Utopiates

The title refers to folks whose view of the world is driven by a need, of desperate, to have an Answer---an enormously powerful preference which I addressed a bit in the last post on order and disorder. Each individual (or group) with this need has the Answer to which he subscribes, which brings order to his life, and to which he clings with a death-like grip. I call these people Utopiates because they seek a utopian existence or utopian-like Answers that will solve all human problems and mysteries, and because they seem addicted to the view and its potential accomplishment. But this view is not just a good idea to such folks---it MUST happen! It is mandatory that their Answer be implemented at all costs. Failure cannot be contemplated and deviants will be punished.

In the last blog I mentioned political partisans as a group, regardless of views, having a very high need for order in the form of litanies that explain absolutely why they are good and right, and why the "others" are bad and wrong---a singular Answer with many sub-sets that leads them to making outrageous statements and acting out in particularly vicious ways, all completely justified by their view, their Answer.

Another group is social utopians, people who believe that the world and humans are amenable to alteration to such a degree that they can be made nearly perfect---the Answer to the world's problems. With the right social and psychological engineering---see Aldous Huxley's Brave New World---there will be no wars, no racism, no bad corporations, no global warming, and no conflict of any sort. We will all be happy and polite, if likely sedated, individuals.

An interesting group also falling into the utopiate classification is Darwinists, scientists many of whom are espousing what in physics is called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), one that unites all the main forces in the universe. The Darwinists' GUT is that evolution will explain every organic thing on earth, most particularly human behavior and consciousness and, perhaps most importantly, human morality. This view is exemplified by the philosopher and cognitive scientist, Daniel Dennett, who says that natural selection is the GUT of biology that unites "...the realm of life, meaning and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law." No grandiosity missing here.

Theodore Dalrymple, a retired psychiatrist with the British health care system, has a view I find more intriguing and informative than Dennett's. In his delightful short book, Admiral Evasions: How Psychology Undermines Morality, he says regarding evolution and its connection to human morality: "If evolution is a directionless, purposeless, natural phenomenon that is all explanatory, then human behavior just is, it is neither moral nor immoral; if, on the other hand, it is moral or immoral, then either the process of evolution is directed by a moral intelligence in the direction of greater morality (precisely the view that Neo-Darwinists wish to escape), or the process of evolution is not all explanatory, and has led to something that escapes it, as a rocket escapes the earth's atmosphere, namely human conceptions of morality."

Speaking of science, a view held by many with great rigor is that science will eventually explain everything, a position known as scientism. It is as comprehensive and as firm a view that one can hold, right along the lines of Dennett, and another example of the search for the Answer. The amusing thing is that such scientists (and lots of lay folks as well), who properly value proof and falsification, haven't a single bit of proof backing up their claim. It is totally a matter of belief. The fact that science has indeed explained a lot of things says nothing about whether it will be able to explain everything since, for one, we have no idea what everything entails.

Another group, in a vein similar to that of the Darwinists, is the neuro-scientists. Many of them believe that they will eventually be able to completely account for consciousness and all the things that make humans unique, such as meaning, transcendence, purpose, and belief through understanding the brain as they might understand a washing machine. In their minds, everything human is reducible to neurons and their connections.

The arena of cosmology is not without its Answer adherents. An interesting idea in this realm is floated by Rupert Sheldrake in his terrific and provocative book, Science Set Free, and is addressed to cosmologists. The latter properly allege that the universe is not static and is evolving, although the nature of the process is not clear. We have some evidence that the universe is "moving" in more than one sense. At the same time, these scientists think that the laws of nature, referring mainly to the cosmological constants, are in fact unchanging, a view Sheldrake finds incompatible with an evolving universe. There is some measurement data that might confirm Sheldrake's view that the constants may not be.

Some climate scientists and fellow-travelers are so taken with their view of climate change---the grand Answer---that the mere thought that another scientist might question their measurement techniques or models (not that climate change is not occurring, but why and what can we legitimately predict) is enough to send them into paroxysms of agitation amazing to behold. They insist, with terminal absurdity, that the "science is settled." Near the end of the 19th century the great physicist, Lord Kelvin, in a rare moment of hubris and gargantuan error, stated: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Tracking along this frame was a contemporary of Kelvin's, the astronomer Simon Newcomb, who said, "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." Both of these statements are laughable today, except for those for whom the science is settled, a condition that says a great deal about them, and virtually nothing about the issue.

To show how utopiates can act when they feel threatened, consider Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island and other political and scientific personages (yes, even scientists!). They have recommended using the RICO statutes to prosecute climate change "deniers," including some of the reputable scientists who question the efficacy of the proponents' models. Naturally, some corporations are indictable as well. Given that science proceeds in part on disconfirmation and falsification, this is truly astonishing. But it does demonstrate what utopiates will do to get their Answers. Shortly after jail, of course, comes "off with their heads." As I said above, deviants will be punished.

I am not arguing that searches for more humane societal arrangements or for new scientific advancements in understanding the world and universe are bad. It is entirely possible that some aspects of these various utopiates' views will prove correct, although I doubt very much that any of them will yield an Answer. Certainly in the realm of science, if not in the social world, as more answers are provided, we are faced with more questions. This may be the ultimate mystery of existence---the are no Answers, but there are answers, temporary weigh stations that lead to yet more discoveries which lead to yet more questions. I see no End, and prefer that by a long shot to everything being answered.