Ed, I don't actually disagree with Heilbroner all that much -- it's his gratuitous pessimism. When I re-named the thread as the "fallacy" of Heilbroner I really should have written the "blindspot" of Heilbroner (so I'll do that now!). Those who write in polymathic terms about the condition of man (such as John Gray -- whom I also criticised recently) should also try to be more analytical and understanding about what makes man what he is, rather than assume basic flaws. In a sense, western philosophers such as Heilbroner, Gray and the existentialists generally of the last few decades, in painting such gloomy pictures, are really inheriting the Christian doctrine of original sin and condemning us ab initio.
Goodness knows, our future doesn't seem very bright. After all, the world is going to be hit by an enormous life-destroying asteroid one day, or there'll be a gamma-ray explosion from a nearby supernova which will sterilise the earth. But -- and this is where I show my own "spirituality", if you like -- I think the intellectuals among us also have a duty to re-mythologise a religious view of man in order to keep the non-intellectuals in good heart (and good behaviour). I'm sorry if that sounds patronising. And there *is* something special and optimistic about man (and the lifeforms we evolved from) or else we would be quite incapable of talking in such futurological terms and of our role within it -- and debating about such mysteries as consciousness (of ourselves and the universe). Without presenting a new positive mythology suitable for all, writers such as Heilbroner actually help to clear the decks of traditional ethical restraints and assist in the materialism and devil-take-the hindmost aspect of the western world that that they are condemning. In effect, they're reinforcing those aspects of our society which they are criticising. But to comment on your points: At 12:10 06/09/02 -0400, you wrote: (EW) <<<< Keith, I don't doubt that we are curious, but I do wonder whether we have an inherent need to innovate. It's possible that innovations, at least initially, perhaps arose out of three things. One is that we have a large brain that it able to innovate. >>>> This is a chicken and egg problem, is it not? Did a large brain cause us to be curious and innovative, or was it vice versa? Undoubtedly our insatiable appetite for novelty is able to be "processed" by our having a brain that's very much larger (compared with body weight) than other animals and even other intelligent apes. <<<< A second is necessity. We may have been driven to innovate because of changing conditions. >>>> Yes -- and this is the view (with increasing evidence) that is now taking hold of biologists and evolutionary psychologists in a big way these days. In particular, it's now being increasingly believed that the ebb and flow of the 20 or so Ice Ages -- with drastic cooling and drying effects that reached deep into the African rain forests -- that caused conditions in which the various hominid species either had to evolve pretty quickly or perish. And most of them perished, except sapiens and neanderthalensis. (EW) <<<< I'm not sure of what to call the third. Perhaps self-interest or laziness - i.e. finding easier ways of doing things - digging wells and exploiting ground water rather than walking five miles to the river bank. (And, of course, once you had a well you could charge people for the water.) >>>> I suggest that this is a subset of the previous one -- that is, of surviving in the most efficient way possible. (EW) <<<< Given these things, and probably others, there was never any reason to expect that innovation would serve some broader common good rather than the interests of the particular tribe or even a particular elite group within the tribe. Innovation would take whatever direction the tribe or elite group wanted to take it. >>>> I agree. (EW) <<<< During the past two hundred years or so, innovation has been led by the owners of capital, a group which has become increasingly broader in society as more and more people have become shareholders. As shareholders, workers and consumers, we have become dependent on innovation of a particular type, one which stresses materiality, wealth generation and technical achievement. We could have innovated in some other way. Other societies did. Heilbroner is right. In innovating the way we have, we've catered to a certain part of ourselves, but have left a whole lot out. We may also have gone too far in an unsustainable direction. >>>> I agree -- to an extent. We're certainly in very great danger today. But man has innovated from his earliest days and, it seems to me, "significant" innovation (however that may be defined) has always been (gently) accelerating from then onwards. It's only been the accident of vast fossil fuel resources in the last 200 years or so that has accelerated innovation so rapidly that we may be in a cul-de-sac of over-population and over-degradation of the environment from which we can't now escape. But it's no use simply criticising where we are now -- as Heilbroner and others do -- and it's no use simply crying "stop the world" -- which is roughly the message of the anti-globalisers and the "new" environmentalist pressure groups. (I write "new" because I was an environmentalist activist 30-odd years ago and still consider myself an environmentalist.) I suggest that we need to innovate further -- and in two main directions. Firstly, we badly need to develop non-polluting energy technologies. Secondly, we badly need to develop new systems of governance which are more suitable for a highly complex world. On the first point, let me give a graphic example that I worked out on the back of an envelope a few days ago when considering the oil/gas resources of Saudi Arabia. It is considered that there are about 250 billion barrels of oil equivalent there -- about one quarter of the world's reserves. At the same time, most of the surface of Saudi Arabia is receiving about 100 trillion KW hours of solar energy a day. This is equivalent to about 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent. So SA's total oil/gas reserves are equivalent to only 25 days of the energy it is already receiving from sunlight! Think of the total surface of desert areas in the world. Every day the earth receives millions of times more (non-polluting) energy than any conceivable civilisation would ever need. Secondly, we badly need to accelerate scientific research into the genetic nature of man. So far, we have systems of hierarchical governance which are, in essence, the tribe writ large. But this is too dangerous now. But formulaic alternatives of an apparently "democratic" nature (e.g. the League of Nations or the present United Nations) will always fail if they are based on idealised concepts and not on a much more precise idea of what our nature really is. So although I have much sympathy with some of the aims of the young people who are demonstrating at various world conferences, the experts whom the young people call in aid -- professional economists such as Joe Stiglitz or Amartya Sen, professional environmentalists and biologists, and others -- are actually quite embarrassed because the latter know just how much more complex the situation really is. We need less hand-wringing of the Heilbroner variety and much more scientific research and innovation to get us out of the "unsustainable direction" (to quote you) that we are heading in at present. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
