A Sane Society?

Oregon woman, 82, ticketed
for going 110 mph to appointment,
claims she was unaware of speeding.

You will have no doubt by now seen the commercial for Brita water filters. You know, the one that says in the U.S. alone we produced enough plastic bottles to circle the earth 190 times. We know there are already vast islands of plastic in our oceans and that plastic is hardly a blessing, even a mixed one. I cannot help but wonder, what would a sane society do in such a situation? To me an answer seems obvious, stop manufacturing and using plastic bottles (at least in such large quantities and for such questionable purposes). Thinking of the ocean made me think of drilling for oil in the deep waters of the oceans, a practice fraught with potentially disastrous consequences, as we recently experienced by what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Again I thought, what would a sane society do about such an enormously terrible and potential ecological disaster? Again, an answer seems clear to me, stop deep water drilling entirely and turn to alternate energy. Of course neither of these sane responses to horrible ecological problems are likely to occur (it seems we just can’t wait to start over again). These thoughts, in turn, have led me to wonder if it is even possible for the human species to live together in a sustainable and sane way. My answer, alas, is “no,” it is not possible.

How do I arrive at this pessimistic conclusion? In my 80 years of life on earth I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any units of human society, from persons, to families, lineages, clans, phratries, tribes, confederations, local communities, counties, states, or nations, have been able to overcome the basic problems of greed and short-sightedness (and apparently stupidity as well). Nor have I seen any evidence of a genuine desire to act together as a species in the best interests of such an entity. This is, I think, not only a problem of fundamental human nature, but is also exacerbated by the conditions in which we must live, that is, the different distributions of food supplies, arable land, suitable climates, and the occurrence and non-occurrence of natural disasters. That is to say, you cannot always blame people for coveting their neighbors gardens, water, and what-have-you. As an anthropologist I am aware that very small-scale societies, often referred to as “primitive,” such as the Bushmen of the Kalahari, that exist in very harsh conditions, do have cultures that emphasize sharing, non-violence, and put the well-being of the group into the very forefront of their existence. I am also aware of Robert Redfield’s, The Small Community, in which the virtues of small communities are insightfully presented. But even in such small groups there has never been a complete absence of violence, and cultures around the world have now evolved into such larger and more complicated groups those older ways of life are no longer practical or possible.

I am aware that Eric Fromm wrote a book entitled, The Sane Society (among many others) in which he argued for a humanistic, social democratic way of life. I read this book so long ago that I barely remember it, although I recall being mostly in agreement with his basic socialistic aims, as I am to this day. But also, as I recall, his fine book begged the issue of whether or not it was even possible for people to accomplish such a utopian existence even if they wished to do so. As above, I doubt it.

If you are old enough you might recall the Reagan years that ushered in an ongoing attack on our natural resources, “You’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen ‘am all,” and so forth. You may also remember James Watt (arguably the worst political appointment ever made in the U.S.) who was seemingly committed to the destruction of most everything in nature. He started something called the “Wise Use Movement,” that argued in favor of local control of natural resources. There were attempts by counties to take over the responsibility of managing their own resources and affairs. Unfortunately, as the rivers and forests do not begin and end at county lines this was eventually abandoned. But it illustrates the basic problem. Just as rivers and forests do not begin and end at county lines, neither do they begin and end at the boundaries of states, or of nations, so a sustainable future for humans would require cooperation on a world-wide level. Although there are, I believe, at least a few attempts at international cooperation, there is far more conflict over natural resources than ever. Most everyone wants more oil, more water, more territory, more mineral rights, and so on. Absent a strong world-wide governing body, nowhere even on the distant horizon, these conflicts cannot be readily settled to the satisfaction of all parties. Thus it appears we will continue squabbling and fighting and exhausting the earth’s resources and fouling the environment until, at last, we will have fouled our own nest so completely it will be too late. If our current out-of-control, greedy, capitalistic society with its obsession with profit could be replaced with a more sensible social democratic form it would help, but even that seems out of the question in a society that has been conditioned to panic hysterically at even the very mention of socialism. It would be nice if we could grow up but even that is not truly being permitted in a society that seems to favor ignorance over intelligence.

Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

Thomas Gray