ANNOTATION:
Humanity at highest evolutionary level?

This is true only if one remains in the context of species. There are many metasystems of species, e.g. a human culture or a regional ecosystem, which are certainly more complex and ‘fit’ than any individual species. The process of evolution is obviously continuing, I believe the increasing globalization and complexification of human culture as a whole is one part of this. My point is that in the larger picture we humans, and even our cultures, are not at the apex of functional complexity, I believe that currently this position is held by the global ecosystem, known as ‘Gaia’ in some circles, which includes all of humanity and every other system and metasystem on the planet.

"...more intelligent and complex species may well exist elsewhere in the universe, or may appear after us on Earth."

Of course this caveat still applies in the broader context I am advocating here. Other planetary or interplanetary systems more complex than ours may exist, and who can say what will happen in the future?

"The conclusion is that a preferred direction for evolution in the present, generalized sense does not in any way support the ideology of anthropocentrism."

I agree absolutely. The point of this whole comment is not to argue against Heylighen’s conclusion but rather to expand on it somewhat in order to further refute the idea of anthropocentrism. I believe that the doctrine that humanity is in fact the ultimate end product of evolution is extremely dangerous and has led to a callous disregard for the global ecosystem. It is a meme that is maladaptive to the human species in the long run, and should be refuted whenever it appears.

Comments or discussion welcomed. Irrelevant flames politely ignored.

REPLY: The social superorganism