Professor AK-47

ADOPT THE POWER OF THE PAST, OUT WITH THE FUTURE

Looking at the state of the world now one wonders what works and what won’t. Where do we look for solutions? While many say the future has much in store many believe however the answers for the world’s ills are rooted in the past.

But first let’s take stock. If the solutions we are seeking out lie in ideology, then democracy has proven it has failed. So are the others: totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, Fabianism, Nazism etc. If it is economics, then we are also witness to the demise of the market-controlled economy, centrally-planned economy, and the capitalist-based economy together with the socialist-based political order. If it is the form of Governments, then the one-person Administration has shown more resilience today as compared to the present collegial or two-party governments in existence in many countries. In theoretical terms as well the power matrix still holds sway in international politics. The approaches of post-structuralism have not caught the interest of scholars.

What of the future? Very much of what the past had to offer? Communism will become fashionable once more. Dependencia will attract and imperialism and hegemony will strike out once again. Once-renowned globalism will make way for uni-individualism and religion will assume a more local character: no more the universalism but more the quest for interest-groups looking for an ideology to guide their struggles or causes.

In the final analysis history will prove itself right after all! 

CLIMATE CHANGE: MAN-MADE OR NATURES NATURE?

I had the opportunity to listen to Dr Smoot a Nobel Laureate speak on the birth of the Earth at a forum early April.

Two things caught my interest. 

First his studies confirmed that Man will soon have the ability to create a new galaxy if the ingredients are available. Indeed according to Dr Smoot, you must build the structures then the web, then the filaments and finally the galaxy or galaxies. All the four must be in sync befire a new galaxy can evolve. Their studies have confirmed that this is possible given that there are now vastly-improved ‘hubble-sattelites’ that can helped in the process.

Second given the impact of his studies Dr Smoot contend that the Earth is forever expanding thus warming up the globe especially in the middle belt. The impact for us humans is that global warming has another culprit besides us humans, the continuous expansion of the Earth. 

How true this is will depend on how prepared we are to accept the realities of science or return to Nature to look for answers for solutions to our present-day problems.

SEVEN GENERATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

I read with interest the lucid argument for sustainable development as presented by Tan Sri Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, the Vice Chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, in the Insight column under the title "$2.30 African and the $2.20 EU cow" (New Sunday Times,, June 15, 2008).

I agree that for sustainable development to take roots there have to be a realization in us that what we do today will have an impact on future generations after us. I recalled the belief held by some Native Americans that they have identified seven generations as the length of time by which they can determine in all seriousness the idea of sustainability. In our calculation this will take around 140 years (if one were to count 20 years to comprise one generation).

If one were to follow this logic to its conclusion, we will certainly need a lot of futures thinking to appreciate what Tan Sri Dzulkifli meant by 'sustainable development' being the "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations".

In the meantime, what do we do to get out of our unsustainable lifestyle? I offer the idea developed by Ivan Illich (1974) in his book, "Energy and Equity".

The idea is based on the observation that once you are dependent on something you will always do your utmost to sustain that dependence. There is therefore a correlation between dependence and sustainability. It feeds on one another.  What he says can be summed up as follows:

If you have it, you depend on it;

It then becomes a habit to you and it starts to control you;

You tend therefore to lose your sense of values on the important aspects of life,

In the end you enslave yourself to it;

The choice is no longer yours to make,

You are in fact poorer than before.

Illich was of course referring to the excesses of the transport industry in the United States of America when he wrote the book. Today the Americans have built a whole civilization based on the automobile and oil and they are in fact overwhelmingly dependent on both in order to sustain their present lifestyles. For them to sustain their global economic, social, political and technological leadership they require more oil and new energy sources which are getting less and less.

The road to our future sustainability lies in us resurrecting Buckminster Fuller's "more for less" idea and the giving up of our dependency and sustainability lifestyle.

THE CLASH OF MAN AND NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY

Who will emerge the victor?

In the world of movies technology always seem to triumph over Man. At least this is probably what the scriptwriters and the directors have willed this so. In real-life however, we are taught that Man has the power to dominate and conquer Nature that has now been demythologized into just mere resources for Man to manipulate and shape into things to serve Man's diverse technological interest.

Indeed History has shown that this is true. Witness the epic journeys to cross the North Pole, to climb Mount Everest, to navigate the globe, to step foot on the Moon, to battle diseases and calamities, to crack the genetic code and finally to reinvent Man in his own image. In truth all these would not have happened without technology being successfully harnessed in the service of Man.

The question is can Man really win over Technology which has now replaced Nature? To start with we will need to understand the real meaning of the term "Technology". If we were to look at the political meaning of technology we can appreciate the difficulty for us to give a positive answer to the question posed at the beginning of the paragraph.

Some of the attempts at defining a political meaning for technology include: Is technology a means to liberate human beings? Is it an extension of Man's nature to dominate the Earth? Is the drive to achieve technological superiority humanly possible? Or is it finally a rejection of our true humanity? (Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey, 1983)

Contrast these with the various definitions that convey a philosophical problem to many: technology has been identified with inventions; some have conceived of it as applied sciences; others have referred to it as a set of means by which Man uses the forces and laws of nature; and it is used for economic purposes and even justified as a kind of secular religiosity.

In a metaphysical sense, if one were to follow the argument above to its ultimate end, Man's quest to enslave nature and now technology will lead one day to, as described by C. S. Lewis,  "the abolition of Man". (Mitcham and Mackey, 1983) A return to the basic is called for here if Man seek to restore his place in Nature. This entails going back to the roots of spirituality.

KNOWING WHAT MALAYSIANS REALLY WANT

It is always difficult to know with all certainty what we really want. Our needs and expectations are forever in a state of flux and we battle our minds and our hearts to tell us what are the priority things for us today, tomorrow and the future.

    Part of the problem is that we are never too sure of our values. Consequently we are pressed for choices that we can never make at any one time. We then react by passing blame on to the system and the environment. The other half of the problem is when we think we have made a choice but actually we are merely making a shopping-list of our wants at a particular time. We are trying to make up our minds and it is not easy to do so in the midst of all the other distractions in our life.

    If the last General Elections results (12^th GE, Mar.8) in Malaysia were any help we can try to make out what Malaysians really want. In sum their desires include the following: the present system of National Coalition Government (Barisan Nasional), BN, is due for change, the new media must be given more space for growth, the size of the economic cake cannot be further enlarged unless it moves in tandem with the world economy, and educational opportunities need to be more widely opened up to Malaysians and not only to the foreigners.

    But the underlying trends that have been brought up by the 12^th GE are more interesting and these include the following: the new assertiveness of the Monarchy, the call for change within all the component parties of the BN, the beginning of the "rattling" in Sarawak and Sabah owing to their new-found power and hence their eagerness to exercise them and finally the psychologically-disturbing reversal of roles for the "once-opposition" and the "hitherto ruling" parties.

    Ultimately all these will impact on Malaysian society and polity. The message that has been sent to the wide world out there is that Malaysians really do not know what they really want. The 12 GE results are not indicative of the general needs and expectations of Malaysia either now or for the future. After fifty years we are only now seeing a glimpse of the spectrum of Malaysian needs and even then they are not publicly articulated. More is required of whomever and of whichever Government that holds power in the country. For the moment at least the picture created has been one where Malaysians are really only staying in the world of the periphery, the shadows of their real self and living in half-hopes and half-dreams.

Examples are many as for instance, let us look at economics: What is new in the New Economic Policy? What actually is growing in the Growth Triangles? Why must the Outline Perspective Plan (OPP) remain as an outline and in whose perspective? And in terms of the Economic Corridors, why should not development take place in the real zones instead of the corridors? In short all these smack of action only to be seen in the outer areas of reality but never the reality itself. Has Malaysians lost the ability to distinguish the real from the unreal?

“SACRELISATION” OF MAN AND NATURE

There was a time when Man is at the centre of all things. But then civilizations changed all that. Today Man is at the mercy of Nature. How else do we explain climate change and the current food crisis? Evidently these are all man-made problems which by all human inventiveness can be resolved if given due thought and efforts.

    Has Science and Technology anything to do with this plight of Man? Indeed since the 17^th century already, Man's quest to conquer nature with its scientific inventions and technological innovations has put Man's existence on earth at risk. In the name of economic progress Man has gone on to conquer Nature only to find out that to sustain what is indeed sustainable as are the world's forest, the facts are that one will have to continue to rely on that source of sustainability by placing all one's dependence on it. The cycle of dependency and sustainability goes on until Man finds it opportune to seek to get out of its vicious grip.

    There is thus merit in recalling Hossein Nasr's bold statements when he called for the earliest steps to restore Man back to Nature and Nature back to Man. Nasr argued for a return of sacredness to both Man and Nature as a way out of Man's present quandary. In this his thoughts have been echoed by Ivan Illich who posed the problem of Man's absolute dependence on modes of modern transport that are powered by energy sources, as being an enslavement of Man to the transport medium. Man's dependence on this has reduced Man's capacity to think of anything else but for the pleasure of driving around to get whatever he wants and wherever he wants to go. Illich cited the supreme example of man's wasted efforts with the automobile in the policies of the US Administration and lifestyles of Americans.

    Nasr welcomed the traditional reluctance of the Asians to embrace this trend as a positive endeavour not to be dragged in into the cycle. Asian religions and cultures have strong roots in Nature and the place of Man in it. Westerners have much to learn therefore from us Asians. Part of the solutions to Man's predicament today lies in not allowing Science and Technology to become the new Gods in our civilization. A new Ethics of science and technology must be generated to put Man back in its right place in this Universe.

 

 

Asian Minds Initiative

 

Asian Minds Initiative seeks to present the best and the most current of Asian thoughts and talents across several issues of regional and international significance. Once a week Professor AK47 will challenge and stir up responses from local players about regional problems and maybe suggest some global and universal solutions for them.

For too long Asians have been mere watchers to world events with hardly a hope to shape let alone to steer these for our own ends. We now want this situation restored to its rightful course through dialogues and sharing and partnership opportunities that can engender mutual gains and benefits for all.

Problems that cuts across boundaries, nationalities, religious and ethnic affiliations as well as issues that stare at us individually and impact upon society generally will definitely have high-interest value and should invite the intellectual curiosity of Asians.

Responses can take many forms: direct and indirect, formal and informal, chatty snippets or pedantic prose and finally, just for the sour grapes. But whatever the choices let there be varieties galore for the Asian Minds are never bent on limiting creativity and innovation.   

Asian Minds Initiative stands by the axiom: there is always dependency in every sustainability and getting out of this cycle is still the best option for humankind.