Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics EJAIB

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 18 (January 2008)create a positive feedback loop in foregrounding increasingco-operation and networking.2. Wholeness versus FragmentationEmerging cognitive maps will view nature as an organismwhich opposes out dated paradigms of nature. For example,ozone depletion will be viewed as a negative feedback loopwhich is contributing to greenhouse gases caught in thestratosphere which results in the outer stratosphere coolingthereby increasing the rate of ozone depletion (Pittock andWratt 2001).3. Competition versus Co-operationNature’s organisational principles privilege co-operation,symbiosis and networking. Anthropogenic global warminghas been symptomatic of dominator societies and theirpathologic worldview. Evolutionary thinking will emulatenature’s organisational principles in all social areas.This leads to the issue of emergence. Emergence hastaken place at critical points of natural instability arising fromenvironmental fluctuations and “amplified by feedback loops”(Capra 2002:117). Emergence results in the generation ofnovelty that is consistently different from the phenomenawhich it had originated (Capra 2002:117). Whitehead insistedthat novelty was “nature’s creative advance,” which is centralto all biological and social systems (Capra 2002:117).An example of emergence of evolutionary thinking andethics was the 2004 tsunami which had devastated South-East Asia, East India, and Sri Lanka. The inordinate loss ofhuman life and mass destruction in the wake of the tsunamideeply affected millions of people throughout the world.Information about the tsunami quickly circulated around theworld via print and television media and the internet to such apoint that it became a world event. The vast amount ofinformation which circulated on the event eventually becamechaotic with disinformation emerging from news reports.Conflicting reports as to how many people died or weremissing became widespread. From the chaos of the posttsunamiemerged novel ways of existential retrieval. Manytsunami survivors began posting photographs of missingloved ones on billboards. People began the process ofrebuilding. World citizens mustered their economic resourcesand donated tens of millions of dollars in a short period oftime. Medical resources and experts from various countrieswere directed to areas hit by the tsunami, preventing theoutbreak of disease. The unprecedented outpouring of goodwill revealed how current technologies based on nature’sorganizational principles could be utilized to solving ormitigating global problems.Evolutionary ChangesThe intense consciousness of the human species isamplified by human biodiversity in which different individualsand social collectives possess different ways of problemsolving (Leavitt 2004:69; Capra 1996). Leavitt goes on tonote that human biodiversity may also mean that differentpeoples have a particular affinity to a specific geographicalregion. If this is the case, then, each social collectivefunctions in co-evolving with natural environments andthrough their unique “structural coupling” (i.e “throughrecurrent interactions” (Maturana and Varela 1987; Capra1996: 260), emerge greater complexity and differentiationwhich impinges on the human inner world – consciousness,language, culture, and new kinds of problem solving (Capra1996:261).The current rate of social and technological change is sorapid that it is constitutive of a global transformation(Thompson 1996:244). Telhard de Chardin (1961) saw afuture pan-human transformation in terms of a globalideational network (‘noosphere’). For Teilhard de Chardin,the emergence of such a global network was a means ofunderstanding humanity’s place in the universe. Thenoosphere was viewed as a harbinger of a new kind of mind -collective, non-differentiated and co-evolving, an emergentcollective consciousness. Such a global mind had vastpotential in problem solving and world bringing capabilities.Similarly, Thompson posits that the individual consciousnessis presently co-evolving within a global complex (i.e globalelectronic networks) which enables the individualconsciousness to become more dynamically effective forinstigating social change than at any other time in humanhistory (1996:245-246). Thompson asks us to deconstructthe geometrical social systems with their systemichierarchies, and supplant them with rhizomic systems ofnetworking as can now be witnessed in the various kinds ofglobal scapes (Appadurai 1996), which foster continuingcomplexity and adaptational novelty. Indeed, the continuingmulti-linear flow of ethical ideals across the globe(ethicscapes), make it possible to explore different kinds ofapproaches for challenging climate change.From this perspective, ethics can contribute to a newglobal vision. However, I do not agree with Thompson whostates that the “immune system of consciousness” has beendominated by technology, thus compelling a retrieval of the“anarchic vision of Lao Tsu” (1996:260, 306-307). Rather,technology mediates global scapes from which emergedisparate and novel systems of thought, morals, and ethics(Sharma 2003:332). The de-evolution model postulated byThompson does not account for international responses tonatural catastrophes such as the 2004 South-East Asiantsunami. Alternately, Thompson’s vision of a world alleviatedfrom the dictates of geometrical thinking is both relevant andachievable. For over two thousand years human cognitivemaps in many societies have foregrounded verticality andhorizontality in the form of hierarchies. The medievalEuropean worldview depicted in The Great Chain of Beingwas juxtaposed by Chinese and Muslim cosmologies whichviewed their societies, as did the ancient Greeks, asintellectual and moral centres of the world. Even currentevolutionary theories cannot break themselves from thisthinking. Evolution is still depicted as either a horizontal orvertical line, beginning from the Big Bang some 15 billionyears ago and culminating in self conscious creatures -human beings. Geometricality is so entrenched in humanthinking patterns that most of us cannot comprehend a worldwithout it. Perhaps, here the integrative system approach is amore appropriate one. As Boulding (1995:49) claims: “Thecreation of evolutionary potential, indeed, in integrativestructures is a very mysterious phenomenon,” which is difficultto perceive. In systems of this genre, random oranthropogenic events such as global warming, biodiversityloss, environmental pollution, and other bifurcations threatena spectacular social collapse. Out of this indeterminacy mayemerge the “flexibility that is key to survival in an uncertainworld” (Boulding 1995:50).ConclusionThe need for evolutionary thinking is vital in order tochallenge the problems of future climate change. In thewords of the socio-biologist E. O. Wilson an enduringenvironmental ethic will seek to preserve the human and nonhumanspecies (Preble and Safina 2002:179). The resolutionof our present dilemma lies in the realisation that self interestand altruism lie at opposite ends of “our moral compass”(Preble and Safina 2002:179). Undoubtedly, human beingspossess the power to exert some level of ethical control overtheir environments. Certainly, developed nations have thetechnological, infrastructural, and intellectual resources tofoster ethical standards “for building receptivity” into humansocieties (Leopold 1966:269). There remains much scope foradvancing a new system of ethics which worksconterminously with new understandings of biologicalsystems. To this end Donnelley (2002:170), declares: “Inparticular, our understanding of the “integrity, stability, andbeauty” of the land needs ongoing reinterpretation in light ofwhat we further learn about the dynamism of evolutionary,
Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 18 (January 2008) 17ecological, ethological nature. Our current ethical valuationsdemand novelty in terms of creative thinking. Our humanity isgrounded in the organic and animated by the “greatevolutionary drama of ecological life” (Donnelley 2002:172).Like the Hindu myth of Indra’s web, human biology andconsciousness are inter-dependent with other physical andbiological systems. The stark predictions of global warmingand its threat to biodiversity will require a supreme moral shiftin human consciousness.ReferencesAppadurai. Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions ofGlobalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Bateson, Gregory. 2000. (1971) Steps to an Ecology of Mind.Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Bateson, Gregory. 2002. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity.Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.Benyus, Janine. 1997. Biomimicry. New York: Morrow.Boulding, Kenneth. E. 1995. “The Range of Possible Futures.” InElise Boulding, Kenneth E. Boulding (Eds.), The Future: Imagesand Processes. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Pp. 39-56.Capra, Fritjof. 1996. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind andMatter. London: Harper Collins.Capra, Fritjof. 2002. The Hidden Connections: A Science forSustainable Living. New York: Anchor Books.Donnelley, Strachan. 2002. “Leopold’s Darwin: Climbing Mountains,Developing Land.” In Stephen R. Kellert & Timothy J. Farnham(Eds.), The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science,Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World. Washington: IslandPress. Pp. 161-174.Dysart, Gale, Deborah. 2006. Cutural Sensitivity Beyond Ethnicity: AUniversal Precautions Model. The Internet Journal of Allied HealthSciences and Practice January; 4 (1).Ehrlich, Paul. R. 2000. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and theHuman Project. Washington D.C. & Covelo, California: IslandPress.Held, David. 2005. “At the Global Crossroads: The End of theWashington Consensus and the Rise of Global Social Democracy?”Globalizations May; 2 (1):95–113.Hofstede, Gert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,Behaviors Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. 2 ndEdition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Laszlo, Ervin. 1994. Vision 2020: Reordering Chaos for GlobalSurvival. U.S.A.: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers.Laszlo, Ervin. Artigiani, Robert. Combs, Allan. Csányi. Vilemos. 1996.Changing Visions: Human Cognitive Maps: Past, Present, andFuture. London: Adamantine Press Limited.Leavitt, Frank. 2004. “Human Biodiversity: What Can We Learn fromThe History of Human Mapping.” In Darryl R. J. Macer (ed.),Challenges for Bioethics from Asia. Tsukuba Science City, Japan.Eubios Ethics Institute. Pp. 68-71.Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac, with Other Essays onConversation from Round River. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Maturana, Humberto., Varela, Francisco. 1987. The Tree ofKnowledge. Boston: Shambhala.Montuori, Alfonso. 1993. Knowledge, Learning, and Change:Exploring the Systems/Cybernatic Perspective. In Mastery of Mind,eds. L. Bradburn & J. Petranker, pp. 252-297. Berkeley,CA:Dharma Press. (Accessed on August 1 2006, athttp://www.ciis.edu/faculty/articles/montuori/knowledgelearningchange.pdf)Pittock B., Wratt, D. 2001. “Australia and New Zealand”. In M.Manning, C. Nobre (Eds.), Report of Working Group II of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: 2001. pp.593-639.Preble, David., Safina Carl. 2002. “A Rising Tide for Ethics.” InStephen R. Kellert & Timothy J. Farnham (Eds.), The Good inNature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, andSpirituality with the Natural World. Washington: Island Press. Pp.175-181.Sharma, R. N. 2003. “Ethosphere and Cosmosphere: Two NewConcepts for World Bioethics and Their Application to the AsianSegment.” In Song Sang-Yong, Koo Young-Mo, Darryl R. J. Macer.(Eds.), Asian Bioethics in the 21 st Century. Pp. 331-334.Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. 1961. The Phenomenon of Man. NewYork: Harper & Row.Thompson, William, Irvin. 1996. Coming into Being: Artefacts andTexts in the Evolution of Consciousness. New York: St Martin’sGriffin.The Tyranny of Rightsversion 3.9.07- Brewster Kneen2746 Cassels St., Ottawa ON K2B 6N7, CanadaE-mail: brewster@ramshorn.ca www.ramshorn.caWhile I take responsibility for this text, I am certainly notits sole author. It has benefited from the critiques, commentsand wisdom of a large number of people. Like open sourcesoftware, this is not a finished text. It is simply the version of 3September, 2007, as indicated above. You are invited tocontribute to subsequent versions.Before reading this paper, please consider how manytimes you have read or heard the word ‘rights’ when itselimination, or replacement by more explicit terms, wouldhave strengthened the message.IntroductionThe argument of this paper is that the concept of ‘rights’ isembedded in and arises from the particular culture ofindividualism, materialism and rationalism that arose out ofthe European Enlightenment. In recent years, the language ofrights has gained increasing usage, if not currency, bothwithin Western society and more broadly, as code thatidentifies an idea, principle, or even legal condition as a proxyfor actualization of what is designated as a right. Thus the‘right to food’ is stated as a moral claim but it does nothing initself to ensure that the person or persons actually get food.Given that ‘rights,’ like property, are socially constructed, itis essential to recognize that any discussion of rights andproperty must acknowledge its specific context. In this paper Iam not pretending to present a universal critique but only adiscussion of what I consider the relevant history and socialcontext of the current all-too-common advocacy of (human)rights as the solution to social and individual injustice. To besure, there are histories of struggle not simply for individualrights and justice, but for social and collective ‘rights’ andjustice such as the 1960s civil rights movement in the USAwhich was always called ‘the civil rights movement,’ not ‘thehuman rights movement.’ It was launched when a tired RosaParks decided to sit down in the front of the bus inBirmingham, Alabama, not when some lawyer pleaded a casefor the right of blacks to sit at the front of the bus before awhite court.While the civil rights movement did achieve a vastincrease in social justice in the USA, it has to be noted thatsome of the individuals and organizations that were majorplayers in that struggle have since become distressingly rightwingpolitically. For example, CORE, the Congress on RacialEquality, which was one of the leading civil rightsorganizations, suffered a right-wing takeover by a black manand re-manufactured Martin Luther King into a drug salesmanand purveyor of genetically engineered food! One has towonder if a lack of discernment between individual and socialrights allowed for this unfortunate shift. A contrastingsituation might be found in Latin America where ‘social rights’have a long history, particularly in the Christian churches, andare assumed as an aspect of the fabric of social life. While acomparative study of rights and cultures would be a worthyproject, this is not my objective here.The language of rights has, in recent years, come toassume a place of honour and utility in the discourse of NGOsand CSOs, as well as liberal and conservative politics.Whether it be in reference to human rights or property rights,
Page 1 and 2: Eubios Journal of Asian andInternat
Page 5 and 6: Eubios Journal of Asian and Interna
Page 15: Eubios Journal of Asian and Interna
Page 22 and 23: 22Eubios Journal of Asian and Inter
Page 34: 34Eubios Journal of Asian and Inter

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics EJAIB

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?