The History of the Flaw - Part I

It is not easy to accept that there may be a flaw in our nature that may be the underlying source of our difficulties. In our culture, it is even more difficult to accept the idea that there is “no technical solution” to problems that arise. Be it land use, energy production, medicine or farming, we insist on finding a “right” technical solution, enlisting our “scientific truths” to support our choice in the right solution. There is seldom an inkling that we cannot technically solve our problems or that technical solutions, in themselves, may be contributing to our problems.

“No Technical Solution”

We strenuously resist the notion that there may not be technical solutions to major societal problems. The American approach ranges from educational to the mildly coercive (laws, codes, etc.), but we insist on retaining the idea that the commons (the environment and earth’s resources) and free will are not in conflict. Regardless of the discipline, we embrace whatever current technical theory or solution allows us to continue our behavior. We seldom consider prohibiting a human endeavor. We choose instead to “technically mitigate” our behaviors. These “mitigations,” in fact, often do not repair or prevent impact, but usually protract the outcome.

Since the early 1970s, the U.S. has implemented several legislative and executive mandates (i.e. Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the EPA) to mitigate the results of our expanding human population. While these efforts have been effective in slowing the pace of the predicted disasters of our society and industry on the environment, environmental degradation continues and our activities continue to bring species to extinction.

These attempts should be applauded for yielding a positive result. However, there is the inescapable conclusion that, even with these measures, the “environmental commons” will eventually fall into ruin. Larger accumulative effects due to natural and manmade conditions are becoming measurable (the general case for climate change). It may take a long while, but the outcome is predicable even though the timing may not be. We have much to learn from previous theorists who predicted self-regulating and mitigating controls. Thomas Malthus is one example.

Thomas Malthus

Reverend Thomas Malthus published the first edition of his famous “An Essay on the Principal of Population” in 1798. Malthus was a leading scientist of his time and embroiled in a classic debate with his European colleagues regarding the threat of overpopulation by humans. He was the first to widely publish and document the issues of overpopulation.

While he was very conscientious, Malthus fell prey to presumption and political ideology.

Malthus presumed that human population would be kept in check by means of “misery and vice.” One of Malthus’ failings was mixing clerical ideology with scientific analysis.

He saw that the adversity that we experienced facing limited resources was an instrument to “teach virtuous behavior” and a means to preserve mankind.

This sparked a philosophical and ideological debate (similar to our current public discourse).

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx were ardent protagonists of Malthus’ ideas.

They viewed Malthus as an apologist to “capitalistic excesses.” Malthus actively argued against mitigating the results of poverty and deprivation as measures to keep overpopulation in check.

This public debate over world and philosophical views has often distracted the discussion from the merits of an argument based on the information available. Ironically, Engels predicted that western science and technology would solve food production and distribution problems.

Until recently, that prediction appeared valid. Appearances are deceiving, however. Instead of solving the perceived problem, the outcome has been forestalled.

Regardless of the point of view, the fundamental belief in the human capacity to make a correct decision given a full understanding of the problem is the common thread in both Malthus and Engels. In other words, we believe that we will always create a solution to our perceived problems. The “tragic flaw” is our ability to perceive “full understanding” of any worldly condition. Repeatedly, history demonstrates our failure to see things fully, let alone agree upon what we are experiencing.