Crossroads

Principle Crossroads

By John Taylor; 16 October, 2005

The September 2005 special edition of Scientific American, "Crossroads
for Planet Earth," is the most important periodical put out so far
this century. The cover states, "The human race is at a unique turning
point. Will we choose to create the best of all possible worlds?" The
editors recognize the difficulties and the promises before the human
race and set out an action plan based upon the best that science
offers to take us out of our collective slide to oblivion. In the
concluding paragraph of their editorial they say,

"Geographer Jared Diamond's recent book Collapse documents past
civilizations that could not recognize or bring themselves to change
unsustainable ways. Largely because of science, our civilization has
the chance not only to avoid their fate but to enter an age of
unprecedented prosperity. Science is not and should not be the sole
factor in decision making; others, such as moral values, are also
crucial. But we need to go into these decisions with our eyes open to
what is going on in the world." (SA, September 2005, p. 10)

These editors of Scientific American chose prominent leaders in
various fields of science, economics and planning and commissioned
each to answer one aspect of a coherent approach to solving what
threatens humanity. They calculate that it will all come to a head in
the year 2050 and only resolute action now can blunt the bad curves on
the trend projection charts. The full text of the issue is presently
available online at:

<http://www.scientificamerican.com/issue.cfm?issueDate=Sep-05>

It would be presumptuous to try to assess the scientific merits of
such a plan even for one far better qualified than myself. Two
considerations embolden me, however. First, a plan for all humanity
must affect all people and therefore all, expert or not, have an equal
right to a say, indeed, a clear and urgent duty to contribute. Second,
although the specifics of this plan are scientific, the ability to
agree, act upon and all too often sacrifice for it does not come of
scientific knowledge but faith, a faith we all must, to some degree,
share.

One thing is certain. This action plan demonstrates that from a purely
scientific viewpoint we have the know-how and are physically capable
of facing the challenges confronting humanity -- if only our leaders
summon the will and the rest the desire to avoid the Great Collapse
looming before us by actively supporting the initiative. It is
axiomatic: a plan for all relies upon all for support. This means
first somehow de-politicizing the political landscape, adopting the
action plan at the highest level, starting with the United Nations,
then taking it to the grassroots with a massive, world-embracing
education campaign.

George Musser recognizes the enormity of the preliminaries in his
introductory essay to the September 2005 "Crossroads" issue called,
"The Climax of Humanity: Action Plan for the 21st Century." Goal
number one of his program aims at common consensus on coming
demographic trends,

"Understand the changes. Obvious though it may seem, this first step
is so often neglected. It can be hard to look past the daily headlines
to understand the core trends we are experiencing. Demographer Joel E.
Cohen paints the broad picture of a larger, slower-growing, more
urbanized and older population. The detailed projections are
uncertain, but what is important is (sic) the general issues that they
raise."

Also, the eighth and last of this set of goals partly addresses the
prime challenge: corruption, influence peddling and politicization,
which distract and discourage from the planning process before it even
begins.

"Prioritize more rationally. Right now priorities are set largely by
who shouts the loudest or plays golf with the right people. As staff
writer W. Wayt Gibbs describes, economists and environmental
scientists have been working on better approaches. With costs and
benefits properly priced in, markets can act as giant distributed
computers that weigh trade-offs. But they can fail, for example, when
costs are concentrated and benefits are diffuse."

But this begs the questions, how can democratic leaders summon up the
will to act, often in the face of clamoring special interests upon
whom they depend for re-election? Upon what philosophic grounds can we
base unity of thought? These and other moral and philosophical
questions must be broadly discussed, such as:

What transcends the diverse interests, ideologies and cultures that
enrich us, but which all too often prejudice our minds? How do even
professional philosophers perceive and agree upon this, much less
teach it? What program could possibly appeal to every one of the six
billion souls on the surface of the planet? How do planners reach out
to individuals and groups? How do we deal with the problem that some
psychologists call the "economy of attention," the fact that we all
have limited time to listen, much less discuss, the issues? What
system would select out those willing to cast aside the moral and
mental obstacles that politicize moral issues? In a word, how to raise
principle over ideology?

--
John Taylor

badijet@gmail.com