This is a guy who didn't even reach his prime. He's known for those staggeringly good Hitchhiker's books, but really, he only found his true calling when he branched out into science and conservation.
Here's a talk he gave at a tech/biology conference in the late 90s. I've listened to this about three times now; it's crappy quality, and since he's talking more or less off the cuff his logic goes a little sideways at times, but it's still brilliant. If you're not an audio listener, here's the text.
A quote —his analogy of why we so often seem to believe we're the center of the universe:
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me so staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
5 comments:
I really like his rationality for an artificial god, that religion is part of a human survival strategy.
It makes a great deal of sense in some ways. For many religions encourage the best in people by telling them not to lie, not to kill, to respect one's elders and ancestors. All these behaviors would seem to help human survival. But I can't really see how violence perpetrated in the name of religion (the Crusades, terrorist bombings) helps survival. Seems rather counterproductive.
I wonder if Adams sees such violence as a natural part of religion (or the artificial god) or a false offshot of religion.
Does it matter? I think so, because Adams' thinking offers atheists a way to accept religion and understand the devout people around them. And while I think this is a good thing in general, I don't think society should accept religions interpretations that say it's OK to kill for the glory of god or because killing others will help you get into heaven or whatever. I wonder if Adams draws a line anywhere.
I often wonder about atrocities being committed in "the name of God" might not be some sort of Darwinian phenomenon. Like destroying competitive culture and/or societies might be some sort of unconscious survival directive that we attribute to a message from "spirits on high" where it may actually just be our reptile brains saying "The hive cluster is under attack", or more bluntly, "Take their land and resources, for we will need them later".
I would be extremely depressed if violence in the name of religion is Darwinian...
Firing large cannons and pillaging are great for Age of Empires. But I really hope we move beyond that in real life someday.
Actually, that makes me think of an important question: Can you pillage in Age of Empires - i.e. take an opponents weapons and use them yourself? And take your opponent's food, wood, and gold? If you can't, the game designers should incorporate that feature in future versions. Would be awesome. Then I could take all of Mr. Pony's assets after he builds them.
"Can you pillage in Age of Empires - i.e. take an opponents weapons and use them yourself? And take your opponent's food, wood, and gold? If you can't, the game designers should incorporate that feature in future versions. Would be awesome. Then I could take all of Mr. Pony's assets after he builds them."
I think I just peed myself.
"Can you pillage in Age of Empires - i.e. take an opponents weapons and use them yourself? And take your opponent's food, wood, and gold? If you can't, the game designers should incorporate that feature in future versions. Would be awesome. Then I could take all of Mr. Pony's assets after he builds them."
@_@
F'ing speechless.
Post a Comment