In
the past I have argued that mankind needs to transition its social
values from nation, tribe, religion etc. to humanity itself, and this
lonely planet itself, if it is to survive. But what if this cannot be
done, as is so evident in the Middle East, where people of the same
religion, but different sects, are willing to kill each other in
large numbers rather than compromise? Is there another path to
survival open to mankind?
Have
you ever noticed that the larger the group, the less the role of
moral values in major decision making? Foreign policy of a major
country is not conducted on the level of whether a country, its
leader, or its people are morally reprehensible or not. At levels
such as these prudence takes the place of morality in making
judgments.
A
general truth of large numbers of things, whether natural resources
or human beings, is that as the numbers increase the value of each
constituent decreases. Put another way, scarcity breeds value. If
human beings are to be valued, you do not overproduce them.
I
suggest that at some point mankind may find that it has to replace
assessments of what is the right thing with assessments of what is
the wise thing. This is because prudential assessments are related to
facts, especially those of the natural world. Moral assessments are
all too easily divorced from the facts of human existence and can
create havoc with human well being. There is no fantasy that cannot
be endowed with moral value. Consider that the fantasy of a human
soul contributed to human overpopulation by denying contraception to
women, not to mention what it has also contributed to the limits
placed on women ranging from denial of education to denial of
employment.
The
problem with prudence is that it tends to neglect minority or
individual needs. Our Constitution sought to deal with this tyranny
of the majority in its Bill Of Rights.
However,
remember we are talking about the survival of the human species. I
was reading to day of the outrage of some African women at being
sterilized without their consent. However, what if the survival of
our species required such action, except it would apply to humanity
in general, both men and women? Such is possible, indeed given
China's mandatory “one child” family, likely. Perhaps,
considerations such as these can begin to convey to the world's
populace the urgency of the need to reduce our human population. As
in China, people will lose the right to have as many children as they
desire. This is but one example of the revaluation, if not
transvaluation, of values that the unique and overwhelming
consequences of impending global catastrophe will impose on humanity.
The
answer to those who pose the moral argument that the majority does
not have the right to dictate to the minority, which is held sacred
in our Bill of Rights, is that these rights cannot survive in a world
threatened with human extinction. If we want our rights we must
protect their existential foundation. Dealing with our moral values
is but one consequence of the world humanity has made for itself.
There are many other, neglected as this one is, that need to be
articulated until the full dimension of what we are faced with begins
to take shape. We cannot assume that we or people like us or
societies like ours will be dealing with these unprecedented global
forces as we have dealt with large issues of the past. I remember in
the 1950s the evacuation plan for the Los Angeles basin announced by
the authorities in the event of a nuclear attack. It made, for
example, assumptions about the freeway capacities which anyone
familiar with normal rush hour traffic found ludicrous. Katrina is
another example of our refusal to take the future seriously. We can
expect more of the same on a much larger scale if we do not come to
grips with the world we have created. Prudence requires that we do
everything we can to reduce our population, our consumption and our
wanton destruction of our planet's ecosystems.
Bob
Newhard
No comments:
Post a Comment