties are satisfied with the results. In the case of the shopping center, it seems that the decisions made based upon the desires of a few – ignoring the collateral damage to most in the name of “progress.” The small critters (frogs, bugs, insects, etc) and generally left out of the picture, as are the community members whose town will be transformed into something very different. I found it all an interesting idea, but one that seems pretty utopian and unworkable – so I set the idea aside to perhaps be revisited in the future.

A couple of weeks ago my local librarian handed me a book that she thought I might be interested in. The author described a biologist whose specialty was the study of ants, Edward O. Wilson! That caught my attention, what is the connection between ants and the economics with regard to consilience? So, I found myself re-reading Wilson’s book on consilience.

While the book is only a little over 300 pages long, it was a very slow read as I attempted to follow the author’s arguments. I probably missed most of the nuances, but found myself asking new questions that have been churning in the back of my mind, but never clearly articulated.

Part of Wilson’s argument hinges on the idea of evolution being a means for modifying organisms to fit within the environment that they find themselves (sometimes called survival of the fittest). The basic idea is that there are many environmental niches that have been filled by organisms evolving over millions of years. The niches range in scale from tiny spaces with unique characteristics, to communities, to large land masses, to the entire world. At any moment in time, all of the organisms have evolved to the point of being “fit” for their environment. I don’t wish to fill in all of the details of his arguments here because of a lack of time and space, so I am just making the statement that organisms have evolved to “fit” in their environment. Some of their behavioral adoptions can perhaps be termed “instincts.” They make decisions based upon instincts and built-in biological processes.

Depending upon instincts worked fine until along came man. Man is different because man thinks in an entirely different way than other organisms. Man has evolved a brain that sets him aside from other animals by being able to think, abstract, and plan. (There is some evidence that Man isn’t totally unique in the ability to “think,” plan, and execute based upon thinking – but the differences between humans and other creatures are overwhelming and striking.)

I wonder if this is the result of having a complex language. My thought is that when “human nature” included the overwhelming use of language to communicate the nature of man changed. I think the use of language to communicate to others and ourselves allows us to do the things that are so very different from every other species. It is like the Bible says, “in the beginning there was the word..” The beginning of humanity was when we learned to talk (to ourselves and others).

I think that Wilson’s overall thesis is that if we want to “get it right” with regard to how we treat the world we will have do so in ways that are “consilient” with human nature. He says (and I agree) that if we keep doing things the way we are we will destroy the very world environment that we have evolved to fit into. We got to be the way that we are because we evolved to be successful in the environment that was present at that time. It took hundreds of thousands (actually millions) of years for us to be who we are, as is the case for every other living organism on the earth. It takes a similar amount of time to change to be adapted to a new environment. We are changing the global environment so quickly that millions of organisms (perhaps including ourselves) can’t change fast enough to cope with the change. He says (and once again, I agree) that the only solution is to stop changing the environment in ways that are lethal and unsustainable. We need to settle down and align our ways with who we (and nature) really are.

That brings up the question of, “what is human nature?” How can we know when we are in consilience with our inherited nature, or when we are in violation of that nature. We are learning a lot of this through science. For example, it appears that it is “human nature” to crave sweet foods. However, what we do with our mind is create “super sweet” foods such as high fructose corn sugar that are incompatible with our biochemistry, but “hit” the sweet spot of our craving for a high energy food. Another example is our apparently craving to accumulate “things” as a hedge against the future. We store tools, food, money, and other things during good times so we can ride out the bad. That seems to be “human nature” similar to squirrels storing nuts for the future – however, it gets out of hand and become destructive when we do that too much. Accumulating billions of dollars clearly has no survival value for the individual, and it does great harm to society. The urge to accumulate has gotten out of hand by a few, or perhaps by most. The urge results We can go down the list of things that we associate with “greed” at the business or corporate level, these are many of the things that are destroying our planet. The point is that our most destructive tendencies seem to be involve with an out-of-control fulfilling desires based upon “human nature.”

This line of reasoning brings Wilson to the following position: “Where are our deepest roots? We are, it seems, Old World, catarrhine primates, brilliant emergent animals, defined genetically by our unique origins, blessed by our newfound biological genius, and secure in our homeland if we wish to make it so. What does it all mean? This is what it all means. To the extent that we depend on prosthetic devices to keep ourselves and the biosphere alive, we will render everything fragile. To the extent that we banish the rest of life, we will impoverish our own species for all time.” (Note: Examples of a “prosthetic device” are depending upon fertilizer made from ancient oil to “fix” our depleted agricultural soils or draining the ancient non-renewable aquifers. There are many, many instances were we are using short term un-sustainable solutions for long term problems.)

Other than once again scaring the daylights out of me, the idea of my achieving consilience with my “human nature” is an interesting topic. One example that I have been attempting to practice involves my eating habits. Many years ago I decided to “control” my weight by paying attention to my cravings, rather than following a “diet” plan. My goal is to become sensitive enough to my inner cravings to select the right things and quantities to eat, For example, I used to be in the “clean plate” club where I ate whatever was on my plate. This resulted in my consistently overeating, especially at restaurants. Instead, I now try eat a little slower so I have time to pay attention to my craving to continue eating, instead I just stop when I have had enough. I don’t know if it helps my weight, but I feel better after dinner with this approach and it has never felt like I was missing anything. That approach extends to selecting what “feels” right off of the menu instead of what “looks” good.

This idea of watching for when the cravings die away extends to many aspects of our lives. Instead of continually striving to store more money away, I try to watch what it “feels like” with my income/spending. When it felt that I had enough to be safe in the future, I stopped accumulating wealth. I could have continued to do so through continued contracts for my work, or through paying more attention to my investments – but that comes at the cost of not doing other things I want to do (fulfilling different cravings). So I just stopped making money. If I want to work on a project to help someone I elect to do it for free. That is more fun, doesn’t feel so desperate, and doesn’t feel like I am trapped. In a previous blog I mentioned the importance of performing something like a potlatch. A potlatch involves giving away or destroying wealth or valuable items in order to reaffirm family, clan, and international connections, and the human connection with the supernatural world. As a child, I did a small scale potlatch when I emptied my bag of marbles onto the playground once I had accumulated too many. That action returned the marbles to others so that we could continue to play the game. I had no need for a bag full of marbles if there was nobody to play the game with.

I wonder what aspects of “human nature” (evolution created “drives” or “urges”) influence our behaviors, and what could be done to honor them without destroying ourselves or our biosphere. Can we envision a world where those basic cravings are met, but not over achieved. Is there a way that we can relax into being happy and comfortable with “enough” instead of becoming fixated on getting more of it, whatever “it” might be? Is there a way to understand that being “rich” means having enough? It seems that the “primitive” human knows when more is needed and when there is “enough” – but the “modern” human (the one with a language) always wants more. Can we find a solution that satisfies both? That would be the consilient solution, otherwise we seem to be marching toward a very bad future – is the present situation worth the cost of the inevitable future if we don’t change our ways?