WorldBeing in the worldIn recoil from grand schemes there is a thought that being-in-this-world is the fundamental value, perhaps the only value. In the ultimate, however, the transient and the universal merge. There is still obvious value practical significance to living-well-in-this-world. There is an enormous philosophical, psychological, religious, and popular literature devoted to the topic. There is a level on which living well is simple—except when one does not have it, when one would have more, when one considers others, and when one explicitly seeks ultimate things. However, we are—at least I am—at the beginning and so, even from the point of view of this world, anything more than eclectic discussion would be misdirection. Challenges and opportunitiesI shall begin with an example—the effect of human activity on global climate change. There is a consensus that human activity is affecting global climate change, that (I write in early 2014) there are already adverse effects and that these will escalate over the foreseeable future. Most studies concern global warming and its effects. There is hardly any doubt that ‘Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980’ (Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, January 30, 2014). There is a consensus that it is 90-95% certain that this is the result of human activity. There are detractors who may have reactionary or economic motives. And the global political resolve regarding the issue is equivocal. Principle 1—action should not be deferred till the fact of a problem is certain (which will probably be the case only when catastrophe occurs). Of course, action faces numerous problems. What should be done? Will we accept the mandated changes in our lives? If we write laws what will we do if or when they need modification (the laws may have review dates written). Should laws be written as mandates or in terms of incentives or other or some combination? Is there any resolution of the complexity of global economic and political process? There may be a principle here but I will not write one up at present. The principle might mention a need for approaches to be experimental, to avoid excess institutionalization. It is important that we face numerous issues. What are they (the United Nations and other organizations and individuals maintain lists of major global problems)? How do we simultaneously address the issues? How shall we prioritize them? Are there a few critical actions that would address problems simultaneously? What kind of action would this be? Who would the action target—individuals, communities, institutions of education, corporations, geo-political entities (perhaps nations are not altogether a good thing) and their ways of doing politics? And who would the driving actors be—individuals, communities, global community, schools and universities, corporations, governments? It is significant that mutual trust and cooperation is immensely important to action but that trust and cooperation within and among the different entities nave diminished since the second half of the twentieth century, that division and divisiveness have increased and are often economically and politically motivated. All this would be rather complex to work into principles (it may be a task for the future). One principle of action might be that every ‘actor’—individuals and more—should devote energy to solutions: awareness, communication, and action. There is another concern. It is a generic concern that I will label acceptance of status quo or laissez faire. ‘Laissez faire’ is an economic term but I will mean the tendency to minimal intervention. It has many faces—among those who advocate the need to address climate change, how many are there of us who have changed our lifestyles? Of course this is difficult and we need more but this is just an example. The modern secular systems—capitalist or other—have assumed that what is needed is ‘tinkering’ (and despite their wide effects I think of socialism and communism as essentially tinkering). It must be tinkering until we have true universal principles. But we have seen that neither secularism nor standard trans-secularism is such. Secularism in particular has a limited picture of the good and the universal while historical and modern trans-secularism have distorted pictures (that is probably correlated to the fact that living under secularism is better on many fronts). On the other hand attempts to imprint systematic wide spread change for the ‘good’ (‘utopias’) have immense dangers. What is the resolution? If universalism is too much we might formulate a second principle below. Principle 2—realism and holism—we do not know the range of challenges, opportunities, problems, and ways to address these. However, we must work toward enumerating, evaluating, and synthesizing them—and toward action; ‘synthesis’ means seeing the range of issues as interactive and seeking optimum allocation of resources among problems and opportunities (that some issues are imperative rather than of relative importance may be accommodated in this framework); over and understatement—both have ranges of motives, occur, are counterproductive, and should be avoided—realistic assessment is critical; meanwhile we cannot wait for perfection to act; and meanwhile we should attend to enjoyment of our lives—of the present moment and the large picture for it is this that may sustain our will and sense of significant meaning. Cataloging the issuesThere are various lists. Following combines and modifies the most recent 2004 UN High Level Threat Panel’s and Richard Smalley’s around 2005 ‘Top Ten Problems of Humanity for the Next 50 years’. I have made some additions—enfranchisement (Smalley listed democracy and education separately), environment and resources (were listed separately), culture (emphases opportunities, includes knowledge of the world, an appreciation for what is of worth, and the understanding of conservation and planning—which makes the list reflexively complete), and geopolitics. The list below begins with ‘problems’ but beginning with the environment and resources the items present problem and opportunity.
War, terrorism, and transnational organized crime. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological).
Genocide, sex trade, body part kidnapping, and other atrocities.
Environment—climate, land, air, and water. Resources—water, food, energy, land, plant, animal, and materials. Approaches—science and technology; see culture, population, and geopolitics below.
Democracy, education, quality of life. Economic class. Women, men, children. Minorities.
Knowledge—systematic and general, secularism-religion and (versus) realism (see the document ‘system of human knowledge’ in which the main divisions are universe, artifact, and symbol). Morals and trust. Art and human expression.
Population is a root issue. Intervention is possible. Moral concerns make moral action difficult to conceive and there is a tendency to therefore neglect the issue. This should not prevent reflection and search for solutions. Better education, improved economic status, and perhaps political enfranchisement result in lower birth rate (as low as 1.4 children per couple in some places). Education and opportunity for women and minorities is important. I think, however, it is important to not exclude any segment of populations with the thought that they are the power or wealthy class. Men are as critical as women. It is critical to reach across borders. Exclusion reinforces negative practices. Inclusion is at least an invitation to the positive.
The future of nations and national boundaries. Modern community—‘developing’ and ‘developed’. Pre-agricultural communities. Animal rights.
Root issues. Political and economic principles of transformation and action. Regarding these issues this includes their ongoing enumeration and evaluation of the individual and system of issues for allocation of resources; particular attention should be given to root issues, material and other, that spawn many others and for which intervention is possible and moral. Problem of action. When, an individual, look at our world I may become frustrated. Why? It is in part that there is so much opportunity yet so much waste. However, I know of no law of the universe that says that this is avoidable. This does not remove my dissatisfaction with waste but it does suggest what I might do about it. In a material sense all I can do is begin with myself here and now in the present. But I can do more. I can reflect I can communicate and I can act. The point then is the spirit of action. I can act but not control. Therefore the spiritual advice to not be attached to the fruits of action is not only spiritually empowering but practical as well—in (a) that I avoid useless frustration and (b) in empowering my action. ScenariosImagining scenarios—problems, challenges, opportunities—can be useful in anticipation and in setting up policies and institutions. This list is a beginning.
Politics and economicsThe universal metaphysics implies that science, politics, economics of the future should be more than ‘republican’ i.e. entrusted to designated (elected and other) persons but one of participation and immersion. This is further taken up in the division path where the current emphasis is action and concepts are secondary. |