Humankind
THE HUMANITY-CORRODING CIVILISATION
Sharad C Behar
Prologue: Celebrating Diversity at Risk
Al Gore lost in the US presidential election but has succeeded in conveying to the world the ' inconvenient truth ' about the global warming and the impending climate change. The whole world is engaged in seriously negotiating to ensure that every other country does its bit excepting itself.The usual tendency always present in the powerful nations of the world to attempt to make others commit to give the maximum without themselves reciprocating is obvious in these negotiations. This explains the painfully slow progress in this regard. The danger of climate change with all its consequences seems to have been accepted as real enough to warrant action, although there are experts who would like us to believe that the ringing of the alarm bell is false, there are no significant change occurring or even if they are occurring there are natural correctives for which there are precedents in the history of this planet. It is possible that this diverging view is responsible for the irresponsible approach of some of the powerful nations of the world in the negotiations. However, even if they have no reasons to underplay the possible danger, they are bound to make all possible attempts to protect their self-interest and making others -- particularly the developing countries – sacrifice much more than what they themselves will be ever willing to contribute on their own part. Such is the nature of ' power '. More importantly, this is the core value of the powerful countries of the world. Conversely, it is probably not incorrect to say that only such countries have become powerful these days that consider their self-interest supreme; finer values like sacrifice, altruism, equality are only ideas and ideals to be exhibited by others or to be used by the powerful nations as the high moral ground more as a deceptive rhetoric than a principle of action and for only preaching others but not for practice by self. Is there such a tendency only in the nations or also in human beings, is it the accompanying attribute of only the powerful or is it common to all? What is the genesis of selfishness? Is selfishness inherently a stronger urge than altruism? What are the instincts, values, attributes that are desirable to the humankind and how are they nurtured? These and many other such complex questions and the intricate dynamics between the value systems, ethics, the philosophical foundations and the hard realities of the living world will be discussed later. As of now, let us focus on the many other sources of the danger to the world and the humanity that scientists and thinkers and common people alike seem to have identified and celebrate the wide diversity and amazing pluralities of views, perceptions and imaginations that make nature and human beings so adorable and fascinating.
Existence of aliens and probable harm by them through invasion or infection or some inconceivable (to human mind) means and mode are as real to some. The frequent sightings of UFOs (un- identified flying objects), the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle and similar other unexplained phenomena seem to be adequate pointers to them. Collision with and impact by near Earth objects are perceived as a highly probable source of danger to the earth and the humanity. In this context meteorite, asteroids and comets are mentioned. The extinction of dinosaurs for which the most credible theory so far advanced of the impact of a huge meteorite is recalled with horror. Cosmic ray blasts from an exploding star, or being swallowed by a black hole are some other possibilities presented. Viral pandemic like that of new kinds of flu witnessed in the recent years also conjure imagination of the end of humanity. Other natural phenomena like super volcanoes and unprecedented massive earthquake stronger than recently experienced in Japan are also cited as being within the realm of probabilities. A very innovative source suggested is telomere erosion which suggests that just as the cells in human beings keep on replacing themselves but gradually with age wear out, so also the telomeres -- the ticking evolutionary clock -- of a specie erodes ultimately leading to its extinction. The chances of this happening are however not rated to be very high in the next 70 years by Reinhard Stindy.
All these views seem to be assuming that the locus of control is external. The human species is portrayed as hapless innocent victim or as one that can prepare with his scientific knowledge and technological prowess to meet the challenge. In this imagery there is a lurking feeling that ultimately all these preparations are not likely to ward off the onslaught of the external agent -- in a very generic sense -- nature. There are however people willing to be less ethnocentric and charitable to the humankind and seriously consider the possibility of human beings themselves being the cause or agent of self- destruction or the impending catastrophe. Nuclear war, terrorism, and takeover by Robots are some of the other possibilities thought of in this connection. Once it is accepted that human beings collectively or some sections amongst them can behave irresponsibly and unwittingly adopt courses of action which they believe will serve their interests but which are or in the long run will be/can be against their own interests, infinite possibilities can be imagined. They get further multiplied if the narrow framework of complete physical annihilation is eschewed and any extremely serious irreparable damages brought within its ambit. This wider interpretation will be consistent with the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud’s very innovative construct of ' death wish ' according to which all actions -- whether intended or otherwise -- likely to harm oneself are manifestations of the unconscious death-wish which Freud juxtaposes with another construct ' libido ' -- the strong desire and energy to live and enjoy life fully. This is a very fertile line of inquiry that deserves deeper and further probe. It is quite plausible to imagine that the humankind is combining the libido and the death-wish quite unwittingly. The contemporary civilisation that boasts of being the best so far in human history may have within itself the seeds of fulfilling its death-wish -- leading to extinction or death-like situation. This is the hypothesis that we intend exploring.
Not Just the Naked Ape
Ever since human beings became aware of their existence, their natural curiosity made them ask numerous questions of diverse kinds. They can be broadly put into two categories.
(1)Curiosity relating to their surroundings -- the physical world they found themselves placed in. It was critical for their survival that they should understand and be able to deal with the world around them. This category of questions constituted challenge that had to be met for their continued existence. Lots of them related to forces of nature that threaten their existence and survival. It is logical to believe that such questions were the earliest the humankind had to encounter. They struggled with these questions. These challenges had to be met along with some answers that worked. Initially they were too many. They were also overwhelming and preoccupying to such an extent that other possible questions did not occur except on very rare occasions of respite to a very few exceptional individuals who may not have had an immense imminent challenge before them.
(2)Curiosity relating to themselves. Questions like
Who are we? Where have we come from? Why are we here? Why do some of us, at different periods of time, behave in a funny manner -- stop behaving like all of us and never come back to our state again? Why and where do they go -- against their will? What happens to them there –after ?In other words what is the larger purpose of life and what is the mystery of death—of life after life?
These are questions that are uniquely asked by only human beings of all the creatures living on this earth. In making this statement I am fully aware of the anthropocentric view of the earth it represents. This is however a very cautious and qualified statement. Not long ago human beings were considered to be uniquely and exclusively capable of lots of things that no other beings were capable of. Gradually scientific studies have led to an understanding that many of the differentiators between human beings and other animals that were firmly believed earlier would not stand rigourous scrutiny. At the most the difference can be only of degrees. Healthy scientific scepticism -- born out of open-mindedness, greater desire for objectivity and awareness of the pitfalls of the self-serving nature of seemingly logical interpretation -- has also led to the view that anthropocentric attitude does not enable human beings to interpret the animal behaviour in proper light and in a fair manner resulting in incorrect appreciation and invalid conclusions about the absence of attributes and capabilities in the animals that they -- particularly the other primates -- possess but that human being would like to deny in them in order to believe in its own unquestionably unique position in the known universe. In this view of the matter, we face a dilemma. Any study and conclusion in this area will have the possibility and even probability of anthropocentric bias. This does not imply that there are no significant differences but only that at this stage we cannot be certain. Desmond Morris, the celebrated author finds his own solution to this dilemma. ' The Naked Ape ' is the name of his first book in the triology in which he,as a zoologist ,explores the similarities and differences between the human beings and other primates. The best option for us howeve is to follow the Jain principle of Anekantvad which suggests that truth is multifaceted and there can be multiple more or less valid perspectives. On this basis we can proceed to look at the differences between human beings and other beings and their implications in which the insight of Morris is also invaluable.
The larger size of the cerebrum in the human beings is not disputed. Cerebrum is responsible for thinking, sensation, processing the impulses received from senses, and things like emotion and memory. Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspirations and humour seem to be special attributes of human beings, although anthropologists, on the basis of their studies, claim that many of these also are shared by primates and some other animals although in different degrees. There is a need of further extensive research in order to find more conclusive evidence one way or the other. Self-awareness, introspection, rituals, ability to understand and influence environment substantially, seeking to manipulate and explain phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion are broadly accepted to be unique to humans although one can hear some feeble voices of dissent that can probably be ignored.
Civilisation: Unique to Humankind
At the present state of knowledge, what cannot be disputed is that civilisation is unique to the human beings. This is their creation. It is indeed a dramatic demonstration of the human capability to drastically change and manipulate the environment and create something that did not exist in the nature.
Civilisations can be called a very complex, intricate and advanced network and pattern of substantially altered physical environment and way of living including institutions, sets of norms, beliefs, imaginations and ideas evolving out of long-term, planned and designed, deliberate application of human propensities and capabilities (most of the aforesaid qualities, attributes, and capabilities) in an indescribable complex manner for many generations of one, or a few or many groups of, human beings in close interaction with one another.
The evidence so far also very strongly suggests that only human beings are uniquely capable of asking the second categories of questions (mentioned in the beginning of the paper) that arise from a combination of self-awareness and curiosity beyond the mundane and pressing needs of survival of the individual or the group or even the human as a species. These questions are at the root of most of the non-material or abstract components of civilization which in fact determine its individuality or distinctiveness. Ideas, ideals and ideologies are the innermost core of a civilization that design the pattern or configuration of its material, visible exterior like impressive and spectacular monuments, the technological tools and their products.
Civilisation is a very complex concept perceived and defined in diverse ways. Sometimes it is used interchangeably with culture. However there is a broad agreement that while culture refers to the totality of the way of living of any human community, civilisation is its more advanced stage and usually covers larger geographical area. A large amount of convergence also exists on the basics of this advanced stage, although different scholars identify different but overlapping sets of essential characteristics of a civilisation. In other words, there is also a general consensus on the characteristics, components and attributes that together constitute a civilisation. They include the following:
- Self-reliance and stability in food supply so that,
(A) living in urban areas is possible where there is no production of food or is negligible and minimal;
(B) there can be division of labour in which some people are spared from direct engagement in food production and instead can develop different specific skills resulting in
(1) emergence of vocational and professional groups with diverse skills for use in the interest of all in the society,
(2) stratified social class structure along with a leisure -class and what Arnold Toynbee calls creative minority, and
(3) leisure to enable expression of creativity in a variety of ways including the development of various forms of art, entertainment, literature, knowledge, delving into philosophical questions particularly on the second kind of questions.
2. Capacity of
(A) writing and literacy;
(B) problem solving with the help of logical/creative thinking including the capacity of tool-making and constantly improving technology that also contributes to efficiency in meeting their survival needs like food production and water supply and enables larger amount of leisure ;
(C) systematic understanding of nature and environment and the dealing with the challenges of nature and environment by their systematic understanding including
[Roman1] developing the concept of time and its measurement including understanding of patterns like the season, Sunrise, Sunset, the phases of the moon, the tides, the wind directions;
[Roman2] understanding and measuring shape, size, volume, weight etc:
(D) education/criticism meaning constantly striving to improve as an individual or culture
3. Evolution of institutions
(A). The political institutions: government with leaders and organisations, whether as a result of social contract or otherwise to regulate and discipline individual and group behaviour on the basis of certain norms and a set of rules in a just manner in the interest of all in the society;
(B). Religion and religious institutions or organisations: providing a set of answers that are perceived as satisfactory by its followers to what Childe calls unanswerable, a system of ethics and moral code of conduct based thereon, myths and Legends to provide credibility to its answers as also to enforce and reinforce the moral code and generally to regulate the behaviour of individuals and their groups;
(C). Economy: including a system and set of rules for exchange of goods and services in the interests of all in the society without which there can be no division of labour or class structure or availability of leisure for advancement of knowledge, technology, art forms, philosophy, mythology.
The Western Ethnocentrism
The British anthropologist, V Gordon Childe calls most of the questions of the second category ' un-anwerable '. Many modern authors agree. They recognise that from time immemorial all groups of human beings have been finding answers to such questions in their own way satisfying their curiosity, deriving mental peace and tranquillity, and also facilitating orderliness in their lives. The modernists, however, do not accept them as ' answers '. They call them ' beliefs ' constituting religion. They distinguish between beliefs and religion on the one hand and answers based on reason, on the other. Their assumption is that only propositions arrived at by following the modern Western scientific method of inquiry which represents the pinnacle of rationality -- the gift of the Age of Reason -- qualify to be valid ' answers '. The post-modernists will be quick to point out that this is also a ' belief ' of the modernists. Such a belief ignores the fact that knowledge at every stage of human development comprises answers and generalisations arrived at by the concerned group of people on the basis of their thinking, empirical evidence as gathered by them in the then existing state of knowledge and interpretations made by them following their prevalent system of reasoning. The modern stand recognises one and only one valid process of reasoning that follows the modern Western system of logic that alone can lead to valid answers; the rest of them can be labelled as belief, superstition, faith etc. Such an understanding -- or is it a dogma -- is the product of modern Western civilisation. This is in sharp contrast with anekantvad, a fundamental principle in Jain philosophy that views truth as multifaceted and recognises with modesty and great openness that there can be multiple perspectives of truth -- not the one and the only one, as dogmatically asserted by the modern Western civilisation.