Click here for PDF format of this essay
IN SEARCH OF REALITY XII
Behavioural Guidelines
A Study in Thought
by
Marius Heuff
@M.Heuff
Chapter 1
Content
The development of behavioural guidelines.
Religion and philosophy; creation and evolution.
The potential for a severe emotional reaction against science and technology.
1 If we look back upon the
history of man, we see, that, almost always, the guidelines for behaviour were
sanctified in the form of a religious belief. The manner in which those
guidelines were given to society, varied, and ranged from the trance-utterings
of shamans and medicine men, or the oracles and omens interpreted by a priestly
class, to the more articulate expressions of teachers, prophets and religious
leaders, who re-enforced the religious ideals and cultural heritage of their
community.
2 The larger empires developed a
more systematised code of behavioural guidelines in order to help those in
charge of judgeing disputes. In this way, a written body of generalised
guidelines developed, which was supported by the accumulation of specific
incidences of judgement, or "precedents". Yet, even the development
of a "code of law" was based on precepts derived from common religious
beliefs. In spite of the fact, that the ideas of tolerance, justice and
essential equality were generalisations that were made possible in the course
of frequent and extensive contacts between diverging cultures, these concepts
and ideas remained rooted in the common-sense of people, whose ideas were still
strongly coloured by the religious beliefs of their social environment.
3 Slowly, the practice of
rendering judgement became separated from the practice of worship, but the
concepts behind the laws, mores and customs of society, retained their
authority by virtue of the religious belief structures upon which they were
based.
4 As we see in the record of
mankind`s history, at times, the religious background of the social guidelines
became so fragmented by irreconcilable contradictions, that the moral code of a
society lost its footing, and, the result was, often, a frantic search for
philosophical truths. Such activities influenced, often to a remarkable extent,
the thoughts of the more intelligent members of society, but their conclusions
were, rarely, coherent and forceful enough to create a useful model for guiding
collective and individual conduct in the form of generally accepted laws, mores
or customs, based on philosophical or secular principles of conduct.
5 The problem is this; the
philosopher lacks, by definition, a divine sanctification of his ideas, and,
this handicap is so severe, that philosophical ideas seem to get only a
foothold in society, if these ideas are incorporated into a religious structure
of beliefs. The union of philosophy and religion seems, generally, to have been
a fruitful one, because rational thought gives an intellectual respectability
to the religious ideas, and, at the same time, rational ideas receive the
attributes of authority and sanctity from the religious attitudes and beliefs.
6 In Christianity, we see a
messianic expectation of the Jahwist beliefs of Judaism combine with the
influences of Egyptian, Persian and Greek religious beliefs, such as the
beliefs of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, the mystery cults of Orpheus and Elyseum,
as well as the philosophies of Plato and the neo-platonists. Under the guiding
genius of
7 It is, actually, remarkable,
that this formidable structure of thought and belief, (which the Christian
Church developed over a thousand years or so), became so widely exposed to
severe criticisms, primarily, from an intellectual point of view. The need to
define important and fundamental questions regarding the nature of God and
Christ, led to the definition of the Christian Faith in precise and
authoritative formulations, or "dogmas". These dogmatic expressions
contributed to a legalistic and rigid attitude, when dealing with matters of
the Faith.
8 Indeed, the Christian beliefs
became quite rigid, as they struggled to define the boundaries of a
"truthful" and "correct" interpretation of the divinely
revealed realities. Certainty was obtained at the price of a loss of
intellectual flexibility, in spite of the many remarkable efforts of thinkers
and theologians over the centuries to enlarge the boundaries of Christian
truths and acceptability. This rigidity and precision, is, at the same time,
the main reason for its persistence as a beacon of Absolute Truth in a
confusing world, and, these structures of belief may well survive, long after
the wildly fluctuating opinions of secular thought and opinion have
disappeared.
9 At this time, the most serious
discrepancy between secular and religious thought seems to be the concepts
about the origin and nature of man. Here, the Church maintains a belief in a
Divinely Created world-order, which includes the creation of Man. Man`s
experiences, his struggle between good and evil, as well as his exposure to
suffering, are seen as the result of a fragmentation of the original
relationship between man and his Creator in the concept of Original Sin. This
makes an existential sacrifice necessary of the God-Man, Christ, in order to
re-open the possibility of a Divine relationship between man and God. In contrast,
the secular or scientific point of view sees man as a product of natural
evolution, not any different from other species` of living existence on earth,
and, without any special relationships to a divine intelligence.
10 The nature and existence of "natural
laws" have always been the subject of extensive philosophical arguments,
ranging from the idea that natural laws exist, only, as an abstraction of the
peculiar, classifying capabilities of the human mind, to a deistic point of
view, where natural laws are considered to represent an absolute reality,
created by an inscrutable Prime Mover, who does not seem to interfere with his
Creation after its clock-work of happenings and events has been set into
motion.
11 The fundamental problem for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of human abilities, is to trace, convincingly, the descent, or rather, the ascent of the human species from the origins of the naturally evolved living organisation, and, to trace, in a flowing line of evolutionary developments, the capabilities of speech and consciousness; of intelligence and belief; of rational thought and the wide-ranging and contradictory behaviour patterns of human beings.
12 The most difficult question for
the naturalist will be to explain the sensation and experience of good and
evil; of ethical awarenesses and religious experiences, while the difficulty
for the religious believer lies in the fact, (rarely acknowledged), that the
answers to questions about the mystery of God and God`s intentions, are intellectually
unsatisfactory. With the dramatic increase of our ability to scrutinise the
records of nature, we have obtained a large number of insights about our
origins and the nature of our existence. These insights make it difficult to
maintain a strict belief in the divinity of Holy Scriptures, regardless of the
nature or content of the religious belief structures that are being supported
by the various Sacred Scriptures.
13 However, logic has rarely triumphed for any length of time, and, we may see a return to fervent religious attitudes resulting from a reaction of fear and disgust to the confusion and dangers caused by scientific mishaps. It is not difficult to visualise a collective response of horror and aversion for the "evil" sciences, if our scientific knowledge leads, indeed, to an apocalyptic destruction of the world. It would not be too difficult to imagine the sense of disbelief and disgust survivors would feel, after a nuclear accident or holocaust has taken place. Even a deterioration of terrestial conditions on a much less dramatic scale, would lead to an emotional, anti-scientific reaction, especially, if future generations are confronted with the disastrous consequences of industrial waste, the short-sighted exploitation of natural resources, and the wide-spread pollution of air, water and land.
14 In stead of marveling at the
immense capabilities of the human mind, future generations may actively
persecute the heritage of the sciences, and, they may try to destroy this
heritage, in the belief that they are fighting Satan. Not surprisingly, the
nature of science will be judged by its fruits, and not by its philosophical
niceties and possibilities of understanding. Little will it matter to a
harassed generation, desperately struggling to survive pollution and
radio-active contamination, that these same sciences also make us understand,
with perfect clarity, the nature of human behaviour, as well as the reasons for
the catastrophic consequences of the human way of life.
.......
Chapter 2
Content
The marriage of reason and belief.
The importance of the collective will.
Genetic and cultural codes of behaviour.
1 It is likely, that, man will,
once again, be happy to seek refuge in the comforts of hopeful beliefs, as well
as in the illusion of salvation through sacrifice and expiation, because, so
far, the sciences have failed to account for the need to humble ourselves. Our
scientific explanations have not addressed the commonly felt need to confess
sins and errors, and, to experience the cleansing purge that comes with a
genuine prayer to God.
2 Perhaps, it would be ideal to
renew the marriage between faith and reason with a universal appeal to all the
religious belief structures of mankind, but, when we look at history, it is
obvious, that the various religious belief structures have never approached a
state of global appeal, and, the inevitable division between right and wrong,
saved and damned, always re-introduces a pernicious and persistent element of
conflict.
3 Let us note the remarkable and
universal appeal of a careful scientific imagery, especially, if this imagery
has been based on an appeal to objective observation, careful experimentation,
and logical thinking. However, the complexity of the scientific imagery, as
well as the difficult transitions between general agreement and widely
divergent hypotheses, lead to a feeling of fragmentation and confusion, making
the processes of scientific ideation difficult to grasp for the average
individual. The inherent tendency of the sciences to fragment into a disjointed
series of ideas and concepts, points to the need for a large, unifying
conceptual framework, where the scientific imagery may find its proper place in
the perspective of an overall vision.
4 Here, a philosophical approach
should start, attempting to unify the ideas of the sciences into a
comprehensible and overseeable whole. With the emergence of a unified and
widely acceptable image of the way we function, we should be able to form a
perception of reality that lets us see, when and where our emotions of hope and
belief colour our reality experiences and interpretations. Eventually, we
should be able to construct a systematised framework of ideas and concepts,
harmonising the methods of rational thought and the results of scientific
observations. This will lead to an understanding of our emotional needs and
tendencies, because these behavioural trends will be interpreted as a logical
result of our biological background and cultural heritage.
5 On the other hand, we see, all
too often, that science and technology behave as a blind evolutionary force,
seeking a way to survive whenever possible. We know, now, that this drive has
to be guided and directed by the collective human will, and, science and technology
should not be left to the dangerous processes of random experiments and
haphazard explorations.
6 Just as we see, that the
genetic code of the multi-cellular organism guides the random possibilities of
natural forces and organic-chemical reactions into a channeled process,
re-creating the structure of a living organism, so do we see, also, that the
cultural code of society guides the patterns of human behaviour and channels
the purposeful mental energy of human beings into a viable way of life. This
viable way of life is re-generated, or re-learned, from one generation to the
next, as the cultural heritage of a specific social environment.
7 While the genetic code has been
shaped by the slow and painful processes of natural selection, and has become a
heritage of rigid organisation, (beyond the influence of the will of the
multi-cellular organism), the cultural code is an instrument of organisation
that is very much dependent on the deliberate choice and the collective will of
the living members of mankind. While the potential for the cultural code is
rigidly inherited and genetically encoded, the content and effectiveness of the
cultural code depend on the human will and the faculty of conscious
awarenesses.
8 The cultural code has been
super-imposed on the genetic code, because it provides an infinitely faster and
more variable fine-tuning of the behaviour patterns of a flexible organism,
responding to rapidly changing circumstances. However, the cultural code has
the disadvantage, that it depends for its existence and effectiveness on the
fragile and vulnerable mechanisms of acquired learning and educational
transfer.
9 Therefore, an increase in the
rate of adaptation is paid for by a fragility of the guidance patterns and a
loss of dependability and durability. The most important contribution the human
life-form can make to the processes of natural evolution, may well lie in the
realisation, that this fragile cultural code needs to be shaped and safeguarded
by our collective and individual will. Before we can hope to make full use of
the opportunities nature has given us in the possibilities of cultural encoding
and educational transfer, we have to understand the mechanisms and the
responsibilities that have been laid upon us. Before we can hope to explore the
possibilities of our biological heritage in a viable and persistent manner, we
will have to recognise the inherent likelyhood of placing ourselves in an
evolutionary dead-end position.
10 Just as many genetic codes
became a victim of over-specialisation and loss of adaptability, so is it
possible for the human life-form to misdirect the wide ranging flexibility of
its cultural code into an avenue of development that leads to self-induced
extinction. Such a development is possible as a result of a man-made level of
environmental pollution that would be incompatible with the continued existence
of the human species.
11 Here, we see the true nature of
our human responsibility, which is only now becoming apparent with the
increased awareness of our origins and potentials. Only now, are we beginning
to understand, how limited and vulnerable the earth`s resources and
life-support systems really are, and, how easily we could unleash a process of
near-total destruction by ignorance and belligerence, when handling our modern
technological tools and weapons.
12 Our task, therefore, should be
concentrated on two main aspects. On the one hand, we should be able to create
a globally acceptable and relevant code of behaviour that is just and fair to
every individual and every grouping. This code should regulate the interactions
of all the peoples and nations of the world in such a way, that the level of
tension and mistrust is reduced, sufficiently, to make a sustained and
collective effort of cleaning-up and protecting the environment, possible. This
would preserve human life for many generations to come. On the other hand, we
will have to search, continuously, for a sufficient degree of understanding and
cooperation in order to keep this global code viable and just, and, we will
have to work hard to make the level of information and comprehension sufficient
to ensure adequate attention to a myriad of details and specific problems.
13 Our common or collective will
can only be an effective instrument for change, if a large number of people,
from all over the world, are able to identify, fully and enthousiastically,
with such a universal code for viable human conduct. We have to be able to
recognise, that such a code is really possible, and, deep deposits of encrusted
cynicism, as well as many layers of egocentric orientation, will have to be
swept away, before we can bend the course of history into a successful avenue
for a globally experienced sense of well-being.
14 Can it be done? Is it possible,
at this point in our evolutionary development, to sketch the outlines of such a
cultural code, and, even more important; is there a reasonable chance, that
such a code, after strenuous scrutiny and debate, could be persuasive and
globally acceptable?
.......
Chapter 3
Content
Inter-communal conflicts and mechanisms of cohesion within the large, socially
integrated conglomerate.
A review of the biological heritage of small-scale social cohesion.
Leadership functions.
Limitations of the biological foundation for mutual recognition.
1 After a moment of reflection,
it will become obvious, that each one of us lives within some kind of community
or social environment, where a variety of rules, laws, customs or mores
regulate the behaviour of the members of this social entity. Certainly, during
the period of recorded history, we see, everywhere, the presence of some
cultural code, binding people together in nearly every civilisation or
large-scale social entity, but this code also separates people into classes or
casts with differing privileges and living standards.
2 Conflicts of interest exist,
primarily, between groups of people, tribes or nations, and, human history
seems to represent an endless succession of conflicts and wars, interspersed
with periods of prosperity, confidence, and a measure of mutual trust. Every
society is stratified into leaders and followers; the privileged and the common
workers; the free and the enslaved.
3 However, we see, that, within
the cultural guidance patterns of many societies, slowly, an awareness of
individual human worth and dignity has taken shape. Slowly, the tendency to
reflect upon man`s history and the nature of his existence, increases the
awareness of similarities between the peoples of the past and the present.
People are becoming aware of the similarities between those, who live now and
those, who lived in the past; those, who consider themselves to be friends, and
those, who are, for one reason or another, enemies in relation to the interests
of a particular individual or community. This process of thought and reflection
makes people more sensitive to the questions of good and evil; of justice and
mercy; of suffering and happiness, and, it makes them sensitive to questions
about the meaning of life and death.
4 We will not try to summarise,
here, the history of human awareness, but I hope, that the generalisations
drawn from history, will prove to be useful and essentially correct. We see,
then, how man lives, always, in some sort of social environment, where he
develops guidelines to regulate internal conflicts and encourage a state of
harmony, cooperation and viability; where attitudes of dominance and
submissiveness are blended to the benefit of all.
5 Of course, such a modern,
psychological interpretation of the function of these behavioural guidelines
was totally unknown to the social groupings of the past. In these socially
organised or integrated organisms, the struggle for survival took place in its
many different forms, even, long before we see the emergence of the
specifically human life-form. Still, the struggle for survival takes place,
essentially, on a communal scale, and not on an individual level, in spite of
the fact, that we see, often, deadly conflicts occur within a social entity as well.
6 If we see a dramatic increase
in the number of internal conflicts within a social environment, (where a
struggle for power is associated with ruthless force and civil strife), we may
consider such a society to have been dissolved into smaller, antagonistic
factions, but, we are still able to see, that, almost all serious conflicts
take place between groups of people, rather than between individuals.
7 This is an obvious, yet
important, observation, since we have, here, all the elements of primitive, or
rather, biologically encoded human behaviour. We have, here, the local ethics
of loyalty and trust within the small grouping, and, we see, also, the
synchronised emotions of hatred and suspicion against the outsider. The stress
of interhuman relations within a small group is subjugated to an overall
cultural code that places the importance of the group above the interests of
the individual, but the feeling for, and recognition of, ethical principles is
narrowly limited to such a small grouping. Communal feelings of hostility
towards the stranger in their midst, or a threatening outsider, are also part
of this ethical cultural code, which is strongly influenced by biologically
encoded behaviour patterns.
8 From animal observations, we
have learned that social behaviour is, indeed, genetically encoded; at least,
it is genetically encoded in those species`, where the forces of natural
selection have explored the possibilities of survival by a process of
"secondary social integration". Socially integrated animals have to
be able to recognise the members of the group they belong to, and, the socially
integrated group is, primarily, made-up by members who are related to each
other. Growing-up under parental protection with siblings, a human youngster
learns, that his security and interests lie within this small group.
9 As he grows older, he becomes
part of the larger community, where the sphere of influence excercised by the
leadership becomes the basis for the coherence of the group, because the
members of the group share the characteristic that they recognise a particular
leader. The basis for cohesion within such a group is, therefore, the
recognition, by all the members, that one of them is the leader, and, that this
leader has a legitimate form of power or authority over his followers.
10 Under the intuitive guidance of
the leader, the small, natural, socially integrated grouping operates as a
behavioural unit and internal rivalries are subdued by the positioning of the
members into a hierarchical order, preventing an all-out struggle between them.
It is the leader`s function to ensure, that such rivalries do not progress to
the point of weakening the group seriously, and, fights are, therefore, often,
forcefully broken-up by the leader and his associates.
11 The biological origins for such
behaviour patterns are based upon the natural selection of the ability to lead
and to be led. These behavioural differentiations allow the function of
hierarchical stratification and social integration, increasing the chances of
survival, compared to a solitary struggle. Within each member of such a
socially integrated grouping, a process of mutual recognition must be able to
take place. This recognition does not take place in a conscious manner, but, as
a feeling of "familiarity" with the behaviour and status of each
member within the group. This sense of familiarity tends to inhibit the
instincts of aggression.
12 The concept that we are dealing,
here, with the inhibition of an instinctive behaviour pattern, is confirmed by
the fact, that, at times, conflict situations between the members of a socially
integrated grouping have a tendency to flare-up into a fight, e.g., during a
struggle for dominance. A fight is also likely to take place, whenever a
hierarchical order has become somewhat blurred, and, a member, whose behaviour
is not recognised as "normal",(e.g., a wounded, sick or dying
animal), is sometimes attacked and frequently abandoned, apparently without any
scruples or hesitation. This process of "intuitive recognition" is,
in essence, a rigid, biological function for many socially integrated animal
species`, and, these mechanisms are not complicated by a myriad of influences
and alterations, which play such an important role in human behaviour; where a
conscious awareness of loyalties and rivalries leads to the possibility of
deliberately chosen, or, deliberately altered, behaviour patterns.
13 Animals of a socially integrated
grouping recognise each other as belonging together, and, this recognition may
inhibit, at least to some extent, the instinctive drive to fight, especially,
when members of the same species come into close contact with each other. The
ability to recognise each other as belonging to the same species, opens the
possibility for an emotional synchronisation response, e.g., in a herd of
grazing animals, or a flock of birds, where aggressive needs and defensive
instincts are pooled in order to secure the food-supply and safety of the
group.
14 Members of the behaviourally
flexible species` recognise their offspring as their own. This is, of course, a
biological necessity, because their offspring is extremely vulnerable and
requires a strong instinct of maternal care, which is "released" by
this act of recognition.
15 The instinct of maternal care
is, often, not released by the offspring of another member of the same species,
and, the range of recognition is often so narrow, that a newborn member of a
community of socially integrated animals is doomed, if it becomes orphaned or
separated from its parents. Indeed, no feelings of care or concern are possible
in the socially integrated animal, except within the narrow range of its
physiological possibilities, which are given by its biological heritage or
genetic code.
16 The instinct of maternal care
has been sharpened into the behaviour patterns of the socially integrated,
flexible animals, primarily, because of the requirements of species viability,
and, the forces of natural slection have molded the genetic code in such a way,
that these animals are compelled to exhibit the behaviour of maternal or
parental care towards their offspring.
17 Man comes from an essentially
similar biological background, and the idea, that man started to explore the
ecological possibilities of his environment as an effectively organised and
socially integrated group of pre-human animals, has now been well accepted by
the sciences. These pre-human animals were living together in natural groupings
of kinship. Slowly, very slowly, the pre-human animal became human and began to
change his collective and individual behaviour patterns with the discovery of
the ability to manipulate tools and weapons, as well as the ability to
manipulate symbolic representations of his conscious awarenesses.
18 The natural mechanisms of mutual
recognition, as well as the genetically encoded patterns for social
integration, showed significant limitations when the groupings became much
larger. We assume, that every individual of a socially integrated grouping has
to be able to recognise every other member of the group, as well as the
relative position of each member in the hierarchical order. In addition, every
member has to recognise, and acknowledge, the sphere of influence of the
leadership, as well as the hierarchically higher members of the social
environment, and, it is likely, that this act of recognition determines, to a
large extent, the success and viability of the social unit. At the same time,
there must be an instinctive ability, and willingness, to protect and shelter
those, who are placed lower in the hierarchical order, and, we see, here, the
trade-off between the privileges and responsibilities of natural leadership.
19 There must be a mutually
advantageous relationship in such a hierarchical structure of social
integration, before the mechanisms of natural selection will favour it, and,
such a structure must have biological advantages over a non-structured,
individualistic type of existence, otherwise, the mechanisms of natural
selection would never have brought it to the fore. The advantage for the
"follower" within a grouping, is the protection and guidance received
from the leader, in return for an attitude of submission to, and support for,
the leader.
20 There is a natural limitation in
the size of such a naturally organised social unit, perhaps, in the order of
fifteen to twenty individuals, since a larger social unit runs into
physiological limitations of the ability to recognise all the members, together
with the hierarchical relationships centered around the "natural
leader". A larger social grouping has a tendency to break-up into separate
communities, each with their own leader, and, in addition, we see, how some
individuals lead a more solitary existence at the periphery of a large group.
These solitary animals benefit less from leadership protection, but they are
also less dominated by, and less submissive to, the leader of the group.
21 The larger herds of hundreds,
or, even, thousands of animals are not structured into a social organisation,
except in the form of numerous small sub-groupings that are related to each
other in kinship, as well as through the mechanisms of mutual recognition.
These small, natural groupings have a social structure and accept leadership
from one member. Such large herds are, therefore, in essence, unstructured, and
represent only a mass of animals that moves more or less in unison as a result
of similar responses to essentially similar stimuli. The herd may move-on, in
unison, because of a response to a synchronised perception of a threat, and, on
occasion, a herd may be stampeded into an amorphous, leader-less panic.
.......
Chapter 4
Content
The development of the larger society.
Patterns of mutual recognition.
Ruthless extinction of the near-human species`.
The development of speech.
The enlargement of leadership functions.
Language and the genetic code; similarities in the mechanisms of
differentiation.
The lawlessness of leadership struggles.
1 It was, indeed, a remarkable
series of developments that opened the way for the human species to organise
itself into social entities of hundreds and thousands of members, and, even at
the beginning of recorded history, we see, that the requirements for a
successful organisation of a large community had already been developed. By the
time man learned to record his speech, transactions and thoughts in writing, a
long history of social evolution and cultural developments had already outlined
most of the mechanisms that make a large congregation of human beings possible.
2 These factors must have been
developed, initially, as a result of the ever increasing demands for
cooperation and communication in order to hunt successfully, because ever
larger animals became objects of prey for the rapidly enlarging populations of
human beings. Later, the trends of task-differentiation, increasing
sophistication in communications, as well as the enlargement of the conceptual
vocabulary, came more prominently to the fore, as the pressures of increasing
population densities and the relative scarcity of game and arable lands forced
the growth of larger social nuclei.
3 We assume, that the potentials
for a successful organisation of such a large social entity were provided by
man`s biological heritage, but the actualisation of such a complex organisation
required the development of capabilities that went well beyond purely genetic
programming. This means, that the physiological "anlage" for such
developments as conscious awareness, speech and other means of symbolic
communications, became part of a biologically inherited human potential, but,
the actual realisation of such a potential depended on the cultural
transmission of learned behaviour patterns. This, in a nut-shell, was the
essence of the remarkable road to world dominance, which the human species
embarked upon at some time in that nebulous past.
4 We have discussed, briefly, how
one of the factors limiting the size of a natural social grouping, was the
number of members that could be "recognised" and known intimately.
Such a limiting factor applied to all the members of a grouping, including the
leader. It would be interesting to speculate, how these limitations were
overcome, when the need for larger social groupings, finally, succeeded in
developing adequate regulators for the behaviour of a large number of socially
integrated individuals.
5 It may well be, that the
ability to use a stick or a stone as a tool or a weapon, or, perhaps, the use
of certain symbols of communication, increased the ease of mutual recognition,
because it became, then, possible to distinguish from the total behavioural
complex an easily discernible characteristic. In this way, the process of
recognition became a generalised classification of the great majority of the
members as belonging to the overall society. Only close relatives and friends
could still be known "in detail".
6 Of course, this type of
recognition is a form of classification by common denominator. It simplified
the recognition of a member of one`s own group by noting a peculiar
characteristic or behavioural trait, such as the use of a specific word, weapon
or implement, but, this type of recognition by common denominator must also
have sharpened the awareness of the presence of a neighbouring group of human
beings, when similar manifestations were recognised in contacts with
"strangers".
7 The mechanisms of symbolic
communication, weapon handling and tool usage, facilitated the act of mutual
recognition, and, it focussed attention on those tribes, or groups of people,
which were developing along similar lines. Fear and respect for the human
opponent undoubtedly increased by the almost simultaneous developments of such
behavioural innovations in the various tribes, but, those near-human species`
or groups of humans which did not keep pace with these developments, were
displaced by the competitive expansion of the most successful, most aggressive
and most innovative, socially integrated groupings.
8 This unintentional but,
nevertheless, ruthless extinction of the near-human species` in the struggle
for survival accounts, probably, for the rather curious isolation in which the
human species finds itself. Mankind is a single, narrowly defined species, and,
it is the only species that is capable of this range of physiological and
cultural manifestations we call "conscious awareness".
9 The disappearance of our
nearest competitors, as well as the pressures man exerted upon related
anthropoid lifeforms, explain the reasons for this remarkable gap. It may well
be, that the still existing species`, which are close relatives to the human
being in evolutionary terms, (the anthropoid apes), only survived by taking
refuge into the dense forests, after sharing, to some extent, the border areas
between the forests and the plains with the members of early mankind.
10 The development of cultural
characteristics, such as symbolic communications, the use of weapons and tools,
as well as other specifics, facilitated, not only, the task of mutual
recognition, but, it also enlarged the sphere of influence a successful leader
could excercise.
11 It seems reasonable to consider
these mechanisms as some of the fundamental factors that made a large social
organisation possible, and, we may, also, visualise a rapid development of the
mechanisms of task specialisation, conceptual precision and differentiation, as
well as an increasing control over environmental or natural forces, once the
basis for a coherent intellectual grasp had been laid. Without exaggerating, it
is reasonable to summarise these developments as the break-through of the
cultural code.
12 It is likely, that the initial
phase of the break-through of symbolic representation was mediated by sign
language and imitative forms of gesticulation, but, the final, most explosive
phase of evolutionary development occurred, when the speed of symbolic
communications increased dramatically with the development of a flow of verbal
symbols; "speech". Because the ability to speak has found a specific
localisation in the central nervous system, we conclude, that the ability to
speak and communicate with verbal symbols was such an importat factor in the
criteria of survival, that all other human or near-human life-forms who failed
to develop the faculty of speech, were doomed to extinction.
13 The ruthless mechanisms of
natural selection played, therefore, a decisive role in the early development
of the human species. Of course, we may not consider the evolutionary
developments that took place prior to the selection of speech, as developments
of the specifically human species, but this distinction becomes somewhat
arbitrary, because we have no way of knowing, whether or not the fossil remains
we classify as "early human", represented beings, who were already
capable of speech. If the development of speech took place, after an early
awareness of life and death occurred, (as is likely from examining the earliest
known burial sites), we must assume, that the most vigorous and ruthless
selection by natural force-fields took place within the history of mankind;
when the ability and agility of speech became a vitally important factor to
escape from extinction.
14 The ability to learn to speak has
been genetically encoded throughout the human species, but, occasionally, this
ability may not be fully developed because of a condition of cultural isolation
and an absence of fertilising contacts. Even our closest relatives, the
chimpanzees, are not able to learn to speak, but it may well be, that the
chimpanzee has a rudimentary ability to form concepts, and, it may well be,
that these mental images can be communicated by a sign language. If so, this
would point, again, in favour of the assumption, that symbolic communications
and concept formation started well before the development of speech. However,
this technical or physiological ability of speech was so important, that none
of the near-human gene-pools survived, because they were insufficiently endowed
with the faculty of speech.
15 We assume, that, with the
development of speech, a very rapid expansion of the conceptual vocabulary took
place. Again, it is likely, that speech functioned as a powerful recognition
mechanism between the members of a community, and, it probably determined, to a
remarkable extent, the breeding patterns of these early human groupings.
16 Speech is a potential function
that is genetically transmitted, but the form and content of speech is
determined by the cultural "currency" of a social environment.
Probably, some biological factors play a role in the development of the
cultural content of verbal communications, in the sense, that all human beings
classify and categorise events and experiences in a similar manner. However,
the cultures and languages of the various societies all over the world differ
so much, (especially, groups that have had no contact with each other for many
thousands of years), that it is difficult to recognise such biologically shared
influences and cultural structures in the form of "syntax parallels".
Afer all, a similarity of word symbols would merely indicate a common origin of
the content of a language, and, we are, here, looking at the possibility of
recognising a similar, biologically encoded structuring of the faculty of
speech.
17 Yet, language similarities in
content are an important method to trace the origins and early contacts of
human groupings, and, we see, here, a remarkable parallel with natural
evolution. A pool of verbal or language symbols, just like a gene-pool, remains
remarkably similar amongst the members who use these symbols, as long as there
are extensive and intensive contacts throughout the cultural pool. However,
when a portion of this pool, (in the form of a specific population), develops
on its own, isolated from the others, it begins to diverge from the "main
stream", and acquires specific language characteristics that are unique
for this particular sub-division of the cultural pool.
18 If a part of the gene-pool of a
species becomes isolated, (whenever a particular population finds itself under
specific geographic and environmental circumstances), we see, how this isolated
gene-pool starts to change from the main part of the gene-pool, because a
different set of environmental pressures will accentuate a different set of
genetic characteristics. Eventually, the differences between the sub-group and
the main group become so great, that sexual compatibility is lost, and, we
have, then, witnessed the differentiation of a new species.
19 Similarly, we see, how the
cultural pool of a group of integrated human beings who have become isolated
from the main social environment, develops patterns of expression and
communication that are unique for this particular population. Differences
between the cultural pool of the sub-group and the main grouping are due to
different experiences, and, eventually, the differences in verbal communication
and structures of belief become so great, that the groups lose the ability to
communicate with each other. A separate language code has been born, and the
population becomes, often, a rival of the society it originated from.
20 We should look at the roles
language and belief structures play in opening-up possibilities to organise a
large social grouping, because language symbols and beliefs enlarge the ability
of mutual recognition, as well as the influence and power of the leadership
structures. We have seen, how mutual recognition becomes easier, whenever a
specific characteristic binds a group together and sets it apart from all the
others. Such characteristics may be represented by various cultural traits,
such as the language, structures of belief, common objects of use, tools or
weapons, or, even, the way people dress, eat and greet each other.
21 When a cultural code develops,
the conceptual vocabulary and the flow of verbal communications increase, and,
these cultural tools increase the capabilities of a leader to exert his
influence and authority. Not only, can the leader physically dominate by
showing his subjects his superior strength, but he can, now, also show a
superior capability for understanding, planning, explaining structures of
belief and settling disputes. In addition, he may start to delegate
responsibilities for these widely diverging tasks to close and trusted
associates. As a natural corollary to the functions of natural leadership, the
development of culture and language leads to a vastly enlarged arena for
leadership functions, such as planning a common defense, or, activities to
provide and preserve food-stocks; by receiving and judgeing arguments in
disputes; by giving advise in questions of life and death, and, by leading his
subjects in acts of sorrow or jubilation.
22 However, the main reason for the increase in the range of leadership functions with the development of cultural tools, lies in the ability to organise specialised leadership functions amongst other members of the group, especially those, who have become an expert in one field or another. Here, we see the reasons, why there is an ever varying experimentation with the organisation of social leadership, which has a tendency to evolve from individual to multi-individual structures of leadership.
23 It is clear, that, originally,
leadership, meant, leadership by a single individual in all areas and aspects
of human functions and interactions. Members would expect leadership from the
same individual in battle and the hunt, but also, in the settling of internal
disputes, the experiences of death and birth, as well as in dealing with the
mysterious forces of nature. Successful leadership does not just mean the
imposition of fear and respect for authority, but also, the stimulation of the
attitudes of loyalty and devotion, which are generated by the care and
protection a genuine leader gives to his subjects.
24 Leadership is not a one-way
street of dominance. Leadership, even in the social organisation of animal
groupings, has to be earned and justified by performing a useful function for
the community. So it is in the human society, where leadership, in order to be
successful, has always combined authority with concern, power with persuasion,
and the imposition of the leader`s will with a self-sacrificing care and
bravery in times of need and distress.
25 Fear and respect are attitudes a
leader may, at times, have to cultivate amongst his subjects, but, these
attitudes have to be complemented by the attitudes of loyalty and devotion,
otherwise, a community is not a community, but a powderkeg, ready to burst
apart in strife and violence. Respect for leadership has to be based on
credibility, otherwise, authority is only a source of friction and resentment,
where loyalty for the leadership has disappeared, and, where the cohesion of a
community, the viability of its leadership, and, sometimes, the viability of
the entire community, have become endangered.
26 Whenever the leadership
structures, (and the people involved in them), have become clouded by
corruption and mal-practice, (where fear and terror replace loyalty and
devotion), the leadership has become entrapped in a cage of fear, which is, in
essence, of its own making. Such a leadership has to struggle in a desperate
attempt to remain alive against the threat of intrigue and assassination.
Existential security for the leadership, or its contenders, is then bought at
the high price of cruel behaviour and murderous intentions, with the massacre
of many rivals. Such a community has become a victim of the existential
anxieties of its leader or leaders, and the leaders have become victims of the
stifling attitudes of suspicion and corruption, as well as the mechanisms of
social unrest.
27 Such a society is struggling in
its death-throws, barely surviving attacks from within or the outside. The
lawlessness, corruption and savage cruelty that is associated with a bankrupt
leadership system, fills many pages of human history, but, it is interesting to
note, that acts of severe cruelty and savagery against rivals are, sometimes,
softened by acts of genuinely wise rule and compassionate concern for the
people, as soon as the security and authority of the leader has been
established beyond a doubt.
28 It is not surprising, that the
deadly struggle for power and the lawless game of intrigue leads to
incompetence and cruelty at the top of the social hierarchy, as well as a
disturbing imbalance and loss of direction for the rest of society. In the
past, larger societies have often enjoyed a somewhat unexpected burst of
prosperity and artistic achievements, if, by accident of history, a happy
alchemy between leadership and populace led to mutual confidence and loyalty.
Now, our cultural tools and conceptual mastery allow us to re-think and
re-design the guidelines for leadership functions and leadership succession, minimising
the factor of "history by chance", or, history by accident, and,
thereby, increasing the effectiveness and wisdom of the common will of the
people. Even so, the history of the huge empires of the past, which were
established by a small, but effective, leadership, with the will and the
ability to dominate vast areas and a number of diverse social groupings, can
give us valuable clues about the skills needed to keep a large social
conglomerate together.
29 The need for good communications
and a fair system of taxation, the tensions generated by the forced, peaceful
co-existence of neighbours within the political framework of a united empire;
the stimulating contacts between people who were suspicious or at war with each
other; the struggle to maintain order and to be just, the balancing act between
the use of force and persuasion; all these efforts of past imperial powers to
govern and maintain huge and diverse communities are available for scrutiny,
and the insights we obtain from such a scrutiny may contribute to the
establishment of an acceptable world-order, as well as a persuasive
world-ethic.
.......
Chapter 5
Content
The transience of large-scale social entities.
The need for an intellectual grasp over our observations.
The distance between leadership and ordinary citizens in the large social
conglomerates.
Attempts to close this gap.
Similarities between Christianity and the large empires of the past.
The power of a creed; Islam.
The failure of the mechanisms of natural selection to determine the viability
of a social system.
1 We will have to look for the
reasons, why every society, including every empire of the past, eventually
disintegrates, and, we have to analyse the significance of authority and
persuasion in the evolution of successful, large-scale social leadership. We
will trace the remarkable development from personal authority to divine
authority, leading, ultimately, to the awareness, that, we, ourselves,
collectively, form the final authority, and, that, we have to decide, for
ourselves, how we want to formulate guidelines that provide us with the ability
to live in justice, peace and harmony.
2 Several developments have a
tendency to take place in the larger empires or social conglomerates, which may
shed a light on our search for such an ethical guidance system. The complexity
of the tasks involved to govern the larger societies adequately, usually leads
to a deliberate effort to formulate a coherent belief-structure, where all the
forces within society, including those affecting the lives of its citizens, are
grasped and controled in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying point of
view. Another result of the relentless efforts needed to rule a large society,
is the enlargement of the distance between the rulers and the ordinary
citizens, especially, when the attitude of reverence for authority increases to
the point of uncritical adulation.
3 In such a large society, the
complexity of leadership structures, the many and diverse cultural
force-fields, as well as the bewildering number of people and institutions
ordinary citizens come into contact with, lead, naturally, to a tendency to
worship a successful leadership as "divine". At the same time,
however, the ordinary citizen finds it more difficult to identify with the
leadership of his society, as it recedes into a far-away position of absolute
authority. The diversity of the large social conglomerate, the massive number
of people, the contrasts between the various sub-groupings, the rich and the poor,
the free and the slaves, the powerful and the masses, all these factors tend to
make people defensive and suspicious, and, this bewildering complexity of sense
impressions erodes the feelings of confidence and loyalty to such a complex and
large social conglomerate.
4 These developments also lead to
subtle divergences in beliefs, where the distant, powerful, but, apparently,
unconcerned deity of the overall social leadership is replaced by the concept
of a "suffering god"; a deity, who knows the bondage and suffering of
ordinary people; a god, who can be loved, because of his compassionate concern
for man, when he shares with man the misery of death and shows man the mystery
of resurrection.
5 We see, here, an attempt to
close the gap between leaders and followers. This is an attempt to recapture
the invaluable feelings of loyalty and devotion for one`s trusted leaders, as
well as the consoling experience of the care and concern received from one`s
own leaders. This trend recurs, time and again, and, the main difficulty for
every large empire has always been to give truly individualised, compassionate
leadership to the many different cultural groupings within society.
6 It has always been a difficult
problem to know, how to foster faith and trust in a leadership that is distant
and foreign to large segments of the population. Too often, the quality and
success of such a gigantic leadership structure has been an accident of
history, and, as a result, empires have swung, repeatedly, between unequalled prosperity
and growth, and a teetering on the brink of collapse; whenever there was an
internal revolt or a disastrous threat from the outside.
7 Christianity began its rise by
an appeal to the poor and the oppressed, but, quickly, it became institutionalised
and gigantic in scope and organisation. We see, once again, this remarkable
phenomenon, where the distance between the ordinary faithful and the leadership
of the Church, became so large, that a sense of alienation and
unapproachability developed. The emotional appeal of such a far-distant symbol
of authority becomes, necessarily, diminished, and the faithful begin to direct
their attention and devotion to "intermediaries"; symbols of saintly
veneration, who are closer to the common people, and, who can help them with
their problems and needs.
8 In a bold, intellectual revolt
against this ever increasing distance between leadership and followers, as well
as the corrupting practices of a clergy trying to run a profitable
organisation, the Reformation was born, which slashed, once again, the distance
between the believer and his God, but, the closeness of the believers to the
Word of God allowed them, also, to quarrel about the meaning of that Word.
Fragmentation was inevitable without the careful and disciplined approach of a
massive organisation, in particular, since the cornerstone of such a unifying
and disciplined belief, the infallibility of Peter, had been abandoned.
9 It is not our purpose, here, to
trace the history of empires or the Christian Faith. When people try to live
together, we see a large variety of patterns of social integration, ranging
from the fundamental and biologically organised relationships between family
members, to the larger groupings of the tribe, where cultural and subconscious
bonds of kinship achieve a measure of unity. Later in the evolution of mankind,
the pattern of social integration extends into a variety of large, multi-ethnic
and multi-cultural societies, where unity has to be achieved through a conscious,
deliberate and well-structured effort of honest leadership, as well as a
competent form of government.
10 However, in such large social
conglomerates, we see, quickly, the emergence of groupings that are centered
around a specific belief or interest, such as the priestly classes, the
close-knit brotherhoods of the mystery cults, as well as the
11 Islam is a good example, how a
simple Creed unified a hitherto dormant and fragmented people, who lived in
near-total isolation and mutual hostilities. The inspiration of this Creed
released an amazing flow of expansionary energies and resulted in a most
remarkable flourish of civilisation. This Creed provided a basis for mutual
identification, and the boundaries were sharply drawn against those not willing
to participate in this Creed. The strong sense of "we and they", the
chosen peoples of God and the infidels, provided the back-bone for martial
unity and the holy wars of unquestioned righteousness. The rivalries and
assassinations that took place in the struggle for leadership succession, show,
once again, the essential lawlessness of the struggle at the top.
12 We have to ask ourselves, in what way the past has relevance for us. We are only an arbitrary stage or phase in an on-oing evolution of natural social experiments, and, we are becoming more aware of the fact, that, in the final analysis, we, ourselves, are responsible for the kind of society we live in, as well as for the degree of viability we are experiencing.
13 We are becoming increasingly
aware of the need to make collective decisions about the direction we want
human developments to take. We see, ever more clearly, that a process of
natural, cultural selection in the conflicts between social entities, leads to
irreparable damage and unacceptable misery. Apart from ethical objections, the
number of societies that can take part in this contest for survival, is too
small to let the mechanisms of natural selection refine a cultural mode of
behaviour, which would, then, be the most viable way to live and organise
ourselves.
14 In addition, we have seen, why a
cultural code is inherently unstable, inevitably decaying in times of
prosperity, because it is not encoded in the sequestered security of an
intra-cellular, biochemical sequence, but, it exists as a vulnerable and
changeable structure of culturally transmittable attitudes and beliefs.
.......
Chapter 6
Content
The need and demand for collective decisions and well-reasoned actions.
A review of the present status of social integration.
The sanctioning of national sovereignty.
World-wide public opinion.
Limiting the scope of violent conflict.
The haphazard existence of national boundaries.
Legalising national boundaries; by the passage of time and the presence of
political stability.
Rich and poor, large and small nations.
The need for the equalisation of living standards on a national level.
The need for equalising mechanisms between nations.
Human rights.
The rise of global concerns and the world-wide communication of ideas.
The influence of religious beliefs on our attitudes.
The devastation of modern warfare.
Communication and the possibility for deliberate changes in social
relationships.
1 Natural selection, then, has no
power to exert a lasting influence upon the cultural code of mankind, and, it
has, therefore, no place in the growth and maturation of the cultural code. The
human "free will" plays havoc with any attempt to enshrine the cultural
code in a genetic type of rigidity. Besides, the cultural code arose out of the
need to by-pass the rigidity and slowness of the genetic mode of encoding
instructions.
2 Whether or not we know it, and
want it; whether or not we are ignorant and deny it, the fact is, that the
collective will, (which is shaped, partially, by uncontrollable emotional
forces, but, increasingly by common-sense and rational behaviour), will have to
assume the responsibility for formulating a global code of human behaviour.
3 What is the status of our
modern social conglomerates at the present time? Obviously, it is difficult to
summarise the overwhelming complexity of contemporary societies on a global
scale, and, the chance of finding a more or less useful and acceptable
generalisation, is probably small and depends on a stroke of luck. Perhaps, we
can start by noting the trend of the world population to crystallise into vocal
and competitive ethnic groupings. The larger nations of today are as large as
the empires of the past, but many smaller nations are tiny fractions of
fiercely independent human enclaves, all clamoring at the United Nations for an
equal voice and vote in the affairs of the world, while proudly proclaiming
their sovereign independence and right to be free from foreign domination.
4 The era of colonial or
neo-colonial domination is rapidly coming to an end, but, we still see vestiges
of elitist domination by a small, white minority over large, non-white, native
populations. These are also coming to an end, but not without strife. Social
leaderships are yielding to the forces of national independence and majority
rule. Large and powerful nations tend to have spheres of influence that extend
greatly beyond their geographical and political boundaries, and such an extention
occurs, frequently, into the lesser developed regions of the world. These
spheres of influence serve strategic, economic and ideological interests, but,
even this form of dominance is rapidly creating a suspicious resistance.
Fortunately, majority rule by a democratic government, elected by a sovereign
people, is becoming the predominant form of government on our planet.
5 In spite of attitudes of
national pride and fierce independence, the peoples of most nations are
actively engaged in a large variety of contacts, such as trade, travel and
financial transactions, as well as the exchange of news and information. Armed
conflicts tend to be limited in scope, and many disputes are solved by a slow
process of negotiation and compromise, since the devastation of war on a large
scale is, now, so widely acknowledged, that territorial conquest in the
traditional sense has lost most of its attractiveness. Certainly, quick changes
in the balance of power, as well as decisive actions to fill a power-vacuum,
place the antagonistic forces for a fait-accompli, and, we see, how the
status-quo is quickly sanctioned by the righteousness of being in control, as
well as the persuasiveness of political stability.
6 The flourishing of trade
activities and cultural exchanges on a scale never seen before; the remarkable
orderliness of all these transactions, and the de-facto recognition of world
opinion as a powerful influence upon national behaviour patterns, all these
factors, and many others, have forged the nations of the world already into a
state of practical, but tentative, interdependence. At any time, the national
sentiments can still be galvanised by clever propaganda into a hostile attitude
towards a "wrong-doer", (a nation or group that seems to infringe
upon the rights of another nation), but, in many instances, dialogue and
compromise have become more attractive than armed conflict.
7 Since national boundaries
become legalised by the passage of time, as well as the stability of the
status-quo, the contours of contemporary nations reflect the chances of history
and the vagaries of violent conflict. Some, as we know, are huge empires that
span an entire continent and have all the advantages that flow from vast
natural resources and far-reaching powers. The central governments of such
large empires have to remain capable and agile in order to prevent
fragmentation and the resurgence of regional nationalism. Other nations are so
tiny, so unviable, so forlorn in their poverty and geographical disadvantages,
that their existence would scarcely be possible, if the prevailling forces of
world-opinion had not given them the moral and legal right of an independent
existence.
8 It seems certain, that many
small and independent nations would never have had a chance to exist in their
isolated vulnerability, if world-opinion had not inhibited the expansionist
appetites of their prowling neighbours. Yet, it is often clear, that this
curious, but proud existence as an independent nation, is an economic
nightmare, and leads to many difficulties, especially, when we consider the
need for a global standard of living conditions and educational opportunities.
9 The encounter of nations on an
apparently equal footing, (when representing their peoples and voting in the
forum of the United Nations), sets the stage towards "block-voting",
where nations with similar interests group together. A curious distortion of
the democratic principles comes to the fore, here, when large and small nations
are put on an equal footing, because the people of a very small nation gain a
disporportionately large share of representation. This phenomenon is also seen
within a country, if elected representatives come from regions that vary
markedly in the number of people they represent. However, the obvious discrepancies
in power and wealth between nations should temper the heady feelings of
sovereign independence with a sober reflection upon the vulnerability of
independent individuals or small-scale social groupings.
10 Just as we see, that, in a
social grouping, the principle of "one person, one vote" does not
necessarily dispel the inequality of power and wealth, so is the disparity
between social groupings not abolished with the establishment of democratic
representation within a world-body like the United Nations. Just as we may
legitimately ask, within a social entity, what rights the wealthy and powerful
have to cling to their acquired or inherited positions of wealth and privilege,
so are the peoples of the world justified to ask, what rights the wealthy
nations have to cling to their assets and power. Is it fair, that these wealthy
nations monopolise the terrestial resources, if they have been fortunate, by
geographical accident or past conquests, to control the most favourable areas
of the globe?
11 Certainly, we have to consider
the rights of hard work and frugal attitudes, but, as a rule, we see, that the
poor are working the hardest and are living a lifestyle of "enforced
frugality", or poverty. As the flow of information equalises our ideas
about human rights and our ideals about human existence and essential dignity,
the question of equal rights and opportunities for all the members of mankind,
will be asked more and more often.
12 Before we condone an all-out
grab for wealth and power by the world`s poor, let us investigate some of the
reasons for such inequalities, which result from an uneven distribution of the
world`s resources, as well as the haphazard geographical boundaries of the
various nations. We must ask, why, in so many underdeveloped countries, the
same gap exists between the rich and the poor. We see, then, that the ideals of
equal opportunity are not realised between the nations of the world, but,
neither have they been realised between people who are already living in a
politically integrated social entity.
13 Too often, the poverty and
backwardness of a political entity is accentuated by a primitive social
organisation, where the leadership is corrupt, and, where the rich and powerful
exploit their own country and its people; where ignorance and a prolonged
existence in deep poverty and misery leaves the human spirit dull and listless.
While clamoring for an equal share of the world`s wealth, the rulers of
backward countries will have to account for the way they, themselves, came to
power, and, it will not be long, before democratically elected governments will
refuse to recognise the legitimacy of any leadership that does not represent
the will or the interests of its people. A democracy of equal opportunity
between nations will have to be mirrored by a parallel development of equal
opportunity for everyone within the national boundaries of every existing
national entity.
14 People, all over the world, are
rapidly learning about the ideas of individual human rights, as well as the
need for representative and honest government, and, these developments will
make the emergence of dictators and autocratic rulers, (who take their
positions by force and rule their subjects by intimidation and terror),
increasingly more difficult and, essentially, impossible.
15 In the future, many more of us,
common people, will question, not only, the leadership of our own country and
the cultural guidelines of our own social environments, but, we will concern ourselves,
increasingly, with the leadership of other nations, as well as the conditions
under which people in other social environments have to live and work. We will
object, increasingly, to the deprivation of human rights, which so many of the
people in developing and developed nations still have to tolerate, but, we will
see the faults of our own leadership and society as clearly as the
short-comings of other nations.
16 If we may point to one hopeful
development in the modern world, it would be this increasing concern, on a
global scale, for what happens to people in our own and other societies.
Indeed, we are beginning to appreciate the enormous influence of the powerful
mass-communications media in making governments sensitive to, and aware of, world
public opinion.
17 It will not be long, before we all know, whether or not the peoples of the world receive fair treatment from their governments. The concepts of fairness and justice are still vague and undifferentiated, and, we are, often, ignorant about the details of local customs and circumstances. We are, still, easily manipulated by biased reports and slanted communications. Nevertheless, there is already the beginning of a functioning world-wide ethic.
18 Let us try to give these vague
notions and feelings more body and conceptual precision, and, let us hope, that
we may chart, from these beginnings, the guidelines that are necessary to form
a stable and healthy world community. We may, even, succeed in altering the
seemingly endless history of strife and combat, which has been the subject of
so many events in the past. Looking at history alone, we could easily despair
of the possibility to form a harmonious world-order, and yet, looking at
today`s world in a truly broad perspective, we see a degree of international
integration and a global sense of fair-play and justice, which we would not
have thought possible, three or four decades ago.
19 In spite of the emphasis on
strife, wars and conflicts in the records of human history, we seem to witness
an increasing awareness of the value and dignity of human existence. In spite
of many developments in our contemporary societies, which seem to indicate a
perpetuation of follies and a senseless opting for continued strife, we must
acknowledge a degree of mutual recognition on a global scale, as well as an
awareness of universal moral and ethical values, which seems incomprehensible
when we look at the attitudes of people only a short while ago.
20 It is difficult to pin-point the
reasons for this optimism, or, the extent of these promising attitudes, but, we
may point to several trends that seem to have played a role in the shift
towards global integration. The major religions and, certainly, Christianity in
the West, have slowly prepared the human being to recognise, and accept, the
common bonds of human needs and aspirations. In particular, the common bond of
suffering has led to the ability to identify with each other far beyond the
narrow boundaries of ethnic or cultural kinship. In addition, the technology of
war has led to the sobering insight, that continued warfare would cause
enormous devastation, and, that the distinction between the winners and the
losers could easily become irrelevant. This increasing awareness of the fact,
that an all-out war effort has doubtful benefits, has been coupled by an
explosive development in the scope of international communications.
21 Probably, this flowering of
widespread international contacts is one of the major reasons, why many people
have, intuitively, accepted the fact, that no strict or fanatic belief can be
completely true. Because of these broad contacts, the fanaticism and narrowness
of every religious creed could be broadened into an attitude of benevolent
tolerance. This encourages the awareness, that a holy, religious war, is a
foolish and tragic misunderstanding of the Word of God. The main emphasis of
all religious creeds has been on the development of mercy, charity and mutual
understanding, and not on violence and conquest, even, if such a reaction is
logical, whenever the enemy shows contempt for the Holy Scriptures.
22 Another important development in
human awareness has been the realisation, that, inequality between social
classes, (developing often for poorly understood reasons), does not have to be
accepted, anymore, as a divinely ordained social order. We know, now, that
every social order can be changed by the collective will of a large segment of
the population. The Socialist ideals still have a strongly combative,
revolutionary fervor, but the need to rule and govern in success, (after the
struggle for dominance has been won), increases the awareness of the essential
inequality in human potentials, motivations and achievements, and, these
awarenesses can lead to a refined perception of human nature.
23 These four trends; the mutual
sensitivity to each other`s similarities and existential needs, (developed
under philosophical or theocentric creeds), the technological break-throughs in
commerce, manufacturing and communications, the renewed confidence in the
possibility to change the class-divisions within society with collective acts
of commonly supported decisions, as well as the widely recognised hazards of
all-out war; these four areas of development set the stage, at this point in history,
to have a thorough but practical look at what lies ahead for the human species,
and, what sort of choices in collective planning and decision-making we have to
face.
.......
Chapter 7
Content
The need for a package of basic human rights.
The dangers and limitations of elitist attitudes.
Reasons for, and mechanisms of, the attitude of "cynicism".
The problem of corruption.
The fallacy of "salvation" through economic growth.
A need for changes in attitudes, awarenesses and lifestyles.
1 Few people will disagree with
the statement, that we need equality in opportunity and basic rights for
individual existence, if we want to form a just and peaceful society. Whether
we have been brought-up Socialist or Capitalist, humanist, or in a theocratic
society, few of us will argue in favour of a ruthless dominance by those, who
have the power to do so, because, we know, that this may lead, eventually, to
the extermination of those who are considered to be weak and undesirable.
2 The disastrous consequences and
monstrous inhumanities of such a philosophy have been shown, clearly, in recent
history, when racist theories about the creation of a human super-race, became
popular. However, even on purely practical grounds, we should realise, now, that
every elitist attitude must, necessarily, mobilise the threatened majority,
and, this must lead, sooner or later, to another conflict to the death. Any
elitist attitude will provoke such a strong reaction, that it is doubtful, at
the present time, whether any group of people could successfully impose such an
elitist philosophy, once again.
3 Therefore, few people will
deny, on theoretical grounds, that it is desirable to give all human beings who
have been born into the family of mankind, basic human rights and essentially
equal opportunities to unfold themselves. This means, the right and the
opportunity to exist in health, free from hunger and oppression, and, to have a
chance to develop, at least, some of our potentials in a harmonious lifestyle
of peaceful co-existence with the social surroundings and the world at large.
4 Few of us will disagree with
these objectives, but we become cynical, when we realise, that we lack the
means to bring such a lofty objective into reality. We all react immediately with
scorn to the superficial idealism of such notions, and, we point to the
insurmountable problems about how to create and safeguard a just and equitable
society with global dimensions. Who will supervise such a development, and, how
can we protect against the inevitable corruption of the powerful bureaucracies
and leaderships, which are necessary to implement these lofty ideals?
5 We scorn these ideas, because
we are afraid to be exploited by unscrupulous people. We have seen too many
difficulties in the government of a single country, to believe in the
possibility of equitable world-rule. We have experienced the corruption and
incompetence of people all around us, and, we tacitly acknowledge to be, so
often, a part of the same system in order to maintain our position and source
of income. We know, in our hearts, that our positions of power, privilege and
wealth will suffer dramatically, if we would agree, seriously, to equalise the
wealth and resources of the world, and, we are afraid that others will benefit
from our ideals and sense of good-will.
6 This is the reason, why global
idealism is scorned, because so many of us have a lot to lose, and, we are not
at all certain, that such a development would truly benefit the poor. How
often, have we been moved to making charitable donations by the poverty and
misery of others, shown so persuasively on television, only to find out, that
our sympathies have been exploited by the unscrupulous administrators of
charitable funds and the manipulators of public sentiments? How often do we ask
ourselves, why the poor nations are so poor, and, why their own governments are
not doing something about this? We have been exposed, too often, to the facile
exploitation of our emotions, to really believe, that any of our contributions
are doing any good.
7 We do not trust the majority of
people in a position of power. We believe, that many officials, be it in
government bureaucracies or private institutions, are, primarily, interested in
their own welfare, rather than the well-being of the peoples they are supposed
to serve.
8 Idealism, therefore, is not
dead as a result of intellectual counter-arguments, but, because of our
inability to see, and believe in, a practical organisation that will truly
conquer corruption and incompetence. We still believe in essential equality and
the dignity of the individual human being, but, we are numbed by the empty
oratory and the self-centered posturing of the powerful, as well as the
astonishing lack of concern shown by many leaders of the poorest nations for
the miserable conditions and circumstances of their own people.
9 Yet, despite this sea of
justified cynicism and skepticism, we should keep in mind the simple truth,
that a passive and desperate cynicism does not accomplish one iota, and, that
it leads us only into further chaos. We have to diagnose, precisely, why we are
skeptical and cynical, and, we have to use the insights we gain from such an
analysis to search for ways to contribute to a solution of the problems of
injustice and disparity.
10 If we experience our local
governments to be corrupt and inefficient, we should not come to the conclusion
that it is, therefore, impossible to design an efficient and honest system of
government. At the same time, we should realise, that our modern faith in
economic expansion as a panacea for all social ills, including our feelings of
restlessness and unhappiness, does not mean, that the viability of the human
species can be secured by the mechanisms of ever increasing prosperity and material
consumption.
11 Just as the economic insights of
yester-year could not visualise the continuity of economic viability without
slaves or serfs, so can we not visualise, at this time, a happy and continued
existence without economic growth. Yet, a simple awareness of the limitations
of the earth`s renewable and non-renewable resources, makes it an inescapable
conclusion, that such a faith in economic growth is the message of a false
prophet.
12 The awareness, that energy from fossil fuels, as well as the exploitation of all kinds of terrestial resources, contributes to environmental deterioration, coupled with the awareness, that the earth and its atmosphere have a limited capability to absorb our ever increasing stream of toxic and noxious waste-products, leads, inescapably, to the conclusion, that mankind, as a whole, has to adopt, quickly, a lifestyle that maintains an equilibrium between the needs of human beings and the ability of our planet to sustain our existence. We have to limit the level of our consumptive habits in order to secure a lifestyle that will carefully consider the ability of our planet to absorb our waste-products. We will have to adopt a lifestyle that represents an ecological equilibrium with the earth`s capacity to harbour us in a condition of justice and essential equality.
13 I can not see any other
alternative, and, a blind faith in our ability to find additional sources of
food and energy, or, to develop alternative technologies to sustain our
affluent habits, is, not only, a completely erroneous approach to our problems,
but, may become the cause for finding ourselves, eventually, in very deep
trouble, indeed. Then, we may have to work, frantically, just to sustain our
existence. Then, we may have lost the ability to breathe unfiltered air or
drink unpurified water. Then, we may find ourselves permanently trapped into a
coccoon of life-support systems.
14 Unless we decide, now,
collectively, to come to grips with our lifestyle and bring into reality, at
least, some of our ideas about global equality and a frugal use of available
resources, we may leave to our offspring the dubious legacy of an appalling
terrestial and cultural impoverishment, as well as a dangerously high level of
toxic and radio-active waste-products, which may, literally, threaten the
continued existence of our genetic code, as well as the genetic code of many
other species`.
.......
Chapter 8
Content
Limits of natural resources.
A frantic scramble for the last remaining resources.
The hardening of nationalistic attitudes.
Dangerous attitudes of nationalistic leaderships.
The irresistible temptation of power and sovereignty.
Pious dialogues.
No justification for intherited wealth; either personally or communally.
A re-iteration of general principles about globally applicable human rights.
The dangers of superficial solutions and hasty plans.
1 We are certainly becoming more
aware of the limitations of our planet, because, at the present time, we see a
mad rush to claim the resources of the sea and the continental shelves, and,
the larger nations are able to grab a larger share, by mutual consent of the
more powerful members. There seems to be a certain perverse logic in their
arguments, where the legality of a claim to a large part of the resources of
the international sea, is based on the fact, that a nation has already a large
part of the coast-line under its jurisdiction.
2 In this frantic scramble to
secure the last remaining resources of the earth and to bring them under the
absolute power of national sovereignty, we see a distressing hardening of
attitudes. Like a group of undisciplined children, the nations of the earth are
fighting for the remaining crumbs, but this game does not have the temporary egotistical
orientation of the squabbling child, but the deadly serious egocentricity of
unquestioned national sovereignty.
3 It is, indeed, remarkable, that
our ethical code encourages us to share with our neighbours within the
community or the State, and, that this same ethical code proclaims, as the
highest moral stance, the egocentric defense of our national interests or
sovereignty against "foreigners". If necessary, these interests will
be defended by the sacrifice of life. Apparently, it is supremely moral to
share within a community, and to fight other communities to the death, if we
feel threatened by them.
4 In a very real sense, then, our
ability to identify with others, still stops at the borders of our community or
our nation. Unfortunately, it is very much in line with the nature of our
national rulers, including the governing elite of every country or community,
to emphasise the unity within their political entity, and, to consider any
encroachement on the sovereignty of this unity, and its leadership, as a mortal
threat for which the entire community will be called to arms.
5 The natural drive to dominate
and the heady emotions of power, together with the illusions of complete
independence that go with it, tend to accentuate the nationalistic fervor of a
community and its leadership. What leadership will dismantle its position of
power voluntarily, or acknowledge, willingly, that its existence has become
superfluous, as it integrates itself into a larger order for the benefit of
everyone?
6 Federal States are tenuously
held together by a voluntary union, and, we see, how the tensions become
accentuated, when local leadership structures hold-on, at all costs, to their
vestiges of power. These struggles for power between a centralised, federal
government and the regional leadership structures, are, often, a source of
annoyance for the perceptive members of such a nation, because they are aware
of the primitive and dangerous drive for power and influence, which plays such
an obvious role in the behaviour of their leaders.
7 We should not underestimate the
harmful results of this instinctive drive to hold-on to power, and, to resent
any encroachement upon the sphere of our influence. We see, clearly, how our
leaders play a major role in the hardening of nationalistic sentiments. We also
realise, now, that the main impetus to amalgamation and unification will have
to come from the people, because we, ordinary members of society, we have
already learned, far better than our leaders, the limitations of the methods of
conquest and victory.
8 We will have to become more
confident ourselves, and, we have to educate our leaders in the art of
accepting, gracefully, the loss of local power. We, ordinary members, have
learned the art of compromise and the submission of power to authority, long
before our natural leaders and most ambitious members will be able to do the
same. After all, we should not forget, that those, who tend to become leaders
in their social environment, are people with a strong tendency to dominate.
9 Our leaders are strongly endowed with the drive to dominate and they are, often, obsessed with a sense of combativeness and territoriality, otherwise, they would not have become leaders, but we, the people, have to be continuously on our guard. We have to make sure, that we are not led astray into an indefensible attitude of self-righteousness and nationalistic fervor. We have to make sure, that we are not being manipulated into a false sense of national pride, which is nothing more than a legally and morally sanctioned communal egocentricity.
10 At the present time, we are
witnessing a marked hardening of nationalistic emotions and egocentric
concerns, brought-on by the realisation, that we are grabbing the final
frontiers of the earth`s resources. The inability to expand our national
boundaries any further, the weight of world public opinion against invading our
neighbours, as well as the wild clamoring of many small nations for recognition
and nationalistic rights, will make us all defensive and introvert. We will see
a period, where we are less interested in the welfare of others. We will adopt,
increasingly, an attitude of "each nation for itself", since all
nations have now received, not only, an internationally sanctioned right of existence,
but also, a sacred seal of sovereignty and independence.
11 We will see, that the gap
between the richer and poorer nations will grow wider, in spite of a pious
dialogue between rich and poor about a new economic world-order. The spread of
nuclear technology will make the occurrence of nuclear blackmail and terrorism
inevitable, and, a hardening of egocentric attitudes by the clamor of national
sovereignty will lead to a lawless scramble for affluence and consumer goods.
For a while, we will be less sensitive to the opinions of others, as we witness
many savage local conflicts of interests.
12 How can we break through such an
impasse? The only way to avoid a continuation of the current trends and to
capitalise on a lingering sense of good-will amongst the peoples of the world,
is to outline, boldly, a plan for the development of a just world community of
mankind. It seems inescapable to come to the following, fundamental
conclusions.
13 Each human being should have the
opportunity to live a healthy life, free from hunger and disease, with equal
opportunities to develop, at least, a part of his or her potentials. There is
no justification for the possession of inherited wealth and privileges, which
comes with the fortunate circumstance of having been born into a wealthy
society or a well-to-do family. The earth and all its resources should be
available, in equal measure, to all the members of mankind, and, consequently,
the ethic of defending national interests has to give way to an ethic of global
sharing.
14 We need a careful, theoretical
basis for the ethical guidelines of our behaviour, in order to make the primary
requirements of essential equality persuasive and practical objectives for
everyone, and, we have to outline the structure and function of a competent
world-government capable of helping to implement these ideals.
15 We have to avoid, at all costs,
the paralysing development of corruption and class-divisions, which would
destroy, once again, the sense of trust, justice and mutual respect, which we
need to sustain a globally just social environment. The elaboration of such
utopian ideals, as well as the description of methods that may accomplish an
effective and just world-government, will be easily ridiculed and greated with
biting sarcasm. Before we refuse to give these ideas a chance, however, let us
reflect, soberly, upon the consequences of nuclear conflict or black-mail, as
well as the devastation caused by unbridled technological and economic
expansion and pollution. We will have to agree, that efforts to reach a new
world order are necessary. Whether any one of these efforts will, eventually,
be successful, or, which avenue will lead to a measure of success and the
implementation of a situation of widespread, or, even, global justice, only
time, and study, will tell.
16 Let us not hesitate, however, to
approach this task with all the energy and skill we can find, and, with all the
honesty and sincerity necessary to convince ourselves, and others, that this is
not merely a gimmick for notoriety.
17 National boundaries will have to
dissolve gradually, and the sphere of mutual recognition and respect will,
eventually, have to reach us all, as we are becoming clearly aware of the need
for a universal lifestyle of frugal conservation.
18 These are enormous changes,
indeed, in attitude as well as in lifestyle, and the level of mutual trust
necessary to give such a development a chance, is astronomical. Such a level of
mutual trust has to be carefully nurtured and safeguarded against the
disappointments of unworkable and poorly thought-out plans. Let us guard
against a superficial and temporary enthousiasm, which can only lead to
irrealistic expectations and inevitable disappointments. Let us guard against
the easy hope, that such a change will come almost overnight.
19 In a historical perspective,
such a change will already be a fantastically swift and decisive development,
if it comes over a period of two or three generations. Let us not forget, that
our children are not born with an inherent cynicism about the possibilities for
change, neither are they born with the belief, that ever increasing consumption
and immediate gratification of sensual pleasures are the pinnacle of human
achievement.
20 The very fact, that none of us
will be alive a century hence, is our greatest opportunity to design a global
system of education and communication, which will mold the minds and attitudes
of the next few generations into a global ethical awareness and a global
integration of mankind.
21 Our computer technology makes an
efficient system of education and leadership possible, because it gives us the
opportunity to master unimaginable quantities of information.
Mass-communications make it possible to disseminate ideas of hope and justice to
every member of humanity, and, the information-gathering and -classifying
capabilities of the modern computer make it possible, for the first time in
history, to create complex bureaucratic channels without the scourge of
corruption and incompetence. It gives us the opportunity to experience a
measure of openness and access to information for everyone, and, it provides us
with a realistic opportunity to be hopeful about the future, and experience a
feeling of justice, because these attitudes and reality perceptions will, then,
be based on realistic expectations and interpretations.
22 Computer technology, as well as
the start of a global system of information-gathering, may well be the main
characteristics our generation will be remembered by. If we give these
developments a start, the future generations may forgive us our greedy glut of
consumption and self-gratification. In stead, they may fondly think of us as
the origin of global integration and a just way of life for everyone. The next
essay will outline the theoretical basis for a globally acceptable ethic, and,
we will try to sketch a practical approach to accomplish the change-over to an
efficient and non-corrupt system of government on a world-wide scale.
.......
Summary
1. The development of behavioural guidelines.
Religion and philosophy; creation and evolution.
The potential for a severe emotional reaction against science and technology.
2. The marriage of reason and belief.
The importance of the collective will.
Genetic and cultural codes of behaviour.
3. Inter-communal conflicts and mechanisms of cohesion within the
large, socially integrated conglomerate.
A review of the biological heritage of small-scale social cohesion.
Leadership functions.
Limitations of the biological foundation for mutual recognition.
4. The development of the larger society.
Patterns of mutual recognition.
Ruthless extinction of the near-human species`.
The development of speech.
The enlargement of leadership functions.
Language and the genetic code; similarities in the mechanisms of
differentiation.
The lawlessness of leadership struggles.
5. The transience of large-scale social entities.
The need for an intellectual grasp over our observations.
The distance between leadership and ordinary citizens in the large social
conglomerates.
Attempts to close this gap.
Similarities between Christianity and the large empires of the past.
The power of a creed; Islam.
The failure of the mechanisms of natural selection to determine the viability
of a social system.
6. The need and demand for collective decisions and well-reasoned
actions.
A review of the present status of social integration.
The sanctioning of national sovereignty.
World-wide public opinion.
Limiting the scope of violent conflict.
The haphazard existence of national boundaries.
Legalising national boundaries; by the passage of time and the presence of
political stability.
Rich and poor, large and small nations.
The need for the equalisation of living standards on a national level.
The need for equalising mechanisms between nations.
Human rights.
The rise of global concerns and the world-wide communication of ideas.
The influence of religious beliefs on our attitudes.
The devastation of modern warfare.
Communication and the possibility for deliberate changes in social
relationships.
7. The need for a package of basic human rights.
The dangers and limitations of elitist attitudes.
Reasons for, and mechanisms of, the attitude of "cynicism".
The problem of corruption.
The fallacy of "salvation" through economic growth.
A need for changes in attitudes, awarenesses and lifestyles.
8. Limits of natural resources.
A frantic scramble for the last remaining resources.
The hardening of nationalistic attitudes.
Dangerous attitudes of nationalistic leaderships.
The irresistible temptation of power and sovereignty.
Pious dialogues.
No justification for intherited wealth; either personally or communally.
A re-iteration of general principles about globally applicable human rights.
The dangers of superficial solutions and hasty plans.
.......