Dr. Michael W. Fox
January 2018
The lack of prescience in most human affairs is a point of concern. I interpret this lack as a product of anthropocentrism, the psychopathology of human-centeredness, that may indeed, and is I believe, a desirably terminal disease. I say “desirably” because extinction via self-extermination is the final solution for the human species in its present form, if we accept a priori that the mark of the fully human is obedience to the Golden Rule.
The “biological pessimism” of those who foresee the ultimate extinction
of the human species, I fully accept. But I prefer the term biological
realism, since from my research findings and observations of the global
problematic that we face today, the nemesis of Homo sapiens is inevitable. I
see myself therefore as neither a pessimist nor an optimist, but as a
realist. The main obstacles to human enlightenment and biological
salvation/evolution are those mechanisms of rationalization and denial, and
various belief systems, religious as well as secular (especially our blind
faith in science and technology solutions) that lead us collectively to a
wholly unrealistic view of the world, of human “progress”, and of how to
rectify the dire and declining condition of the Earth’s biospheric
ecosystem.
Poet Emily Dickinson wrote:
Tell all the Truth
But tell it slant—
The truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind.
Now to frame my question on this poet’s insight: Is telling the truth
about the human condition from the perspective of biological
pessimism/realism the best approach in terms of what the advocate of such a
truth hopes to gain? And for whom is this gain intended? Simply in the name
of Truth, or Justice, or is there some personal agenda of retribution
against the human species as it is perceived? Or is it shame for being a
member of that species?
The lack of prescience in most human affairs is a point of concern. I
interpret this lack as a product of anthropocentrism, the psychopathology of
human-centeredness, that may indeed, and is I believe, a desirably terminal
disease. I say “desirably” because extinction via self-extermination is the
final solution for the human species in its present form, if we accept a
priori that the mark of the fully human is obedience to the Golden Rule.
Be that as it may, a lack of prescience underscores the lack of what I call
consequentialist ethics, in that decisions are made and actions sanctioned
in an ethical and moral vacuum of self-interest, regardless of the
consequences. A lack of prescience and concern for how our actions and
values harm other sentient beings, the natural environment, and ultimately
ourselves, guarantees this.
So where does this leave us? With a sense of doom that no one except a
misanthrope will enjoy, or enjoin to gain insight and understanding? The
immediate, self-protective response to any doomsayer is to proclaim
innocence, un-involvement, declare the prophet insane, and continue life as
usual. But to be uninvolved is to not evolve as a social, empathic species
that realizes that the highest form of selfishness is altruism and obedience
to the Golden Rule.
My concern about the world-view and predictions of biological pessimists, no
matter how accurate, verifiable and rationally and scientifically objective
and impartial their conclusions may be, is that they reinforce the
burgeoning nihilism that afflicts the fatalism and “Gothic” cult of Western
youth, already imbued with futility, despair, alienation, hopelessness,
depression and rage.
This is, I believe, the emergent pathology of the new millennium, that had
its connection broken with the “Age of Aquarius” of the 1960’s and 70’s by
powers dedicated to the new quasi-religious transformation of greed and
materialism into global imperialistic values based on the technocratic,
legalistic hegemony of industrialism and consumerism under the guise of
freedom, social progress, the greater good, free trade and democracy.
Self-interest and self-righteousness are coins of the same currency that no
are now fuelling a world-wide conflagration between indigenous,
religious/spiritual, fundamentalists, and global, secular,
scientific/materialistic determinists.
Around the world we find conflict between those who revere the natural world
and those who see Nature and animals as resources to exploit. This conflict
is exacerbated inevitably by over-population, over-consumption of finite
resources and poverty, that bring religious, political, ethnic, tribal and
other differences to the fore that were once part of a more harmonious
tapestry of life, of cultural and biological diversity, prior to the first
mega-wave of Western colonialism, after the Greek and Roman Empires had made
their mark on the psyche of the white mans’ “civilized” world.
While some concerned and informed thinkers contend that it is best for the
human condition for all to live as if there is hope—like Camu’s doctor in
his book The Plague—against the back-drop of biological pessimism that
foresees human extinction, does this mean that to live as though there is
hope is simply a misguided coping strategy, another form of avoidance and
denial?
This depends, I believe, in what we hope for, and the basis or source of our
faith from which hope arises. But what people generally hope for in their
lives, and what they believe in, that is their article of faith, have
combined, as history informs, to result in ever more human conflict and
suffering—between the haves and the have-nots, and the virtual holocaust of
the animal kingdom and what many today now see as the death of nature; the
annihilation of the natural world.
While evil flourishes where good men do nothing, it is a truism that the
road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Spanish artist Goya
inscribed in one of his etchings “Devils are those who do evil, prevent
others from doing good, or do nothing at all” Albert Einstein similarly
observed that “The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do
evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”. He also concluded
that the problems that we face today cannot be solved by the same
consciousness that created them in the first place.
As one with a biological orientation to my own thinking, and having
experienced as a veterinarian and animal and environmental protection
advocate how people around the world relate to and treat other animals and
Nature, as well as each other, I am drawn to the inevitable conclusion that
the only hope for humanity, and the life and beauty of Earth, is in the
extinction of the present, dominant state of human consciousness and way of
being. How right was poet John Milton, when wrote: “The mind is its own
place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven”. What we
imagine we can make possible and manifest in the physical world, just as
what we think and believe we can and put into action, in terms of how we
behave and what ethical choices we make, if any, in satisfying our many
wants and needs, all of which have consequences. Lacking prescience, we
cause more harm than good to ourselves and to others, and have made “a Hell
of Heaven”.
The only way out of this environmental, social, economic and spiritual
dead-end is indeed extinction. The Hopi Indians call this extinction process
the “Purification” of both the human species and the planet, currently in a
state of pathological imbalance and increasing dysfunction that they refer
to as Koyaanasquatsi: life out of balance.
In the Book of Job 5:22-23 such prescience is evident in his warning of the
coming apocalypse "At destruction and famine you shall laugh, and shall not
fear the wild animals of the earth. For you shall be in league with the
stones of the field, and the wild animals shall be at peace with you."
To echo Shakespeare’s Hamlet, I believe that this is "A consummation
devoutly to be wished."
We have been able to function for a few generations without the usual
natural biological constraints imposed upon other species that control their
numbers and minimize their harmful influences on the environment, and on
other species and communities. But we are not immune; though we may put off
the day of reckoning—Nature’s retribution—with advances in science and
technology for some time to come, especially in those countries and segments
of society with the resources and power to do so, biological constraint
cannot be denied or avoided for ever. Unfettering ourselves from Nature’s
constraints gave us the illusion of power and control, but in the absence of
ethical constraints and respect and understanding of natural/ecological law
and justice (karma), our nemesis was assured.
Simplistic nature versus nurture arguments aside, in the absence of any
innate self-constraint for the greater good of the life-or Earth community,
(which may be construed as a biological flaw in our species from an
a-theistic, scientific perspective, or as original sin from a theistic,
religious perspective), I see the central issue here as a fundamental
cultural inadequacy.
Rather than focusing on deficiencies in human nature, or on the inadequacies
of external natural controls, focusing on this cultural, indeed pan-cultural
inadequacy may be more fruitful in addressing the deficiencies in both human
nature and Nature to establish a viable, meaningful future that will sustain
us and the entire biotic community in body, mind and spirit.
Before being annihilated by European colonists, the Iroquois Confederacy of
indigenous North American Indians enjoyed many generations of sustained
peace, ecological balance and socio-economic security. Their Constitution
was in part adopted by the founding fathers of the new United States of
America with noted omission from the US Constitution of equal rights for
women and the Law of Seven Generations. It is this Law, I believe, that
holds the key to the viability and long-term sustainability of civilization
(i.e. civil society).
The essence of this Law, (that is derivative of what is termed Natural Law),
is for every action, policy, initiative, product and process that is
human-initiated/generated to be subject to the most rigorous evaluation by
elected community leaders in terms of costs, risks and benefits, and from
the perspective of past experiences going back seven generations, and from
the perspective of possible harmful consequences, including environmental,
affecting seven generations into the future. This Law of Seven Generations,
that brings the precautionary principle and bioethics to life, could and
should be the corner stone for the kind of small discrete communities that
advocates of civil society envision, that are self sufficient and linked
with similar socially just and sustainable communities adapted to a
particular bioregion where cultural and natural biological diversity can be
restored and once again flourish.
While today, Utopia is “Erehwon”—nowhere, the “Seed-savers” of this and the
next generation in particular, who are literally and metaphorically
protecting the seeds that are so vital for the ecological, cultural and
spiritual renewal of humanity and planet Earth, are as much a part of the
process of human evolution as those who have desecrated the planet: And with
the coming and dominance of the latter, to quote Loren Eisely: “The Eden of
the eternal present that the animal world had known for ages was shattered
at last. Through the human mind, time and darkness, good and evil, would
enter and possess the world”.
I will close with one of my favorite quotes from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
who observed almost 50 years ago that we are rapidly approaching the point
in our biological evolution where we have one final choice, and that is
between suicide or adoration. Perhaps collectively and unwittingly the
choice has already been made. But that does not mean that as an individual I
cannot make my own personal choice, and strive to live accordingly.
Return to Animal Rights Articles