Created - Renewed
2012/04/20 - 2013/06/26

SUSTAINABILITY IMPERATIVE



There are such pages on the site:

* HOMEPAGE
* CHANGE THE MIND!
* UNITE MINDS!
* THINK of OTHERS!
*
SUSTAINABI-
LITY CHALLENGE

* PLANETARY RESPONSIBILITY
* ETHIC IMPERATIVE
* DEMO-IMPERATIVE
* ECO-IMPERATIVE
* INDIVIDUAL SURVIVAL
* INFO-PAGE
*TRETYAKOV'SKAYA GALLERY OF IDEAS

More significant materials of the site:

Shortage of panoramic thinking: signs seen everywhere
Panoramic thinking as a concept
Creating a system of civilization security
Opening a path to sustainable development
Civilization Security division at the UN has to be
Bankruptcy of intelligent people in civilization process
Civilization omissions to be found and filled in
Nature's recommendations for international institutions
New dimension of human rights
Universal Declaration of Human Planetary Responsibility
Humankind must have been fooled
Coauthoring with Voltaire
Secret of humor from depth of the evolution
Evolution classification of mental bugs

 

A question posted by Prof. Stephen Hawking on Yahoo.com:

How can the human race survive the next hundred years? In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?

My answer:

The question above known Polish thinker Stanislaw Lec put so: "Earth is a point under a question sign".To proceed his thought, let's think how to take away this question, i.e. how to remain living, and moreover -- living without the threat of self-annihilation?

Here is a plan how to do for it. It contains 3 goals to be reached that have signs of imperatives how to survive. Paradoxically, if only they are getting categorical ones, any chances of surviving will appear.

First goal-imperative. The evolution of our animal ancessors was proceeding at sufficient high selections pressure. In result, our operative field of conscience is narrow. In other words, we had provided in during of evolution by the narrow minds. Just because of such our peculiarity the human logic is black-white, systemic thinking and synthetic ideas are rather rear among people, who like simple decision and are losing very oftenly sight of something.

This narrow-mindedness, having been formely an advantage in surviving (as allowing quicker behaviour reactions), now is a shortage. The cause is that discrepancy is more and more between the same individual mental possibilities of people and the raising complexity of their existances conditions. So, a limit to our existance is felt yet. To overcome the shortage of panorame thinking (SPT) -- just so we can reformulate Blaise Pascals ordinance: "Let's think correctly: here is the main principle of ethics".

The goal as an imperative will get more understandable if we use a comparison. Well, a deep-water fish, pulled out from kilometer depths (how it is known, they cann't have been lifted from there alive), it is vision of human community, pulling out itself to tops of the civilization. Just as narrow specialized species of deep-water fishes, the humankind, 'provided' with SPT, has a narrow 'specialization' as well -- to act after 'programs of jungles'. This comparison lets understand how big threat for humankind is SPT. Here is why to overcome SPT is maybe the main challenge of the Millenium.

To overcome SPT with educational means is in concordance with new reality, the information abundance. Because of this circumstance, educational priority "to study to know" is absolete, a new priority should appear, "to study to be able to think". It is meant the thinking creative, effective, panoramic, taking into account all necessary.

One of appearance of SPT is aggressiveness. The Austrian biologist Konrad Lorentz wrote:

We have weighty bases to consider inner-specific aggression as the most serious danger threatening to Humankind... But the prospect to fight this danger will not by no means better if we concider it as something metaphysical and inevitable; if on the contrary we will try to trace a chain of the natural causes of its origin, then, this may help.

Here, a hope is existing. Really, it is known that more educated people are less aggressive. So, we can admit that the special directed education methods, developing panoramic thinking (PT), will be able to less it to normal, civilisation level and to make for pacification in the world.
If we take into account else that with SPT any fatal errors are inevitable, and that the raising might of the civilisation makes their after-effects more and more catastrophic, then reforming the national education systems in direction of PT is getting not wished but imperatively compulsory.

Second goal-imperative. Problem of civilizations security wont be vanished whole with common distribution of PT -- panoramic thinking; the problems keenness will be only weaker. But in 2-3 generations a systemic discordance will be increasing, because human civilization obviously is in the contrary with tendencies of the living nature.
Really, there is a general system-forming tendency in the animal world named by cephalization, going to head minds appearance on the final phase. There is an analogy between an organism and its head brain, from one hand, and a state and its governing body (i.e. a social organism and its social brain) - from other hand. It means in any form is going the process of social cephalisation on the level of states. But there is no analogous process on the level of whole humankind.
Let us say this by other words. Individuals have oftenly goals of their lives, states are guided by national ideas; but Humankind as a whole does not folow any strategy of own development as having no analogue of a social mind for elaborating it.

Complexity of the world, first of all the information one, will be enormously great in 2-3 generations. To correspond it, human community should create any form of planetary social mind. Owing computer nets such social mind can provide the balance of complexities of systems -- governing (social mind) and governed (the last part of people).

Third goal-imperative. The UN declared 2001 as Year of Dialogue of Civilizations. I think the dialogue may be continued to the centurys end. But how to propose such subject of discussion which would be of general interests?

Yes, challenge today are multi-faceted, and the response to them requires "a vision based on dialogue". Let us mark: for the first time in the human history such the dialogue, owing Internet and mobile communication, may be organized as wold-wide. The main subject of it then might be "How to Live With No Threat" or "To Better Life for All".
Last subject, as concerning all, as asking opinions of all (what and how to do), and permiting everyone to express own opinion, is maybe preferable to resolve problems of Global Peace and Security. By the way, 'Golden Billion' and 'Not-Golden ones', they are from a model of unstable world, having no positive perspective, and that would be one of the problem to be discussed.

The problem of happiness appears to absorb all other problems facing before Mankind: military conflicts, terrorism, the growing poverty, resources exhaustion, environments pollution. It is why to raise the problem of happiness is not indulging in fantasies, but realising in whole complexity the main imperative of surviving for Mankind.
Discussion. The known old-Greek philosopher Demokritos considered that "not words, but unhappiness is a teacher of stupid people". In connection with it, let us remember the remark above that if only imperatives are apprehended as categorical ones, any chances of surviving will appear. It means as that the chances appeared the situation in the world should be 'sufficiant bad', as after some general catastrophes like "repetitions of the end of the world". It is why happiness may be only for people who will have survived those 'repetitions'.

Though hardly. After consequences of such "repetitions", if of global scale, people survived may get deplored realized themselves survived...

Dr. Vladimir Tretyakov,
[email protected]





 
Copyright IntelTechVladimir N.retyakov. This page is intellectual property of the sites author, who would be graceful for any information about use of his materials.
Contact me: [email protected] or [email protected]