The Limits of Objectivity

Key idea:
We can try to make our human biases as visible as possible, without pretending that we can completely escape them.

TREBLA:
Our starting point is reality as it exists: the phenomena of the world. In this sense, our approach has something in common with the phenomenological tradition of thinkers such as Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). As already emphasized, we should try to set aside our preconceptions and observe the interplay of everything on Earth as neutrally as possible.

This is difficult, because we ourselves are part of the system we are studying. Our thoughts are shaped by culture, upbringing, and experience.

We must therefore try to step back from our own human perspective and view the world as if we were observing it from a distance; like an observer watching a society of ants.

This is similar to the way the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (c. 50–135 AD) approached the world: with calm detachment and acceptance of what presents itself. Although Epictetus primarily regarded this as a way of living rather than as a scientific method, his approach touches on the same fundamental principle: suspending immediate judgment.

We can observe living systems in which individuals cooperate to survive, but also systems in which individuals kill one another in order to survive. If we truly want to understand such systems, we must resist the temptation to judge them according to our own human norms and values.

At this stage, our aim is not to praise, condemn, or intervene, but to observe. Only then can we begin to understand how the system has developed into what it is today.

ALEX:
That sounds simple, but is probably difficult in practice.

TREBLA:
Indeed. Many thinkers have a particular view of human nature. Some follow the view of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who regarded humans as strongly oriented toward preserving themselves and protecting their own interests. According to Hobbes, cooperation between people is partly necessary because individuals need one another for protection and survival, ultimately leading to the social contract. Others, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), emphasized that humans are not necessarily evil or aggressive by nature and that compassion can be an important part of human nature. According to Rousseau, much of what we regard as morally problematic arises under the influence of social circumstances and comparison with others.

Both approaches attempt to explain human nature from a particular starting point. But if we genuinely want to be as objective as possible, we should first try to consider humans as one of many animal species within a larger system, without assuming in advance that humans are naturally good or bad.

ALEX:
So not judging, but observing?

TREBLA:
Exactly. Understanding instead of judging.

The Earth system, with its living organisms and physical environment, is constantly changing. Yet certain processes and relationships within the system continue to exist. When circumstances change, components of the system respond, sometimes through natural processes and sometimes through human intervention. These processes can lead to a new dynamic equilibrium, but this does not necessarily have to be the same equilibrium that existed before.

The continued existence of the system as a whole also does not mean that all of its components will continue to exist. Species can disappear, ecosystems can change, and new states can emerge. The fact that Earth continues to function as a system therefore provides no guarantee that humans will remain part of it in the long term.

ALEX:
Wait, do you mean that nature can simply make us... obsolete?

TREBLA:
That is an idea that the history of life illustrates well. More than 99% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct. The disappearance of species does not necessarily mean that the system as a whole ceases to exist; new species and new ecological relationships can emerge. A new equilibrium is not necessarily a human equilibrium.

ALEX:
That is a sobering thought.

TREBLA:
Sobering, yes. But also liberating. If we let go, as much as possible, of the idea that humans are the center of everything, we can try to see reality as it is, rather than merely as we would like it to be. That is the first step toward genuine understanding.

We must first understand how humans came to be what they are today.