Choice or Necessity?

At our present state of knowledge it still seems rational-with some reservations-to believe that social choice is possible. In the concluding lines to his book Chance and Necessity (1972) biologist Jacques Monod wrote:

The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is no where spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose.³²

But we do not know the extent to which meaningful choice is really possible. Human society may be driven by innate forces which in effect determine human destiny. Choice may be an illusion. The fate of Homo sapiens may be destined by evolutionary "necessity," overriding all hypothetical rational choice. But until forced by evidence to this conclusion, it seems reasonable to assume that humans possess or may acquire the capacities to make the choices necessary to a sustainable future.

Rational choice, however, implies recognition of requirements for ecological and psychological integrity within the complicated, multi-linear dynamic social system through which modern society impacts upon nature. In a rational world this recognition would imply a major conceptual reorientation regarding human relationships to the Earth. Numerous collateral changes in expectations, behaviors, and institutions would be involved in turning the course of our giant worldwide political economy comparable, on an immense scale, to turning the course of a giant ocean liner-a Titanic task.³³ Before this could happen there must be broad international recognition regarding the danger ahead. A paradigmatic change of this magnitude requires social learning, about which we yet have much to learn. And this learning requires public leadership and time.³⁴ But timeliness is also required. Turning begun too late may be unable to avoid disaster.

Change of direction is not without costs, some of which may not be payable under our present socio-political-economic order. Democracy as we know it today tends to be primarily responsive to here and now and organized particularistic interests. Deterred by "sunk" investments in unreliable expectations, the political economy may be unable or unwilling to bear new costs which corrective and redirective action would require. Faith that freedom is best protected by competition among interests may be misplaced if applied to issues critical to the future of all humanity, and in which human society must concur and cooperate if it is to cope. The veritable world is more than a political economy, and neither governance through competition nor the opaque forces of the market place will modify nor nullify the dynamics and limitations of nature.

Redirections implied by the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity may be beyond the readiness of present world society to implement. Scientists are better able to warn against what should not be done than to advise on how to avoid destructive decisions. Self-destructive improvidence by humanity does not necessarily imply biological extinction-more likely is the decline of human potential and loss of higher qualities of life achieved over centuries of time. Alternative futures comparable to those depicted by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932) and by George Stewart in Earth Abides (1949) are more plausible than is disappearance of the human species. Humanity may destroy its higher achievements, and degrade and impoverish its environment, but an environment remains-much poorer than the one in which humanity arose, seemingly to dominate. Impairment of the conditions-ecological, moral, and material-that made human achievements possible could diminish or destroy the prospect of their continuance or recovery. History demonstrates that human achievements can be lost. The greatest loss to the human species could be loss of confidence in its own rationality, and weakening of its will to cultural survival.³⁵

Evidence that the modern world has put its future at risk is persuasive of the need to critically examine the direction toward which future-shaping actions appear to be tending. If the coordinated efforts of science and social research, aided by government and the shapers of public opinion, were focused realistically on the effects of critical trends, a credible assessment of our present policies and practices might be forthcoming. We may then have more reliable evidence for encouraging constructive trends while correcting those leading toward unwanted consequences. Some efforts in this direction are being made, but have not yet reached the level of a major social purpose.

The prospect of such an integrative social effort is utopian; but utopian goals are not invariably impossible-the unprecedented material achievements of the 20th century would have been utopian in the 19th century. If those achievements are sustainable beyond the 20th century a more difficult set of goals must be pursued. They may be more difficult because their formulation and achievement depend for realization on underdeveloped resources of the human mind. Humans have thus far not been notably successful in verifiable explanations of themselves to themselves. Understanding why we behave like human beings is surely the ultimate challenge to human intelligence.³⁶ But we should recognize that this understanding could carry with it unforeseen consequences. Our findings might complicate our preferred self-images and expectations.

Research in the multi-disciplinary social-behavioral sciences calls to mind the parable of the blind men and the elephant. To attempt to ascertain the trajectory of human history is more than an elephantine task. Yet I believe that there is an intellectual and, more importantly, a moral imperative for more students of human society to accept this undertaking. There is more agreement in science and academia regarding the risks confronting society than there is on those which are avoidable and those that are not. To sort out the risks and identify priorities for public choice and policy would require a collaboration among all sciences and the humanities. Disciplinary specialization would continue in importance, but could have greater value when it contributed to this larger agenda. Consilience among the disciplines would require personal leadership, social learning, and reciprocity among investigators.

In her presidential address to the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jane Lubchenco summarized the issue in these concluding paragraphs:

It is time for the scientific community to take responsibility for the contributions required to address the environmental and social problems before us, problems that, with the best intentions in the world, we have nonetheless helped to create. It is time for a reexamination of the agendas and definitions of the "grand problems" in various scientific disciplines.

We can no longer afford to have the environment be accorded marginal status on our agendas. The environment is not a marginal issue, it is the issue of the future, and the future is here now.³⁷

Discovery of what must be done to move from a course that possibly threatens global destruction to one of global sustainability must surely be a compelling task for sciences relating to human behavior. What to do may be inferred from the integrated findings of the sciences. How to act is a matter of policy, legitimated through politics and implemented through governance. A profound global shock may be required to move leaders in government and the economy to weigh the costs of major socio-economic change against the possibility of environmental degradation or irremediable disaster. But they will not be moved until there is unmistakable public recognition of the need for change-popular concern sufficient to jeopardize their political careers should they not take a lead in action. If modern society is on a collision course with nature (as mounting evidence suggests) a major change in prevailing assumptions and behaviors will be necessary. A Chinese proverb warns "If you do not change direction you will end up where you are headed."

If choice rather than necessity is an option available to humanity, what courses of action might be taken toward realizing the probability that the direction of development will lead to outcomes that are preferred and sustainable? In summary, there are four connected lines of action.

The first is an analysis and evaluation of major social-environmental trends. The federal government has from time-to-time sponsored studies of particular trends since the report in 1933 of President Hoover's Research Committee on Recent Social Trends.³⁸ Reports of national commissions (e.g., on population, material resources, and public lands) have had minimal effect, and the Congress has consistently declined to consider a continuing program for the analysis of interacting trends in population, resources, and environment. Non-governmental reports such as those published by Lester Brown's Worldwatch Institute provide public information, but there is need for inquiry built into the processes of national policymaking if action is to follow.

A second line of action, more difficult, is the universalizing of an ethic of environmental stewardship and sustainability. Calls for this ethic may be found in numerous high-level international declarations and in Title I of the United States National Environmental Policy Act.³⁹ Adoption of this ethic has been growing but the greater part of humanity appears locked into assumptions and values which, in practice, prejudice humanity's future. Universalizing an ethic for sustainability is a task which government alone cannot accomplish-but may assist. All sectors of society must somehow be involved. There is evidence that this ethical transformation is occurring. Whether it is moving far enough or fast enough is less certain.

A third line of action, essential to an ethical conversion, is persuasion through communication. People are unlikely to commit to propositions that they do not understand-or which contradict conventional beliefs and behaviors. They may also reject propositions that they perceive as contrary to their personal interests and objectives. The art of persuasion has been highly developed by advertisers, politicians, and evangelists. But I am uncertain whether we have learned how to persuade people to accept disagreeable truths without deception. There is practical wisdom in the observation of Jack Point in Gilbert and Sullivan's Yeoman of the Guard that ". . . he who'd make his fellow creatures wise should always gild the philosophic pill!"

A fourth line of action follows from the necessity for informed and responsible leadership in communication. In democratic societies this role falls especially to leaders in the formulation and explication of public policy. Donald Kagan in his book Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy, states the necessity persuasively.

A democratic leader, to be great, must be a teacher. For whatever the nobility of his vision and the excellence of his goals, they cannot be achieved in a free society unless the people truly share and are inspired to accomplish them . . .

Any successful society must be an educational institution. However great its commitment to individual freedom and diversity, it needs a code of civic virtue and a general devotion to the common enterprises without which it cannot flourish or survive.⁴⁰

Will a critical mass of society accept the leadership required to move humanity toward a sustainable and sanative future? The state of the world today may justify hope, but does not encourage optimism. Hope for a preferable future will be of little avail unless joined to action. The resources needed to sustain mankind's tenancy on Earth are present and available. How they will be used will determine the future insofar as that future may be shaped by human minds and hands.