Is alphabetical order actually unbiased and, if it is not unbiased, what bias does alphabetical order serve? A topic to ponder another time perhaps. For now we'll say that it is. Creation versus evolution in a nutshell: it is too grand of an argument for us mere mortals to draw any rational conclusion and therefore our opinions, however faithful, are futile. Opinions are futile...can opinions really be of consequence? Of course they can. And opinion is really what this post is about. We learn through the rose-colored glasses of anthropocentrism. That is to say that, regardless of the subject, we cannot help but understand a universe that serves our species. We do not identify ourselves as being natural or of nature. We tend to label things as either natural or man-made. It is as if our species is apart from or, dare I say, superior to nature. Perhaps the most vivid example of such bias is that of how Galileo Galilei's writings on heliocentrism were so ill-received in the early seventeenth century. How dare someone suggest that the planet of homo sapiens is not the center of the universe. The intellectual hangover following that single paradigm shift still lingers.
It infects every area of study. Fast forward to what is easily the most politicized issue of the day: global warming, scratch that, climate change. Well, which is it? A decade or so ago it was most definitely global warming - also known as anthropogenic climate change. The words 'climate' and 'change' on their own surely do not carry the same significance as when they're used together. But in reality the phrase 'climate change' is as insignificant as the phrase 'daylight change'. The phrase simply implies that the climate changes just like the amount of daylight changes as the sun rises and sets. The fact that billions of dollars of funding has been squandered to the study of 'climate change' ought to be as outrageous as the idea of wasting billions of dollars on the study the fact that it gets lighter and darker as the sun rises and sets. The findings are unanimous: the climate changes. Seriously, groundbreaking stuff.
Why is it such a highly debated issue if it is, as suggested above, a nonissue? It's an issue because we've planted our species firmly in the center of the debate. On one hand it is our species that is causing the climate to change at a more rapid pace, and on the other hand, it is our species that will suffer most if we do not act to prevent the rapid change in climate. Notice that in neither of these alarmist statements are there any substantial facts. There are no metrics, only speculation. The only significant statement in either case is that our species is both: the most significant cause of the problem and the most significantly affected by the problem. Like our predecessors in the case of heliocentrism, we have become blinded by the fact that we must be the center of the universe.
Is it the universe that shapes our consciousness or is it our consciousness that shapes the universe? Countless species have faced extinction due to climate change. Climate change has also made it possible for countless species, including our own, to evolve as they have. It's theorized that the polar ice caps have completely melted periodically throughout the history of this planet. It's also theorized that the polar ice caps grew together at the equator at least once. And we as a species are a direct result of all of these prior changes in climate.
It is time to stop thinking of the universe in such anthropocentric terms. Given that life (of any kind) continues on this planet, life will continue to adapt, survive, and evolve to suit its environmental conditions. It isn't a reach to imagine another evolutionary step for our own species in the next several million years. It is as important to understand that our species is but a speck in the infinite expanse of the universe as it is to understand that our species is a stepping stone in the evolutionary chain of events that will ultimately shape future species.
And some future species will likely look back at homo sapiens with the same disregard that we have for neanderthals.