A New Social
in a
Post-Industrial World [i]
John Ikerd[ii]
In an ever changing world, it
sometimes seems “the only constant is change.” However, some types of change
are not usual or constant; some are rare and abrupt. Such change fundamentally
reshapes our world. As Peter Drucker, the time-honored writer, scholar, and
corporate consultant observed, “Every few hundred years in Western history
there occurs a sharp transformation. Within a few decades, society rearranges
itself–its worldview; its basic values; its social and political structure, its
arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world. We are currently living through just such a
transformation. (p 1, Drucker, 1993)”
We are currently living through
a time of change that is at least as important as the Industrial Revolution and
perhaps as great as the beginning of science. Addressing the challenges of this
historic change will require not only new paradigms for political and economic
progress but also new scientific understanding of how the world works and our
place within it. Researchers and
educators have the responsibility of being on the forefront of such changes. Those in higher education are in a unique position
to see change first, to analyze best, to understand its significance, and to prepare
each new generation for the future. The question today is whether those in
higher education will accept this responsibility.
The current transformation is
being driven by a search for the answers to contemporary questions of
sustainability. Most definitions of sustainability are rooted in the 1987
United Nations report of the World Commission on Environment and Development
that concluded sustainable development must be able to meet the basic needs of
present generations without compromising opportunities for generations of the
future (United Nations, 1987). Sustainability
is ultimately about equality of opportunity, within and across generations. Despite
an impressive record of economic and material progress, there are growing
indications the current paradigm of industrial economic development
is simply not compatible with long run ecological, social, or economic sustainability.
Today, the twin threats of
“peak oil” and global climate change are creating a global awakening to the
importance and urgency of addressing issues of sustainability. The concept of
peak oil relates to the fact that it takes about 30 to 40 years to bring a
newly discovered oil field into “peak” production (Murphy, 2008). At that
point, about half of the total quantity of recoverable oil remains in the
ground. However, the last half is invariably more difficult and costly to
retrieve, and after the peak, annual production invariably declines.
Global climate change is a
direct consequence of fossil energy depletion. All fossil energy is biological
in origin. It is stored in the bonds that connect molecules of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, the major elements forming the tissues of biological organisms.
When energy is released, these bonds are broken and the various chemical
elements, including carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, are released
into the environment. This problem is intrinsic for all sources of fossil
energy – particularly for coal, the most abundant remaining source of fossil
energy. Petroleum shortfalls cannot be offset by using coal or other fossil
energy sources without exacerbating risks of global climate change. The
preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that industrial development is a
major contributor of greenhouse gasses and that a fundamental change will be
required to avoid catastrophic changes in global climate (Gore, 2006).
An
equally important, though less appreciated, challenge to sustainability is the
growing disparity of incomes between the rich and the poor, in the
All
questions of sustainability are
ultimately questions of energy. Everything that is of use to us – our cars,
houses, clothes, food – requires energy to make, energy to use; in fact, all
material things are simply concentrated forms of energy. All useful human activities
– working, managing, thinking – also require energy.
In addition, humans are capable of being “useful” only after they have been
nurtured, socialized, and educated, all of which require energy. According to the basic laws of physics, energy
is never destroyed by use, but each time it is used and reused, some of its
usefulness is lost. This is the essence
of the law of entropy. Conserving,
reusing, and recycling stored energy can improve the efficiency of energy use,
but cannot offset the inevitable loss of useful energy to entropy.
The fundamental problem arises
from today’s capitalist economies that provide powerful incentives to use and
reuse energy but provide no incentives to collect and store solar energy, the
only source of new energy, to offset
the usefulness of energy lost to entropy. Economic value is inherently
individualistic in nature; it accrues to individuals, and thus, must be
expected to accrue at least during an individual’s lifetime. It makes no
economic sense to invest anything for the sole benefit of someone else, not for
the benefit of society in general and certainly not for those of some unknown future
generation. An economy driven by economic self-interest, as is increasingly the
case in all modern capitalist economies, actually accelerates the tendency
toward entropy. Such economics are not ecologically sustainable.
Capitalist economies also
dissipate social energy, because they
weaken human relationships. Economic efficiency requires that people relate to
each other impartially, which means impersonally. People compete rather than
cooperate and personal relationships are transformed into economic
transactions. To succeed economically, people must give priority to work over
friendships, family, and community. Their pursuit of individual self-interests
depletes social energy needed to create productive people and accelerates the
tendency toward entropy. Whenever capitalist economies are unrestrained by
social and ethical values, as is increasing the case today, they inevitably
lead to growing economic and social inequities. Such economies are not socially
sustainable.
All economic value comes
either from nature or from society. An economy creates nothing; it is simply a
means of facilitating individual relationships with each other and with the
earth. If we continue to extract and exploit the usefulness of nature and to
exploit society, eventually there will be no remaining source of economic
value. Unrestrained capitalist economies accelerate the tendency toward
economic entropy. Today’s capitalist economies are not economically sustainable
(Ikerd, 2004).
These concerns have helped
raised awareness regarding the role of institutions of higher education in
guiding the individual decisions and collective actions of a society in search
of ecological, societal, and economic sustainability. This raised awareness is
reflected in a renewed interest in participatory research, service learning,
and other interactive and integrative approaches to learning and teaching. During
times of great change, humans must reassess not only their understanding of
nature and society but also how they value the earth and how they value each
other. Insightful leaders must step forward to identify where essential physical,
social, and economic changes are not only possible but also ethically and
socially responsible. Approaches such as
participatory research and service learning reinforce our understanding of
fundamental ecological, social, and economic principles and values that
must guide our relationships with other people and with the earth if
human civilization is to be sustainable.
Creating sustainable economies
and societies will require new ways of thinking. As Albert Einstein once
pointed out, “We cannot solve our problems with the
same thinking we used when we created them.” The industrial development
paradigm, which has dominated thinking for the past two centuries, is based on
a mechanistic view of the world. The world is a big, complex machine than can
be dissembled into its component parts. Sustainable development must respect
the fact that the world is living natural ecosystem, and living things cannot
be separated without destroying the essence of the whole. Humanity is an
integral aspect of that inseparable whole. Sustainable societies must mimic the natural
processes of living, biological systems, as living things have the capacity to
capture and store solar energy to offset the energy inevitably lost to entropy.
We have the capacity to be useful and productive while devoting a significant
portion of their life’s energy to renewal and regeneration or our communities
and our species.
Plants capture solar energy
with their leaves and store it in their cells. We humans are also capable of
capturing and storing solar energy; we do it with windmills, dams, and
photovoltaic cells. We also have an inherent tendency to produce and reproduce,
even when we have no economic incentive to do so. Otherwise, few of us would
choose to raise children. Sustainability requires that we must respect this
basic human tendency by diverting a significant portion of the earth’s energy
from economic uses to renewal and regeneration. It will take energy to rebuild
and redesign the windmills, dams, photovoltaic, and other solar collection
systems needed to sustain future generations. And perhaps most important, we
must continue to divert a significant portion of our human energy from economic
uses to renewing families, communities, and civil societies, to ensure that
future energy is put to constructive rather than destructive uses.
The
fundamental question facing global society today is whether people will be
willing to forego some level of individual economic self-interest to ensure the
long run sustainability of humanity. If we continue behaving like non-thinking
animals, following our most basic individual instincts and urges, our species
will suffer the same fate as any other non-human species that finds itself in a
position of dominance in its ecological environment. We will continue to expand
our population and consumption until we degrade and deplete the resources that
must sustain us. Our society will degenerate into chaos, we will suffer mass
starvation and epidemic disease, and the human population of the earth will plummet.
Research
and education have a social responsibility to be on the frontlines of the
movement to create a new sustainable human society. The challenge of research
is to develop a new “scientific method” that is capable of providing deeper
insights into the critical interrelationships within holistic, inseparable,
dynamic, living systems. The traditional scientific method seeks to understand
wholes by first understanding their individual parts. The new scientific method
must begin with an intuitive and insightful understanding of wholes in order to
understand the purpose and meaning of their individual parts. It must proceed
from wisdom to knowledge in order to gain understanding from observation. The
researcher is inseparable from his or her research.
The
challenge for education is to develop a new pedagogical model that embraces
interdependence and promotes social connectedness and trust, yet is dynamic,
active, and continually evolving. People must be prepared for a lifetime of
education, to continually grow in wisdom from newly acquired knowledge. Traditional
education models cannot guarantee adequate preparation for an unknown future;
thus, service-learning will become an important aspect of the new educational
paradigm. The educator is inseparable from his or her students.
Most important, those in
higher education no longer have the luxury of “value free” research and
education. Sustainability, at its roots, is an ethical matter. The only responsibility
those of current generations have for those of future generations is their moral
or ethical responsibility for the future of humanity. We have no economic
interest in those seven generations in the future; we will all be dead. We have
no social interest in future generations; our friends and families will all be
dead and we may not even have any living descendants. Those of future
generations cannot participate in markets or political processes to ensure that
adequate resources are left to meet their needs. The only hope for
sustainability of civil human society is for people today to accept their ethical
and moral responsibilities to humanity – to meet their own needs without
compromising the opportunities of others, including those of the future.
Researchers and educators can
no longer continue the myth of ethical and social neutrality. The technologies being used to extract and
exploit the resources of the earth are based on scientific discoveries that
supposedly were objective and “value neutral.” Scientists claim to seek truth,
without regard to how their findings may be used. The discipline of economics
also claims “value neutrality.” However, today’s economic system is using scientific
discoveries to extract and exploit the earth and its people. Neither physical
scientists nor economists have any reason to believe that the ultimate outcome
of their work will be otherwise. In the
name of scientific objectivity, institutions of higher learning have removed
themselves from the normal human processes of validating, rejecting, and
reshaping the ethical and moral values of society. In the process, they have
become passive, yet knowing, participants in the exploitation of the earth.
The ethics of sustainability are
not religious or political but instead are fundamentally and purely philosophical.
Philosophy is ultimately about questions of right and wrong, good and bad. Yet
for decades, Doctors of Philosophy have been reluctant to “philosophize” about
anything of significance, allowing philosophy to degenerate into a study of the
history of philosophy. Those searching for answers of questions of right and wrong
have been left “uneducated” and vulnerable to religious, political, and
economic dogma.
The philosophical principles of
sustainability, as with all first principles, must be accepted as a matter of
faith. First, life has purpose. We cannot prove that life has purpose because
purpose is always determined as some higher level of organization – in the case
of life, at a level beyond our ability to observe or fully comprehend. If life
had no purpose, however, there would be no right or wrong, and it would make no
difference whether we showed any concern for those of future generations.
Second, all life is interconnected. We cannot prove that life is interconnected,
but if life were not interconnected, specifically across time, we would be
incapable of doing anything for the benefit of those of future generations. Even
if life has purpose, sustainability would then be an exercise in futility.
Finally, life is good. We cannot prove that life is good, but if life is not
good, then there is no reason to be concerned about other living things, the
future of human life on earth, or even our own life.
Aldo Leopold’s land ethic
provides a powerful expression of principles of purpose, interdependence, and
love of life: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise” (p 262, Leopold 1949). A social corollary would be “A thing is right
when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the human
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Only when we preserve the
integrity, stability, and beauty of self-renewing, regenerative, living biotic
and human communities can we sustain our economies, societies, and humanity.
If our public institutions of
higher education were to adopt this moral ethic of sustainability it would
fundamentally change the nature of our research and education programs and dramatically
influence the evolution of civil society and humanity. Publicly funded research would no longer develop
technologies to facilitate the extraction and exploitation of natural and human
resources. Publicly funded research would be restricted to furthering the
common good, to preserving the integrity, stability, and beauty of nature and
society. It would no longer be considered ethical for public education to
indoctrinate and train workers for extraction and exploitation. Publicly funded
education would be restricted to learning that preserves the integrity,
stability, and beauty of nature and society. There would be a clear distinction
in higher education between the pursuit of individual self-interests and
pursuit of the common good, and the focus of public higher education would be
on preparing people to pursue the common good by protecting the good of the
commons.
We are in the midst of a great transformation in human history. Fossil
energy depletion, global climate change, and growing social and economic
inequity are symptoms of an economy and a society that are grasping to extract
and exploit the rapidly dwindling natural and human resources of an
increasingly impoverished earth. The changes we are experiencing today are not the
usual, expected, or constant changes. We are experiencing the death of an old
era and the birth of fundamentally different time in human history.
Scientists and educators have the intellectual ability to
understand the nature and magnitude of the threats that confront global society
today. They have the means of addressing today’s challenges to sustainability.
They lack only the moral courage to proclaim the truth of the ethical and
intellectual principles and values of sustainability. A society unguided by logical ethical principles and
rational social values is simply not sustainable, nor does it provide a very good
place to live. The new social mission of research and education is to discover
and to teach the wisdom, knowledge, and information needed to create a new and
fundamentally better post-industrial world.
References:
Drucker, Peter. Post-Capitalist Society (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993).
Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth: The
Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We
Can Do About It (
Greenspan, A. Quoted in: Rich-poor gap gaining
attention, Christian Science Monitor,
14 June 2005, available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html.
Hirsch Robert L. “The Inevitable
Peaking of World Oil Production.” The
Ikerd, John, Sustainable
Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense (
Leopold,
Aldo, A Sand
Murphy, Patrick. Plan
C: Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change (
United Nations. “Report of the Word Commission on Environment and Development”, Special Report, 1987, available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-197.htm.
[i] Prepared for presentation at the 3rd annual WIU Faculty Research Symposium, “Social Responsibility in Academic Research,” Center
for Innovation in Teaching & Research,
[ii] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable Capitalism, http://www.kpbooks.com , A Return to Common Sense, http://www.rtedwards.com/books/171/, Small Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA , http://www.acresusa.com/other/contact.htm,and Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press http://nebraskapress.unl.edu;
Email: JEIkerd@centurytel.net; Website: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/.