Even though evolution hinges on the cold brutality of progress, on the platform of which it advances, a number of life’s foundations and cornerstones are preserved, or need to be, if intelligence exists.
Let me elaborate by offering the counterargument: if the progress achieved by high technology’s march into the future comes at the cost of our primordial foundation, at the full expense of the rare beauty from which we have sprung forth, then intelligence will have failed to live up to its lofty task, bequeathing its successors a legacy too atavistic for comfort.
For those of you who (correctly) regard atavism as the return to something ‘ancient’ and ‘ancestral’ i.e. a process involving one’s regression to dated and dysfunctional arrangements (from which technology is supposedly delivering us) let me ask you this: what could be more atavistic, dated and dysfunctional than the eradication of the natural habitat and its eons-old biodiversity, all in the name of an intelligence not intelligent enough to preserve a monumentally invaluable dynamic, the likes of which cannot be found anywhere in the known universe? How is using the technological matrix to raze and deracinate the biological construct not an atavism of viral, if not cancerous, capacity? How can the failure to integrate the two paradigms not be regarded as anything but a miscarriage of intelligence?
For intelligence to flourish, the primordial has to be preserved and protected, cherished even, on the backdrop of which we can not only measure ourselves, but also make sure that life is not wasted. Biodiversity is a treasure we can’t afford to lose, not now, not ever.
From your deliverance-oriented Spin Doctor,
Eyes open, mind sharp.