Comments

One gorilla never fought or killed another? Fishes never got territorial? Animals always husband their resources carefully rather than strip everything bare and move onto to the next field? Sorry, Tom: nice sentiment, dodgy analogy.

My hope is less about what I'm descended from than what I'm evolving into. The past has happened; the future I can shape.

Posted by Mark JF at October 19, 2005 10:09 AM

Amen Tom !!

"We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us" !!

Posted by /pd at October 19, 2005 11:36 AM

Tom, A question and two points:

Q: You don't think you need security in order to fly to all the places you do and tell us about them? Huh? Duhhhh!

Please, please hire a any-color, any-gender, brilliant republican assitant who can help you. Otherwise, you may loose the rest of your republican supporters to STUPID opinions like this.

[Personal insult deleted.--CM]

Posted by anonymous at October 19, 2005 2:07 PM

I agree that evolution is THE shaping factor for all life on this planet. Though human potential is great, to the power of WOW! - Mozart, Cezanne, Einstein, Ella Fitzgerald, Gandhi, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Mother Teresa - we are limited by our biology and our evolutionary baggage. Our lives are nano-blips on the radar of stellar time, meaningless except for the meaning we bring to them. Evolution only cares that we survive long enough to pass on our genes to another generation. What we as humans have to care enough about is passing along the ideas, the curiosity, the skepticism, the kindness, the strength, the talent, the boldness, the generosity, the questions that will allow the next generations to overcome the worst beasts of our natures and prevent our own destruction.

Though I sometimes disagree with Tom’s point of view, I would never tell him not to express it. I’d either sit back in quiet self satisfaction of my own superior world view or offer it up to persuade everyone to join my side. And if I agreed with everything Tom said, why would I bother to read what he has to say? How could I learn anything new or grow to my potential if my beliefs and opinions are not challenged?

Posted by Kirk at October 19, 2005 5:46 PM

I suppose I could have read it wrong, but I thought Tom was saying that he'd find it more comforting to think that humans, with their various flaws, evolved from more primitive ancestors than to think that such oft-murderous and self-destructive beasts sprang forth as-is from the mind of an omnipotent creator.

As for "anonymous," maybe spend fewer of your afternoons tweaking on homemade crank and listening to Rush?

Posted by eas at October 19, 2005 7:20 PM

A big difference between human beings and animals is that animal can only act on their instinct. We are capable of making a moral choice (even against our instinct or impulse). Evolution theory can not explain why only human beings can make a moral choice.

Posted by from China at October 19, 2005 8:11 PM

Dang, Tom, I know this is your website but I sure wish you'd keep your politics out of it. It seemed like a stretch to read your post about "nut-cracking apes" in the first place, but then I realized you were only using the topic as a springboard to a rant against the war in Iraq and global warming.

We loyal readers understand and respect your political viewpoint, even if some of us don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see where posts like "Me Ape, You Tarzan" have much relevance to your forte: the art of leadership.

Posted by Chuck at October 19, 2005 10:39 PM

Chuck, you're playing Kremlinologist here, and mis-reading the tea leaves. Fact is, to the consternation of friends and family, I supported the war in Iraq, just as I supported Vietnam with, among other things, two years of decorated service in that country. (And unlike John Kerry, I proudly retain my modest chest-full of medals to this day; I especially cherish the clusters tha attest to the fact that I served in direct support of the United States Marine Corps on the ground. Hey Chuck, when I go traveling, I always wear a baseball cap with one word on the brim: Navy. I am hopelessly proud of my four years+ of service to this day.) (By the way, I wonder if "anonymous" ever served in the military in any capacity, let alone in a shooting war where the bad guys wanted me and mine to go home in the likes of one of the inumerable rubber body bags I saw at the Danang and Quang Tri airports in I Corps? My dozen closest friends have as many Purple Hearts as most people have bowling trophies.)

I'd respectfully suggest you consider my comment in the broader context in which it was intended: namely, mankind's longstanding violence toward one another which is to me sickening. Of course I know that we had to crush Hitler in the 40s. Oddly, given current politics, it was Democrat Roosevelt who waged a mostly illegal and clearly unConstitutional non-war war in support of Churchill and against the express wishes of an isolationist bloc of Congressional Republicans. To continue the oddity, of course, it was Kennedy who defeated General Eisenhower on the basis of a "missle gap," actually nonexistent, that he said, to the public's applause, suggested that Ike was soft on the Reds; JFK, in a mostly failed presidency, then proceeded to launch Vietnam mostly because he was mesmerized by the apparent omnipotence of the glamorous Green Berets. Johnson of course escalated the war, and the president who I directly served in the White House on issues of drug abuse (specifically, I was the Executive Director of the Cabinet Committee on Narcotics Control), Richard Nixon, as I recall a Republican, eventually extracted us from Southeast Asia. The Middle East is a mess, and no one has a decent solution. The idea of Iraq, even if the immediate justification was as trumped up as my friend General Powell now says it was, may have made as much sense as anything. Yet I still reserve the right to suggest that humankind as a whole has a rather "spotty" (shitty) record of violence.

As to Global Warming, I know that no scientific debate is ever closed--after all, I carefully studied Sir Karl Popper while getting my Ph.D. (in business, not soft studies) from Stanford; Sir Karl's masterwork was "Conjectures and Refutations," which asserted that any regnant hypothesis is always open for contradiction--Newton is trumped by Einstein, etc. Nonetheless, I think, like British Petroleum among many others, that the preponderance of evidence suggests that we most likely have a significant problem on our hands. But, again, I was not as you suggest--must we always politicize every statement in terms of a current debate, could we aim for a 100-year context, not just the term of a President of whatever party?--even thinking about, let alone talking about, global warming. I was simply thinking about how much I long to be in Vermont, where I have missed the entire Fall, even if it wasn't one of our best; look, I moved from my beloved Northern California (Palo Alto, home to earth's largest collection of Capitalist Pigs) a dozen years ago because I was fed up with the growing congestion. I'm a rabid pro-marketeer (my official biography describes me as a Capitalist Pig), who's nonetheless enjoys clean air and clear night skies more than the commonplace alternative.

The one arena where I am insistent, despite the fact that many of my fellow Americans disagree, is our apparent drift away from a sturdy belief in science and the Scientific Method (the widely acknowledged bedrock of man's advances following the Dark Ages), most recently marked not by the Intelligent Design debate, but a controversy over the Dalai Lama's presenting a "serious paper" in D.C. to a neuroscience gathering. Among many other things, my Capitalist Pig gene believes we will quickly become globally non-competitive if we even slightly turn our back on science. (NB, last year China produced 300,000 engineering graduates, India another 150,000 and the USA 70,000--troublesome to say the least.)

Well, that's far more than I intended to say. Whatever ...

Posted by tom peters at October 20, 2005 3:10 AM

I thing the Mark Twain [paraphrase] quote was "... those are my values - if you don't like them, I have others I can spin up ..." ...

I really super value Tom's multi-dimension analyses especially given his experience, advanced education and extraordinary unique worldliness.

The world is seemingly more dangerous - the Louis Freeh book on WJK's misdeeds is revealing - we must have decisive outcome oriented leadership. Recall Black September and the 1972 Olympics - seems now more than ever extreme radical killing of Islam terror is needed -

Posted by Sean at October 20, 2005 10:32 AM

What's the old saying? "There are two things you should never discuss with family: religion and politics."

Well, holy crap, why don't we all get frontal lobotomies while we're at it as well? It seems like people want to avoid emotionally-charged (even with factual knowledge) topics in order to avoid conflict. The ironic thing is our avoidance of conflict just escalates the issues. We're like ostriches in a mine field. Keep sticking your head in the sand and it will eventually get blown off.

I say, let's talk about stuff you're passionate about. I say, let's meet conflict while resolution is still viable. While reconciliation is still possible. Why let two opposing forces gain momentum independent of each other, only to destroy one another when they meet?

I say, speak up Tom. I don't always agree with you. I don't agree with you here. I think this is a loaded argument. It poses the question, "Would you rather originate from apes or murderers?"

I'd rather originate from a divine purpose, once lost and now being refreshed. I'd rather acknowledge that there is a potential for extravagant good in every person. That's my hope. Although many have lost their purpose, lost themselves, that they can seek and find, find meaning, find themselves and find a life worth living.

Religion and politics? I break both those rules because I care too much about the consequences of not speaking up.

Posted by DUST!N at October 20, 2005 10:49 AM

Hey Dustin we are agreeing again my friend!! - my partner Annie and I are halfway through a 10 week Alpha course - I am re-discoveing my spritual roots and it is wonderful.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 20, 2005 11:09 AM

It is the occasional political theme that hits this blog that makes it so much better than most of the business blogs (including mine) on the planet. I love Tom's ability to make readers think.

I never understood why people get so dang angry at another person for having a conflicting view. I love to talk politics, religion, etc... but most people wont have intelligent discussions with people who are not in total agreement with them.

And as for the person who said something un-polite that it had to be removed: That is just wrong. If you have a differing opinion, respectfully point out the difference...but don't call people names.

A girl I dated in college, hated Bush senior, who called the elder Bush "The Anti-Christ". How silly. He is a lot of things, and if you disagree with his politics....more power to you...but the anti-christ? I was then, and am now, pretty sure GWH Bush is not that.

But people with no real ability to explain themselves must result to brash comments.

Tom, I say keep up your comments. Go get em.

Posted by Thom Singer at October 20, 2005 11:31 AM

Isn't it great how a short post can stir up such debate?

It is also very surprising how apparently 'educated' some feel about the evolutionary argument (still a theory, yes? or is it a faith, no?) and yet, dismiss all other concepts with apparently equal 'knowledge'.

Statements like the following sound wise, but are they?

"I agree that evolution is THE shaping factor for all life on this planet... we are limited by our biology and our evolutionary baggage... Evolution only cares that we survive long enough to pass on our genes to another generation. What we as humans have to care enough about is passing along the ideas, the curiosity, the skepticism, the kindness, the strength, the talent, the boldness, the generosity, the questions that will allow the next generations to overcome the worst beasts of our natures and prevent our own destruction."

This stream of thought suggests that, thanks to evolution, we will get BETTER and BETTER as time goes on. Are we? I don't think so. If Darwinian theory is correct at all, it is that survival does go to the fittest, not necessarily to the kindest.

"I suppose I could have read it wrong, but I thought Tom was saying that he'd find it more comforting to think that humans, with their various flaws, evolved from more primitive ancestors than to think that such oft-murderous and self-destructive beasts sprang forth as-is from the mind of an omnipotent creator."

Here's an example of either an honest lack of knowledge or a deliberate attempt to mislead. The omnipotent creator did NOT create man, in the beginning, as oft-murderous and self-destructive. According to at least one profound and trusted source, man was created in the creator's image and was perfect, but mankind made its own choice and decided they wanted to be their own creator. This folks, is where all of our real problems have come from. Our will.

Posted by Glenn at October 20, 2005 11:54 AM

Here's the thing. Regardless of our individual beliefs on how it all started and who's in charge at the cosmic level - it's impossible to separate business from politics, politics from religion, humans from their environment. If we are going to ever do anything intelligent (in - ahem - design, or otherwise), we must recognize all are interrelated.

I'm a self-admitted tree hugger greenie type (but also believe in common sense) and am thus prejudiced - however, it's impossible to do business if we can't drink the water or don't have enough of it - or are even under the water, which could be the case for many of us in the global warming scenarios. (Tom, one of these days I'd be interested to hear your views on whether the next World War could in fact be fought over fresh water.)

And, I'm always baffled by business colleagues who yawn that politics and public policy have nothing to do with them. Business income taxes, employment laws, interest rates, roads, security, freedom (of any type) - all come from those nasty are part of politics/public policy. Hmmm...maybe it should really be called "that icky stuff we really don't want to talk about, not even in private" policy.

purchase viagra online without prescription Besides, if we carefully avoid any discussion of touchy/scary subjects such as politics, religion, global warming, bird flu,etc. - what does that leave us to talk about? Brittany Spears 50 lb. weight gain? (yawnnnn...)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at October 20, 2005 12:58 PM

Tom, I logged in to your website to see if anyone had commented upon my post. Was very surprised to see that anyone--much less you, with a lengthy one--even commented.

No offense intended. And I fully admit that I was too quick-on-the-draw to assume you were speaking of "tactical" issues vs. the "strategic" kind. After 30 years of active duty (still in, by the way...and, yes, I too have ventured into harm's way), perhaps my military mind leaps to conclusions too quickly. I apologize for that.

Posted by Chuck at October 20, 2005 1:36 PM

Well said Tom. I agree with you in full on the concept. Still we sentient beings continue to yearn for meaning, pupose, and something we have mistakenly come to call "truth". The stories, the images, the icons, the "feelings" (and in a very real sense the bio-chemical reactions attendant to those feelings) which assure us that "I'm okay and I can continue on". These needs run very deep and will not just go away.

Some, like you, have the ability to create your own universe and your own sense of "story" and purpose and meaning. You know full well why you are alive and thank _____ (you fill in the blank) because you have made a powerful impact in this world.

The vast majority alive do not take on the responsibility of self-purpose such as you do. Therefore religious iconography and story telling tends to stand in that place of your form of fulfillment. When any of us upsets that emotional-bio-chemical balance by destroying or undermining that deep sense of purpose, we tap into primal fight or flight energies built up over millions of years.

Science and political speech will not wipe those energies out. In a very real sense, science impinges on that inner sanctum of security and we see the backlash in controversies such as the "intelligent design" debate here and in all sorts of violent backlash in other parts of the world. Terrorists ACT as if their life depended upon their their quest because their bio-emotional selves play right into the process.

A pre-historic individual must survive inspite of the self-awareness and environmental awareness that such survival might be futile. Those that persisted survived. I would suggest that purpose stories played an important part in that survival. The best purpose stories raised the likelyhood of survival. Apparently stories grounded in gods and God and redemption and punishment and reward from outside ourselves have succeeded the best over time and in the process those patterns have been "selected" right into our genes and our very being.

The debate will not end because the "beings" won't change all that much or all that quickly. Instead we may need to find ways to throtle societal change in ways that maintain peoples inner sense of security and safety. Otherwise we may run too far beyond our genetic ability to cope and emotions will rise to knock society down.

A fascinating and painful debate. Issues we do not want to face. They "mean" so much to so many.

Thanks for keeping me thinking.

Have a fantastic day,

BT

Posted by BT Hathaway at October 20, 2005 3:12 PM

Glen, evolution does NOT mean "we will get BETTER and BETTER" as time goes by. This idea is an unfortunate connotation of the phrase "survival of the fittest." Most people take "fit" to mean strength, as in physical fitness. The actual connotation should be more along the lines of "fitting a square peg in a round whole."

If a global catastrophe happened tomorrow and all the oxygen in the atmosphere boiled away into space, only those that can breathe ntirogen would survive. In other words, only those who "fit" the nitrogen breathing paradigm could survive. It's not like you can go to the gym and get in better shape, or, in your words, become "better" and thus start breathing nitrogen. You just won't fit. Period.

It's amazing how few people grasp this concept. Of course, too many would rather "teach the controversy" than actually take the time to understand the concepts. Go read http://www.venganza.org to see how silly this notion is.

Posted by Derek Scruggs at October 20, 2005 6:47 PM

These religious debates always seem to get the oddest responses. Why does it matter to anyone what I believe? If you have a devotional regime that gives you purpose and comfort, WONDERFUL! Why does someone mentioning evolution put you on the defensive? It either fits your view or it doesn't. If I am running afoul of the Supreme Being, it really is my problem and not yours.

Posted by Kurt Wendelken at October 20, 2005 6:49 PM

Trevor, I haven't interacted with the Alpha course but I've heard wonderful things about it. I hope it's beneficial to you and Annie.

Kurt, I thought this site was all about discussing beliefs of all sorts. And if I believe something that has benefited me greatly, how selfish would it be to keep it a secret? Evolution may or may not fit a given person's worldview based on what you believe evolutions states (Derek gives great examples of misinterpretation). And also, we don't live in a vacuum.

Posted by DUST!N at October 20, 2005 11:41 PM

Derek,

First, if you reread my comment you will see that I was referring to the 'stream of thought' provided by the poster quoted. You must admit there are those within the faith of evolution that believe that we are getting better all the time and that the process of evolution is a better bet than say, Christianity's ideas on why we are what we are.

Secondly, the proposition espoused by your friends at venganza.org (seen it before but thanks anyway) is a weak joke, er, point. Simply presenting a ridiculous position doesn't negate the validity of the view being spoofed.

Finally, yes, we get that 'fittest' means what you say it means to you. Question - where is the physical evidence of human mutation? Keep looking, there's lots of sand out there, I'm sure you'll find it.

Posted by Glenn at October 21, 2005 12:16 AM

Evolution and Creationism are not necessarily indenpendent. Once "created" we "evolve". However, the biggest and insurmountable problem with evolution is three words..."in the beginning". Everything came from something, be it big band, dust, dirt, single cell orgainisms, etc. Creationism can't explain the absolute beginning. The important aspect going forward is however, what do we do with the resources and capabilities given to us, regardless of how we got them.

Posted by Steve at October 21, 2005 7:38 AM

Evolution and Creationism are not necessarily indenpendent. Once "created" we "evolve". However, the biggest and insurmountable problem with evolution is three words..."in the beginning". Everything came from something, be it big band, dust, dirt, single cell orgainisms, etc. Creationism can't explain the absolute beginning. The important aspect going forward is however, what do we do with the resources and capabilities given to us, regardless of how we got them.

Posted by Steve at October 21, 2005 7:39 AM

Steve,

I agree that it is possible that the two are not necessarily independent. I believe they are, but that is my opinion based upon faith. It is also possible that believing in evolution's proposed beginnings, whether it be big bang (I liked your big band better actually ;-), dust, dirt, single cell orgainisms, etc., is faith based as well.

I would argue that, based upon common evolutionary understandings that if 'created', we do 'not' evolve. I have not 'seen' evidence that a human has ever mutated or the evidence that an ape has mutated in to us. A study of human history tells us that mankind has not evolved very much at all. We are essentially exactly the same. In fact, there is some evidence that we actually use less of our brains today than our early 'human' ancestors. Go figure.

Posted by Glenn at October 21, 2005 12:39 PM

Tom - the recent passing of mine and yours is hopefully more about divine heavenly immortal souls and less about DNA that closely matches chimps!

Evolution can transcend intelligent design - seems like you especially would latch on to design - and the creative spark that gifted humans with magnificent bodies and minds.

There are places that are close to heaven on earth and that is a reasonable aspiration - I'm convinced it can become close to that provided evil, devil like elements similar to radical Islam terrorists - most recently murdering kids in Russia, Indonesia, Israel - are killed and/or imprisoned with Freakonomic precision.

Posted by Sean at October 22, 2005 9:51 AM

Tom - You are dead on this time. The rest of the unintelligently designed thumpers continue to devolve.

Posted by Eric at October 23, 2005 6:44 PM

Was on your blog after a long time and bumped into this gem :)

I am glad I came - I am glad I evolved.

Posted by Kshitij Gupta at October 28, 2005 3:34 AM

people need to remember that religion and science are both rooted in a similar faith. That is a belief in the unseen not the unknown.

Posted by Mike Mann at October 30, 2005 1:00 PM

Remarkable! Re: Evolving from sweet nut crushers to the "Nutcracker Suites". . . impossible. There's nothing that makes sense about life springing, evolving, or banging from NON-life. And at what point did we turn the corner for evolving to entropy.

Love you TOM! Especially now that I know you're NOT flawless. It costs you no dignity to re-imagine that we were crafted by an intelligence that thought we needed the ability to see color, make complicated tools (machines), compose grand symphonies and delicate concerti, and be fussy about how we look.

Posted by McNair wilson at October 30, 2005 8:25 PM