Recently, I mused about a delightful topic, the apocalyptical end days of our favorite species … homo-sapiens. But first, let us pause a moment on the irony of labeling ourselves the  ‘thinking’ species. That is rich when you think on it, especially when you view the primitive level of political discourse in the United States

In truth, I see our species as decidedly schizophrenic, or should I more accurately say in possession of two core personalities. On the one hand, we have this singular and remarkable  attribute of hyper-rationality. That part of us has created the world we see about us, a world littered with technical devices of breathtaking sophistication. That world, a product of inductive reasoning and science, has enabled our poor species (some at least) to examine and partially apprehend the fascinating subatomic quantum world while, at the same time, peering back in time through our inter-stellar telescopes to explore the very beginnings of the universe from 14-plus billion years ago. That is breathtaking stuff.

Then, we have our other side. That one is rooted in our animal nature. It resides and reflects the instinctual responses that were essential to survival in a former world where disaster existed everywhere and oft posed an extreme threat. To continue existing, and thus continuing the cognitive advantages inherent within the species, our ancestors had to act aggressively both individually and in tribal groups. They needed to act defensively, if not proactively, with cunning and even savagery. For much of our history, the notion of survival of the fittest was more than just a cute slogan. In many ways, that old world is in the past. Cognitive humans (homo-sapiens) now rule the planet absent any substantive external threat.

Now we are engaged in an epochal transformation. And yet, these competing world perspectives remain in existential conflict with one another. The winner may well dictate the future the post-hominid species. Will our rational side prevail or will our primitive emotions remain dominant?

In religious cloth, we might look at our contemporary dilemna much as our predecessors have … a battle between good and evil, the ultimate dualistic contest. Will reason guide us in the future or will our base instincts prevail.

Frankly, I have no idea on the outcome. For some clue, I look at our current national crisis. As most of us know, Ben Franklin responded to a question at the end of the Constitutional convention in 1787 that the ‘founding fathers’ (members of the enlightenment) had bequeathed a Republic to the colonialists residing in this nascent country. But then he added the critical caveat … if you can keep it. Ben had his doubts. In hindsight, those doubts were well founded.

We can choose one of several historical moments as the starting point for the American experiment. I’ve always liked 1800. As I’ve noted before, that was the moment that John Adams realized that he had lost his reelection bid to his arch and bitter enemy, Thomas Jefferson (though the election process looked nothing like it does today). Yet, Adams accepted the results and returned to Boston without protest. Our fledgling constitution worked. The year 1800 also is a convenient starting point to do some necessary arithmetical computations, I like round numbers.

It has been 225 years since then. That is over two centuries in which the core principles inherent in our constitutional experiment might both be perfected and embodied in the body-politic of our nation. During that time, we witnessed multiple revolutions at the social, scientific, and technological levels. We went from an essentially premodern world to one that has us on the verge of the singularity where human consciousness and advanced technology might meld as one.

And yet, we are struggling to preserve the most basic notions established as foundational elements on which our nation was created. Perhaps the most basic of these is that we are a nation of laws. No one, not even the President, is above the rules nor immune to our constitutional limits on power and authority. Conversely, everyone has certain protections that cannot easily be cast aside. Remember that we were founded in reaction to the apparent abuses of monarchical or authoritarian rule.

And still, we have the MAGA movement and the scourge of Trumpism in the land. In 2020, a sitting President refused to accept the clear results of an election, encouraging a mob to assault the Capitol and subvert our constitutional protocols for transferring power peacefully. This would-be tyrant refused to relinquish his authority based on accepted democratic rules.

Was this man banished politically as a result? NO! He was reelected 4 years later. Now encouraged, he is running rampant over every dimension of our constitutional culture … a free press, an independent judiciary, an educational system that is unfettered by political tampering, a military whose role in domestic matters is sharply curtailed (a special concern of our founders), the very scientific community which created our modern world and, most shocking of all, rejection of our sacred devotion to freedom of thought and speech. Look about us today, each of these principles is under attack. And yet, while there is some outrage, those opposing voices are shockingly muted.

What does this say about the more existential battle over the future of the species. Will what comes out the other end of this transformation be the better and more enlightened instincts of our species (homo-sapiens) or our basest animal cravings merely amplified beyond calculation by our exponentially expanding technological expertise (homo-stupidus)?

The contemporary American  situation does not give me any solace. in fact, it frightens the crap out me. Do we really want the likes of Musk, Zuckerberg, Theil (and many other uber-wealthy tech-bros) crafting our futures? I don’t.  looking around, though, which perspective do you think will prevail in the end?