To believe the universe is embedded in a teleological matrix -- an overarching design that houses an implicit and eventual end point, with the human race having a transcendental destiny in which shopping is unlikely to play any part -- is widely regarded as a quaint delusion, of relevance only to religious fanatics, pastoralists in retreat from materialism and the mad. And yet here is Robert Wright, who patently falls into none of these categories, arguing that human history is not ''one damn thing after another,'' but has a direction, purpose and, by implication, a goal. To be sure, in his scheme shopping is not necessarily excluded, but ''Nonzero'' remains a book of potentially major significance.

Wright -- a journalist whose last book, ''The Moral Animal'' (1994), argued passionately that our morality is the result of genetic evolution -- carries his learning lightly, and his bold attempt to uncover parallels between organic evolution and the development of human cultures makes for a compelling synthesis, especially given his emphasis on the power of convergence and the near inevitability of the end product. This intelligent book deserves, therefore, a sympathetic reading. Yet the implications of the teleological program are not carried to their logical conclusion. For all its boldness and chutzpah, ''Nonzero'' suffers from a failure of nerve. Wright seems reluctant even to consider that inherent in the universe are not only quarks and quasars but a moral architecture that it could be argued is the source of our teleological instinct.

This shortfall makes all the more poignant the richness and potential of the book. As Wright acknowledges, this is a time of confusion and alienation; yet paradoxically there is also a sense of time running out, an imminence, as if we are on the threshold of a new order. Such millenarian enthusiasms are not particularly unusual, but Wright wants to persuade us that the emerging global information networks are poised for this to become a reality. Unlike the work of earlier scryers of prophecy and portent, catalyzed by the charismatic, his theme is profoundly naturalistic. It is based broadly on game theory, specifically the assertion that life's interactions tend to the nonzero. In such theaters of activity, organisms, be they bacteria or trading conglomerations, may be rivals and antagonists, but as they interact both receive net benefits. Thus not only does evolution find a trajectory, but the ascent is marked by mutual benefit that leads to increasing complexity and, so it happens, our special destiny.

''Nonzero'' is really two books. The longer first section is devoted to the emergence of complex human societies, but the underpinning of the argument relies heavily on parallels in the natural world. A key element in the thesis is the importance of evolutionary convergence, of which there are innumerable examples. Among the most famous are the close similarities between the human eye and that of the octopus and squid. Such convergences as this cameralike eye are of central importance to understanding evolution. They confirm the reality of organic adaptation, and they demonstrate an underlying inevitability to the whole process: not only are certain ''solutions'' repeatedly found for the same ''problems'' (such as how to see), but, what is as important, if one evolutionary experiment fails it is of no matter in the long term because assuredly somewhere else the experiment will succeed. It is hardly surprising that in this context Wright wages a vigorous attack on the basic tenets held by Stephen Jay Gould, whose view of evolution as little more than a contingent muddle is in hopeless disarray. Wright even hints that Gould's worldview offers succor and comfort to the creationist enterprise -- a notion he developed as a full-fledged assault recently in The New Yorker.

The main purpose of ''Nonzero'' is to apply the principles gleaned from understanding the evolution of life, notably the reality of trends and the inevitability of convergences, to the emergence of cultures and civilizations. A significant part of the book is a rescue operation for the concept that civilization emerges as a series of cultural stages. In most anthropological circles, wedded as they are to Franz Boas and the deep political correctness of his many intellectual descendants, such a program is deserving only of repeated and strident anathemas. Wright is sinuous but effective in his responses; indeed, the evidence for convergences in cultural form and dynamics across the globe provides a persuasive catalog to suggest that for all its richness and diversity humankind is on a trajectory toward a common goal. The next stage of human history, Wright argues, is here, with the globalization of trade and communication. You might not like it, but that's history's destination and for all intents and purposes we had better accommodate ourselves to our inevitable destiny. Wright freely admits that the road ahead may be bumpy (to put it mildly), and the tensions of rabid nationalism and environmental perturbation are to some extent intangibles. They may divert, delay or postpone the onward march, but even in the medium term the outlook is rosy. And it is at this point that despite Wright's sunny optimism, ''Nonzero'' begins to unravel seriously.

The central problem is, will we inherit a world worth having and will it have any meaning? Wright has an almost unlimited faith in the power of ''information.'' For him it will be the magic glue to bind all humanity, and the Internet will be the actual realization of Teilhard de Chardin's famous, and famously fuzzy, idea of a global mentality, the noosphere. But how this will happen is equally hazy. It is perhaps ironic that when Wright comes to speculate on consciousness, he declares himself flummoxed; yet, in principle, is the tangle of neurons that makes up our brain any different from the spreading electronic Web? For those wedded to materialism, presumably not, and to refer to ''the mystery of consciousness'' will be dismissed as a monumental evasion. It may be, of course, that a mysterious unfolding will occur whereby on a given date and time every computer in the world simultaneously prints out the electronic equivalent of the Code of Hammurabi. However desirable (or undesirable) such a ''world brain'' might be, the philosophical underpinnings of this adventure seem deeply suspect.

Wright's approach is broadly that of the pragmatist. Repeatedly he teeters on the edge of acknowledging a religious dimension, but each time backs away. This failure of nerve is not the only weakness of his book. First, by effectively reducing teleology to information processing, Wright can win any argument with an all-embracing definition that is in danger of dissolving into meaninglessness. More important, the pragmatic stance undermines any serious approach to metaphysics, with the result that the many ethical issues raised remain highly ambivalent. Notwithstanding the naturalistic framework, Wright cannot resist flirting with theological issues. This in itself is unsatisfactory, and it leaves unbridged the chasm separating physical and moral realities. The scheme of things outlined in ''Nonzero'' may sorrowfully note the many ''piles of corpses'' dotting the historical landscape, but gives no guarantee that multinational corporations or emerging superstates like Euroland will not sink into irredeemable corruption, or worse. Against this lurid background of moral anarchy, Wright's insight that those ''who lacked the technology might perish, freeing up real estate'' has an uneasy ring. In any event, his nostrums to ease us over the potentially painful transition to the emergence of the world brain are hopelessly simplistic. His proposal of an economic slowdown and a moratorium on conspicuous consumption will be greeted with sustained mirth, not least in the World Trade Organization and every advertising agency.

So what is our destiny? Wright is right about so many things: evolution is seeded with inevitabilities, cultures have common trajectories and human history has seen great hopes and terrible crimes but is capable of achieving a final destiny. That we are a product of evolution, however, does not reduce us to sleepwalkers. Free will gives us choice and responsibility. To imagine that human destiny is entirely mundane may be one of the most peculiar errors of the moderns. Throughout ''Nonzero'' stalks the ghost of Teilhard de Chardin, but were this gentle and intelligent Jesuit to have seen this book, I think his face might have darkened. Still, we are offered the choice. Wright has taken us to the westernmost harbor. The boat is ready for departure. The master stands on the quayside; there is one spare place. Dare we accept the invitation?

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), January 30, 2000

Answers

By SIMON CONWAY MORRIS

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), January 30, 2000.

Where are WE headed?You answered Your own Question.You are heading to the same Place,we all are going,not necessarily to the Place,You Think,we are heading.

-- Liberator (Feeding@the Trough.com), January 30, 2000.

The author contradicts himself in his own article. IF, we are just evolved animals, then where did the sense of "morals" evovle from? All cultures from written history have several common "moral" values. It is basically wrong in any culture to take someone elses spouse, especially by force. Yet in the animal world this is common. Do we feel that the local pack of dogs hovering around the bitch in heat have no morals? No, they are dogs. Do any animals in the animal world pass any moral judgement on any other? No. If we are just animals, then why do we pass any and I mean ANY judgement on anybody for anything?? If I want your stuff, or spouse, or daughter, and am physically able to take it from you, and we are just evolved animals, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Why am I restricted by some "moral" law? Who's law? Who has the right to tell me what to do? You? You are just another animal. No, God the creator of heaven and Earth has the right to tell me what to do. He has set the law. The moral law that you yourself have inside of you. All peoples of the Earth have a moral code inside of them that they basically adhere to. SOme choose to ignore it, but it is there. Someday we will all give an account to God the creator for our actions. "The Fool has said in his heart that there is no God".

-- dozerdoctor (dozerdoc@yahoo.com), January 30, 2000.

Dozer,

Is this moral code reasonable, or unreasonable? If it is reasonable, then it is not of necessity a gift from a god, for we could logically deduce this moral code (the science of philosophy). If it is unreasonable, then how could it be the gift of a reasonable god, and of what value is an unreasonable moral code?

Philosophically,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), January 30, 2000.

Hi, all,

There's no way I can resist a thread like this...I guess I'm just a hopeless case...

I think that we have to go to the beginning when discussing morality. What is morality (or ethics)? It's really a code of values which guides our choices -- our actions. And the very next question has to be -- Why do we need a moral code? I don't think we should skip right to the question of which code we accept before we answer the question of why we need a code at all.

I've lots more to say here, but I'll leave it at this for now; if you're interested, let me know.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 30, 2000.

Uhmmmmmm, Unreasonable to whom? The real question is that a moral code or law exists at all. Who decides whether it is reasonable or not or whether it is even moral or not? Only a perfect Jehovah, the I AM. The code has to have a beginning and that beginning is God. Anything that you may decide is "reasonable" I may decide is not. Who are you to decide for me. If I am more physically able to dominate you, does that make me the one who decides what is right? In the animal world the strong or swift make the rules. Our laws are designed to protect the weak. In the animal world the weak simply die off.

-- dozerdoctor (dozerdoc@yahoo.com), January 30, 2000.

Dozerdoctor,

You said, "Who decides..." Why does an authority have to decide? Why can't the concept of "value", of "good or evil" simply be tied to a fact of reality -- the nature of man? That is, what is good or evil for you would be tied to whether the action or inaction furthers or hinders your life.

And this would have to be done without contradiction -- that is, without hurting anyone else in the process, as they have a right to their own lives just as you have a right to yours.

I believe this -- and I also believe in God, in an abstract way -- not a biblically-based God.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 30, 2000.

Wright's article on SJ Gould in the New Yorker was a breath of fresh air.

In discussions such as this it helps to remember that each of us is responding thru a semantic filter & that if one is willing to drop one's own filter many of the opposing points melt away in the supra- commonality as represented in the abstract.

Is it moral to create and environmentally disperse long-term toxic agents? MTBE, nuclear waste, DDT, & the literally 1000's of similars.

Is it moral to imprison people for political reasons or for crimes against the State?

Is it moral to conduct a pogrom?

Is it moral to conduct large scale environmental predation?

Is it moral to create enhanced bacteria & virus, designed & packaged with the one intent - the killing of fellow humans?

Is it moral for a very small minority to create and substitute fiat currency & socio-political rules over the majority which when followed with funnel all real weath and power into the hands of the minority?

Is it moral to create and use "terminator" seeds?

Is it moral to expound upon the virtues of monoculture agriculture, knowing full well the long term social, political, and environmental degredation inherent in such form of agriculture?

Do each of us have the moral right to be able to speedily travel between two locations using automobiles or airplanes? What about goods we consume which use speedy travel - do we have the moral right to those goods?

Do we have the moral right to use medical technology to nurture & hope to save extremely pre-mature infants?

Whose moral rights should be in the forefront - societies, a woman's, or the child about to be aborted?

What moral right do you have to tell me how to live?

~~~~~~~~~~

Morals? Inherent or particular social structures?

regards, mitch

-- mitchell barnes (spanda@inreach.com), January 31, 2000.

Eve, Here is the point, if there is no God, Jehovah, who is the creator, then we are simply animals. Evovled from the oose just like ole Darwin said. Hey! If that is true and I take your logic, then what is good for me is to have all your money, cars and whatever I want. Nobody can tell me what to do unless they can force me to by physical force. That is why we have prisons. To control people that don't believe in "payday" before a just and perfect God. Without a "higher" authority, anything goes. Do you really want everybody in the world to believe like you and make their own rules to live by? Go visit a prison, that is the way they believe. Might makes right; only the strong survive; the ends justify the means; etc...

-- dozer (dozerdoc@yahoo.com), January 31, 2000.

Dozer,

Wow. How about this: Those who make their own laws in opposiiton to the laws of the land, and those who act on such laws, wind up in prison (most of the time). Those who follow the laws of the land, do not usually wind up in prison. It requires no beleif in a god to stay out of prison.

Nor does law-making itself require a belief in a god. All it takes is enlightened self-interest, and an ability to see and understand the consequences of the created laws. Here is a simple one: 1) I do not want to be murdered. 2) I believe you agree with me on this issue. 3) So lets outlaw murder 4) As a deterent, let's PUNISH any who murder.

There, you see? This law making did not require belief in a god. A simple understanding of the consequences of breaking the law might keep folks from violating the law - again, with no requirement to believe in a god.

Why do you continue to think that we would be murderers and thieves if we did not believe in a god? There are obviously many non-christians, agnostics, and atheists who are not criminals.

Eve and Mitchell, thanks for the posts.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), January 31, 2000.

Uhhmmm:

You said:

[Is this moral code reasonable, or unreasonable? If it is reasonable, then it is not of necessity a gift from a god, for we could logically deduce this moral code (the science of philosophy).]

followed by an example of how to do this:

[All it takes is enlightened self-interest, and an ability to see and understand the consequences of the created laws. Here is a simple one: 1) I do not want to be murdered. 2) I believe you agree with me on this issue. 3) So lets outlaw murder 4) As a deterent, let's PUNISH any who murder.]

Your naivete is stunning. Firstly you confuse logical deduction with consensus. Logic results in only one answer, your approach is really a consensus to what the prevailing winds in society have "deemed" agreeable or necessassary for now. For some issues such as murder obviously there will only be one answer. But 90% of the issues that need to be determined are not so clear cut. Mitchell Barnes gave a nice list earlier. What you describe is also called the "democratic" process, what currently exists in our "great" country. This is a process that has the facade of being based on "self-interest" and altruistic "good of the many" but is really based on the ability to control the "democratic" election process to elect those you wish and then lobby the "democratically" elected officials to do your bidding for you.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), February 01, 2000.

IS,

Though I am delighted to hear from you, I hope you will please refrain from putting words on may page. I thought it obvious that I did not propose the latter duscussion as an example of the former. I am fascinated by philosophy, but do not feel confident that I could personally argue that point in depth - though the concept I quoted seemed self-consistent and unquestionable (of course, you seem to consider it sophistry). In any case, I did not think that Dozer would be any more capable than myself in undertaking this endeavor.

In my first post, I wanted to merely point out that the truths Dozer believed to be delivered by the christian bible are really not that much different from those developed by the man made science of philosophy. Dozer did not seem to take my point, so I delivered several additional and quite different arguments, including the one you noted regarding enlightened self interest. I also noted that there are many non-christian societies that are not lawless societies, as Dozer seemed to posit. In short, my posts were formulated as part of discussion with Dozer rather than with a big-brain like yourself.

Now, are you supporting Dozer's apparent assertion that only through personal knowledge of a christian god may we attain lawful and moral understanding; that if evolution is a fact, we must be animals incapable of acting in a reasonable and enlightened fashion? Or have I forgotten too much of this rather long thread over the past week and a half, as well as misunderstood your point? BTW, sorry I stunned you.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), February 10, 2000.