Evolution?
“Late Night Ramblings," 8/26/94, 11:23 pm
When the unicellular organisms had evolved within the primordial soup, they learned to combine their resources, to enhance their position in the heirarchy of a changing world. They joined together, forming multicellular organisms. Single cells began to specialize, performing specific tasks extraordinarily well, relying on other cells within the organism to make up for the sacrifices demanded by specialization. In the process, they forfeited their identities. Today, a paramecium is a paramecium, a bacterium is a bacterium; They are viable organisms capable of sustaining life independantly of other organisms, except--of course-- for those upon which they feed. But, a cardiac cell, while being very good at expanding and contracting on schedule within the heart of a larger animal, cannot support itself. And, it is not a whole entity. The only identification, it has is as a part of a larger whole. It is not self-sufficient. It has lost its sense of self. It is not an organism. Admittedly, we as people think more of larger animals than of paramecia, but even that bias is not sufficiient too gage impact. People and animals alike are often forced to pay attention to such”lowly” life forms as bacteria, especially when some bacteria are capable of overwhelming a tremendously larger animal. Of course, the bacteria work togethter to accamplish the victory, but they work as an army of individuals, not as a single entity. It would seem that our cells, by sacrificing their senses of self, did not really accomplish the tremendous superiority they anticipated.
The real question, the analogy that may contain a lesson for modern man, in fact the point of this apparently inconsequential exercise in philosphy, is this : what are the ramifications for corporate man? As we organize ourselves into larger nations and empires, metroplexes of habitation, corporate lifelstyles, do we make the same sacrifices required of our ancestral cells? Do we buy our corporate identies with our self-sufficiency and senses of self? Is an average civilized, technology-dependent, culture-dependent person capable of sustaing his own life outside of his system? Allowed a favorable environment--warm climate, adequate food species in the local ecology, can a modern human being survive? And within his support network of specialists in other fields than his own, can he retain his sense of self? Is the cocktail party introduction of “I’m Jack’s wife” or “I’m the new sales rep from the Toledo office” an accurate reflection of our self-perceptions?
And, for those human beings who can say “Yes, I could survive alone,” who can introduce themselves without labeling, are we prepared to be the bacteria and paramecia of the next age? Assuming our children follow our example, are we ready to bequeath to them the position of underestimated renegade, capable of bringing down the corporations and governments by cooperating as armies of individuals, but not entitled to be a part of those organizations? And will some of our children become, like the bacteria in our digestive systems, corporate symbiotes, retaining their identities within the system by remaining somehow apart from it, vital but scorned, living off the organisms they feed?
Is the corporation the next step in the evolution of life on our planet? If so, we’re talking about a step as big as no other taken since multicellular organisms began to evolve. This is really, really big--not like cows getting four stomachs or certain animals adapting their feet into hooves. This is an overall evolution in the type of life present.
And what about those of us who would prefer to remain unicellular, to retain the right to a sense of self through the skills of independent living? What will our role be in a new ecosystem?
Consider.