Does Nature operate under a Principle of Self-Correction? Is there a determined path toward restoration of an altered ecology or landscape? Now, here’s the big one: Does self-correction govern human destiny?
Answering both questions about Nature gets us into a problem of logic. If we say “yes” to either or both, are we confusing correlation with causation? Let’s play with all three questions, first with Nature and then with humans.
But now another question: If I ask someone to pass the salt but in receiving it drop the shaker, should I blame the salt-passer? “See what you made me do.” Correlating the passer and the dropping isn’t the same as identifying a cause. Components of a circumstance are not necessarily a cause. There’s also probability: In the millions or billions or trillions of times people have passed salt shakers is there not a chance some passing will be unsuccessful? You play the lottery, don’t you?
Go to Oil City, Wildcat Hollow,* and Titusville, Pennsylvania. Forests and happy little bunnies cover an area once black with spilled petroleum and covered by derricks. “See, Nature can correct itself,” you’ll say. But correction implies that there is a correct environment, that what had been is what should be. That’s judgment. And destiny? Was the forest compelled to return once the derricks came down with the cessation of drilling?
Does Nature “correct itself”? If we look at western Pennsylvania, we might say, “It does a little.” There were forests that the oil men cut down, and now there are forests again where there are no roads or buildings. Oil creek was once polluted with petroleum, but now it appears to be clear enough to see some of the pipes laid in its bed all those decades ago. And if we look anywhere on the planet and ask the question about correction, can we give the same answer? Correction seems to occur, but with modification. The number of extinct species so attests.
Any “correction” is both relative and dependent on time, sometimes as long as centuries, sometimes over millennia, and sometimes great geologic periods. Take climate. Does it self-correct? You say, “There was a Medieval Warm Period that enhanced Viking explorations; then there was a Little Ice Age that enhanced the production of beer in lieu of wine, and then back to somewhat warmer temperatures. Sure, I say, ‘Yes’ to the question.”
But look at the time frame. You just summarized a millennium of climate in one hemisphere. The correction as you see it occurred over many lifetimes. Those who experienced the Little Ice Age did not live to appreciate a couple of hundred years of relative warmth. In comparison with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum of 55 million years ago, such warmth is truly relative. Should Earth correct for the decline in temperature since that ancient period of warmth? It certainly has the time to make the correction. What are 55 million years compared to an overall planetary age of 4.5 billion years?**
What does self-correcting mean, anyway? The Appalachians are relatively low mountains, but they once stood as high as any current mountain range. The Rockies are highly elevated now, but like the Appalachians, they will erode away. Not, however, in your lifetime. And that brings me to the concept of self-correcting for humans on human scales, a concept that centers on the term “fariness.”
For both the Haves and the Have Nots fairness is a potentially important character issue. The Haves might feel guilty whereas the Have Nots might feel envious—potentially, but not, of course, necessarily. Shouldn’t the world trend toward equilibrium for individuals or even for societies? Shouldn’t the Haves who feel no guilt reexamine their selfishness? And shouldn’t Have Nots similarly reexamine their envy because many of the Haves worked hard and incessantly to get what they have? Shouldn’t the conscious organic world correct for fairness?
The Gambler’s Fallacy is a simple concept, and it applies here. You watch the roulette wheel and see red come up repeatedly. You say to yourself, “Good chance the next one is black.” Whether or not you are correct is, in fact, as much a chance as the ball’s landing again on red. Many consecutive reds do not mean that black is next, though an increasing number of rolls might trend toward a 50:50 ratio of color. That balanced ratio doesn’t have to occur during a particular visit to the roulette wheel. And an actual or perceived balance of wealth won’t necessarily occur during an individual’s or a civilization’s lifetime—even under laws that seem to guarantee “fairness” by imposition. Anecdotes of unevenness abound in the annals of any oligarchy.
Gambling presents us with a finite example of imbalances in our personal lives. A gambler will always have the potential for impoverishment and enrichment. Of course, short of total despair, the loser can always go out to earn or find more money to gamble. But in life, repetitive opportunities can be rare, and failures don’t always have follow-up successes. Blockbuster video rental company was strong in the 1990s but lost out to Netflix because the latter’s business model was superior to the former’s. Would fairness entail reestablishing Blockbuster so that you could go to the store to pick up your video on VHS tape under the dictum that a late return would incur a late fee? Or are you happy with your online Netflix subscription?
By chance, insight, and work, some Haves who lose, lose only temporarily. When Have Nots envy the success of once-fallen Haves, they might correlate the Phoenix-like rise to some determinism: “Well, what do you expect? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.” And if the Haves note a continued impoverishment in the Have Nots, do they not tend to correlate it with determinism: “Well, what do you expect? Look at his background.” From the perspective of both, determinism prevails. Correlation is accepted as cause.
All having varies with time. Not having also varies, but neither one nor the other is guaranteed. Those who seek to establish some balance, some equilibrium in either Nature or humanity might be driven by either guilt or compassion. But neither of those feelings warrants the belief that what is balanced is sustainable or what is restored mirrors the past. A changed ecology is never the same in its restoration as it was, and a Have who regains “having” after losing it is not evidence of a determined equilibrium.
Sorry for making the point longer, but…
The distribution of resources is uneven for two reasons. One: Political boundaries limit access to a regional resource. Two: Nature does not distribute gold, iron, manganese, and rare earth elements evenly. Humans impose an unevenness on top of that imposed by natural processes. New York has imposed restrictions on drilling the Marcellus Shale; Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio have encouraged it, making a number of once struggling family farmers somewhat wealthy. The shale is distributed widely under all four states. Would you impose a balance in access to ensure a balance in revenue? But if you say you would, could you guarantee that equal quantities of the resource are available? And if you dwell in a town bordered by a farmer who with new found wealth suddenly trades in his 1975 truck for a luxury vehicle, would you envy? Would you think that the farmer should share his newfound wealth with someone or some group in an act of charity?
It might be good to be compassionate. Helping Have Nots seems to be written into some, if not all, moral codes. It is not, however, written into every heart. The desire for fairness, whether it springs from guilt or envy, from compassion or reason, or from any other emotional or intellectual well is always based on a judgment that derives from an assumed Principle of Self-correction. Nature’s apparent self-corrections can take eons. Human self-corrections might never occur in the lifetimes of those who seek some equilibrium in having. It’s the way of a world that isn’t self-correcting on demand.
The next time you engage someone in a conversation about fairness, ask whether or not he or she has ever blamed someone else for dropping a salt shaker, buying a farm before the sale of mineral rights, having a genetic defect, or catching the flu bug. Then ask whether or not the person has anything that another might envy. During winter, a sheltered space before a building doorway or next to a dryer vent might be the object of envy among the homeless Have Nots.
And sorry for mixing all the metaphors, but on the roulette wheel of life, your color might or might not turn up while you have money to gamble. Don’t fault someone else if you perceive a world that doesn’t self-correct as you judge it should.
*Associated with the word wildcatter though not necessarily the origin of the term.
**1.2% in case you want the math
Answering both questions about Nature gets us into a problem of logic. If we say “yes” to either or both, are we confusing correlation with causation? Let’s play with all three questions, first with Nature and then with humans.
But now another question: If I ask someone to pass the salt but in receiving it drop the shaker, should I blame the salt-passer? “See what you made me do.” Correlating the passer and the dropping isn’t the same as identifying a cause. Components of a circumstance are not necessarily a cause. There’s also probability: In the millions or billions or trillions of times people have passed salt shakers is there not a chance some passing will be unsuccessful? You play the lottery, don’t you?
Go to Oil City, Wildcat Hollow,* and Titusville, Pennsylvania. Forests and happy little bunnies cover an area once black with spilled petroleum and covered by derricks. “See, Nature can correct itself,” you’ll say. But correction implies that there is a correct environment, that what had been is what should be. That’s judgment. And destiny? Was the forest compelled to return once the derricks came down with the cessation of drilling?
Does Nature “correct itself”? If we look at western Pennsylvania, we might say, “It does a little.” There were forests that the oil men cut down, and now there are forests again where there are no roads or buildings. Oil creek was once polluted with petroleum, but now it appears to be clear enough to see some of the pipes laid in its bed all those decades ago. And if we look anywhere on the planet and ask the question about correction, can we give the same answer? Correction seems to occur, but with modification. The number of extinct species so attests.
Any “correction” is both relative and dependent on time, sometimes as long as centuries, sometimes over millennia, and sometimes great geologic periods. Take climate. Does it self-correct? You say, “There was a Medieval Warm Period that enhanced Viking explorations; then there was a Little Ice Age that enhanced the production of beer in lieu of wine, and then back to somewhat warmer temperatures. Sure, I say, ‘Yes’ to the question.”
But look at the time frame. You just summarized a millennium of climate in one hemisphere. The correction as you see it occurred over many lifetimes. Those who experienced the Little Ice Age did not live to appreciate a couple of hundred years of relative warmth. In comparison with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum of 55 million years ago, such warmth is truly relative. Should Earth correct for the decline in temperature since that ancient period of warmth? It certainly has the time to make the correction. What are 55 million years compared to an overall planetary age of 4.5 billion years?**
What does self-correcting mean, anyway? The Appalachians are relatively low mountains, but they once stood as high as any current mountain range. The Rockies are highly elevated now, but like the Appalachians, they will erode away. Not, however, in your lifetime. And that brings me to the concept of self-correcting for humans on human scales, a concept that centers on the term “fariness.”
For both the Haves and the Have Nots fairness is a potentially important character issue. The Haves might feel guilty whereas the Have Nots might feel envious—potentially, but not, of course, necessarily. Shouldn’t the world trend toward equilibrium for individuals or even for societies? Shouldn’t the Haves who feel no guilt reexamine their selfishness? And shouldn’t Have Nots similarly reexamine their envy because many of the Haves worked hard and incessantly to get what they have? Shouldn’t the conscious organic world correct for fairness?
The Gambler’s Fallacy is a simple concept, and it applies here. You watch the roulette wheel and see red come up repeatedly. You say to yourself, “Good chance the next one is black.” Whether or not you are correct is, in fact, as much a chance as the ball’s landing again on red. Many consecutive reds do not mean that black is next, though an increasing number of rolls might trend toward a 50:50 ratio of color. That balanced ratio doesn’t have to occur during a particular visit to the roulette wheel. And an actual or perceived balance of wealth won’t necessarily occur during an individual’s or a civilization’s lifetime—even under laws that seem to guarantee “fairness” by imposition. Anecdotes of unevenness abound in the annals of any oligarchy.
Gambling presents us with a finite example of imbalances in our personal lives. A gambler will always have the potential for impoverishment and enrichment. Of course, short of total despair, the loser can always go out to earn or find more money to gamble. But in life, repetitive opportunities can be rare, and failures don’t always have follow-up successes. Blockbuster video rental company was strong in the 1990s but lost out to Netflix because the latter’s business model was superior to the former’s. Would fairness entail reestablishing Blockbuster so that you could go to the store to pick up your video on VHS tape under the dictum that a late return would incur a late fee? Or are you happy with your online Netflix subscription?
By chance, insight, and work, some Haves who lose, lose only temporarily. When Have Nots envy the success of once-fallen Haves, they might correlate the Phoenix-like rise to some determinism: “Well, what do you expect? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.” And if the Haves note a continued impoverishment in the Have Nots, do they not tend to correlate it with determinism: “Well, what do you expect? Look at his background.” From the perspective of both, determinism prevails. Correlation is accepted as cause.
All having varies with time. Not having also varies, but neither one nor the other is guaranteed. Those who seek to establish some balance, some equilibrium in either Nature or humanity might be driven by either guilt or compassion. But neither of those feelings warrants the belief that what is balanced is sustainable or what is restored mirrors the past. A changed ecology is never the same in its restoration as it was, and a Have who regains “having” after losing it is not evidence of a determined equilibrium.
Sorry for making the point longer, but…
The distribution of resources is uneven for two reasons. One: Political boundaries limit access to a regional resource. Two: Nature does not distribute gold, iron, manganese, and rare earth elements evenly. Humans impose an unevenness on top of that imposed by natural processes. New York has imposed restrictions on drilling the Marcellus Shale; Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio have encouraged it, making a number of once struggling family farmers somewhat wealthy. The shale is distributed widely under all four states. Would you impose a balance in access to ensure a balance in revenue? But if you say you would, could you guarantee that equal quantities of the resource are available? And if you dwell in a town bordered by a farmer who with new found wealth suddenly trades in his 1975 truck for a luxury vehicle, would you envy? Would you think that the farmer should share his newfound wealth with someone or some group in an act of charity?
It might be good to be compassionate. Helping Have Nots seems to be written into some, if not all, moral codes. It is not, however, written into every heart. The desire for fairness, whether it springs from guilt or envy, from compassion or reason, or from any other emotional or intellectual well is always based on a judgment that derives from an assumed Principle of Self-correction. Nature’s apparent self-corrections can take eons. Human self-corrections might never occur in the lifetimes of those who seek some equilibrium in having. It’s the way of a world that isn’t self-correcting on demand.
The next time you engage someone in a conversation about fairness, ask whether or not he or she has ever blamed someone else for dropping a salt shaker, buying a farm before the sale of mineral rights, having a genetic defect, or catching the flu bug. Then ask whether or not the person has anything that another might envy. During winter, a sheltered space before a building doorway or next to a dryer vent might be the object of envy among the homeless Have Nots.
And sorry for mixing all the metaphors, but on the roulette wheel of life, your color might or might not turn up while you have money to gamble. Don’t fault someone else if you perceive a world that doesn’t self-correct as you judge it should.
*Associated with the word wildcatter though not necessarily the origin of the term.
**1.2% in case you want the math
RSS Feed