I have just finished reading the book of the same title, the third of what has become an annual www.edge.org publication.
Every year, the edge group asks a collection of the world’s leading scientists and thinkers a question and the essays written in response are collated and published.
The first in the series was “What do you believe but cannot prove?” The subsequent question was “What is your dangerous idea?”
Responses this year included a gleeful gaggle of geeks getting a hadron about the collider – and the return to experimental physics it heralds. There were also sociologists, web developers, psychiatrists, inventors, archaeologists… It’s an absorbing and fascinating read. The essays are at most a few pages in length. Several are only a couple of paragraphs. Despite the sometimes technical subject matter, they’re all easily digestible – perfect for those times when your own digestive system is doing its dirty work.
This is my attempt to answer the edge question;
An overwhelming majority of people will have a global scope of concern within a generation.
Our earliest evolutionary ancestors were biologically programmed to care only for themselves. As these primates began to live in a more recognisable family, the scope of concern of each individual began to expand. The wellbeing of each member of the family was directly affected by the wellbeing of every other family member.
When early humans built the first communities, the benefits of living in a larger group necessitated that due consideration was given to the wellbeing of other individuals quite removed from the immediate family. These communities eventually gave rise to sub-sections of the community, and sub-cultures within them.
As human societies became more complex, an individual’s scope of concern could include people of the same religion, race, gender or other (now seemingly arbitrary) distinction.
Wars have been fought over nations – and later, groups of nations – ostensibly acting to preserve the well-being of the people within their scope of concern. If an individual understands that their own wellbeing is intrinsically tied to that of another, they will act. Whether it’s born from a primal sense of self preservation, or an enlightened benevolence, an individual will respond to the needs of another if they identify with them.
Television allowed unprecedented access to imagery from afar – confronting people in their living rooms with tragedy half a world away, increasing their scope of concern. Yet some detachment, some failure to empathise completely, remained. That sense of mutual benefit – the understanding that making this person’s life better will make my life better too – was not yet evident for many. But our parents still cared more about more people than their parents did.
The first decade of the 21st century has seen humanity exchange information on a global scale, with startling immediacy and clarity. Communications technologies have allowed victims of oppression in Tibet to relay first-hand the shocking detail of their ordeals, at an intimate and personal level. The days of a nameless, ignorable emaciated child having her pleas for help ignored are rapidly coming to an end.
The personalising of an individual in circumstances vastly different from our own is capturing our attention, increasing our understanding and unstoppably expanding our scope of concern.
And when the current generation of web-savvy, interactivity-craving young people ascend to positions of influence within our society, observing alone will not satisfy them. They will seek to be an active part of the solution, having instantly and instinctively understood the benefit to themselves in doing so.
The enlightenment that comes with information will compel that generation to act. This understanding will lead them to rectify the failings of their predecessors, and will bring to an end the days of less fortunate people being left behind.
I am optimistic that within my lifetime there won’t be anybody beyond the scope of concern of the vast majority, they will demand action, and won’t take no for an answer.
