The Evolution of Values for an Uncommon Global Future Partow Izadi University of Lapland, 1993 ABSTRACT This paper is concerned with the system and evolutionary principles of human values in the face of the future of mankind. Through a systems theoretic approach, the human values system is seen as analogous to organic systems, as an "abstract organic system". The dynamics of values development are linked with the general evolution of consciousness. Our present chaotic global paradigm includes a high potential for a complete and global transformation of values as well as total collapse of the human society. Moreover, the stimulus of visionary and idealistic scenarios is discussed as a realistic catalyst for the emergence of new values patterns in our current predicament. A "synergic model of collective truth finding" is introduced as a consultative approach to realizing hitherto largely unexperienced potentialities in human communication and understanding, being capable of prompting spontaneous and formal forums where completely new perspectives can be generated and conceptions can emerge that transcend the sum of the original ideas. Table of Contents: 1. Introduction: A Systems Theoretic Approach to Values Evolution 2. Systems Theoretic Considerations 2.1. Systems Theoretic Ontological Principles 2.2. Systems Theoretic Evolutionary Principles 3. The Evolution of the Human Values System 3.1. A Systemic Model for Human Values Evolution 3.2. The Evolution of Consciousness 3.3. The Evolution of the Human Values System 4. Possible, Probable and Desirable Scenarios 4.1. Present Trends in Values Evolution 4.2. Possible Scenarios of Values Evolution 4.3. Probable and Desirable Scenarios of Values Evolution 4.4. Implications on World Order Development 5. Contributing to the Evolution of Values 5.1. Social Consciousness and Values Systems 5.2. Positive Vision and Values Development 5.3. The Synergic Model of Collective Truth Finding 6. Epilogue Bibliography 1. Introduction: a Systems Theoretic Approach to Values Evolution Applying systems theory to the evolution of organic systems has produced a general macro-deterministic view on both social evolution and current upheavals (e.g. Laszlo, 1987). While aware of the apparent randomness of many historical events, it maintains that mankind's life, on the macro level, has a non-random pattern of development and that it is analogous to natural organisms: The evolution of organic systems seems to be stimulated by a motive force, an evolutionary motor, which streamlines the direction of their development and, challenging the law of entropy, creates a process towards construction and order. Such evolution progresses, not linearly, but periodically, with long intervals of smooth and 1

unperturbed growth, on the one hand, and abrupt transitional phases of reorientation and even metamorphosis often preceded by eruptions of chaotic and dramatic turbulence, on the other. Our present predicament represents the first of such transitions on the global level. 2. Systems Theoretic Considerations 2.1. Systems Theoretic Ontological Principles The tradition of positivism in scientific research derives from a reductionistic world view. This tradition, its most puritanical approaches though now largely rejected, is still the basis of most academic works. It is also the often tacit foundation of materialistic world views and their applications. Reductionism, if strictly interpreted, suggests that all phenomena are but higher order manifestations of and can be explained by simpler lower order phenomena. A resurgence of what we here broadly call teleological views has regained ground first in philosophical fields but then also as a valid scientific method of scrutiny. The teleological approach is almost the exact opposite of the reductionist one in that it maintains all phenomena to be projections of higher order realities (for instance, physical phenomena can be seen as projections of the potentialities in the higher level reality of physical laws). Our systems theoretic ontological postulates are: 1. All systems are sub-systems of other systems; all manifest phenomena are dependent or contingent systems (effect); all abstract principles or laws are independent or generative systems (cause). 2. All contingent systems (phenomena) are projections of generative systems (abstract principles or laws, such as the laws of nature); these ontological principles can become manifested on various levels of order and complexity. 3. An ontological principle, on the level of its essential abstraction, is one and undivided; its projection to any field is manifested in the diversity of phenomena; all phenomena evince "unity in diversity". 4. Any given system is a holistic entity which has its own individual characteristics; the potentialities of the whole system are manifested in the qualities of its sub-systems and elements. 5. The holistic properties of a system generate the diversified characteristics of its constituent elements; the synergic attributes of the system cannot be derived from the qualities of its elements alone. Most of the supporters of both views agree axiomatically that all systems are, more or less, synergic -- i.e. the attributes of the whole system are more vast than the sum of the attributes of its constituent elements. If this is accepted as a postulate, then it must be asked: Where the collective qualities are derived from? The teleological answer (as defined below) would be that it is the elemental properties that are derived from the collective ones and, therefore, the constituent elements manifest only imperfectly those collective attributes -- ergo: the whole is more than the sum of its parts. But a purely reductionist approach will have no axiomatic tool to explain this synergic principle and the answer would, by necessity, involve equivocal compromises with the reductionistic postulates -- hence, its descriptive power is questionable, or at least, it is not unambiguous. Our position is, thus, that the teleological view has a better descriptive power (cf. Capra, 1985). 2.2. Systems Theoretic Evolutionary Principles As a result of empirical observations during the last century and their theoretical explanations, it has become a widely accepted principle among scientists that our physical universe moves 2

inevitably towards entropy, a state of uniform inertness of the whole universe where all energy is unavailable for work in any natural system. This means that all order falls eventually towards disorder, that any new measure of organization in one place adds to chaos in another place, and that all structures will in the end, either asymptotically or finitely, disintegrate approaching a state of absolute chaos where all information has vanished and where there are no structures at all. (See Hawking, 1989.) This theory does permit, however, more or less local and temporal reverse processes of structuring and organization -- that the flow of energy through existing systems would generate order (cf. Laszlo, 1987). In fact, the emergence of any new structure at all in the universe necessarily requires this permission. But, above all, it is organic systems, such as plants and animals or even the whole ecosystem and perhaps the human society, that brave the principle of entropy. During most of their existence, organic systems seem to emerge from lower to successively higher levels of order and complexity. Despite the randomness of individual events in the life of organic systems, their overall development is structured and oriented. But this only demonstrates, why organic systems follow a specific pattern of evolution -- it does not explain what stimulates them to embark and keep on this track: systems theoretic models of evolution must always include an `evolutionary motor', a motive force to feed the process. These evolutionary motors are, themselves, elements of the potential and must be considered as inherent in the very existence of organic systems. In the search for such motors the most general model, one with great explanatory power, has been that organic systems seek their way towards optimally economical energy consumption. Our systems theoretic evolutionary postulates are: 1. Organic systems, as distinguished from other systems, undergo non-entropic processes of structuring and attainment to higher level order and complexity. 2. Organic systems possess an inherent potential defining their capacity to grow and manifest order; this potential unfolds progressively: increase in complexity provides for heading for the next level order. 3. There is an evolutionary motor or motive force, itself an aspect of the potential of the system, that stimulates the system to embark on and maintain the process of the progressive unfoldment of this potential. 4. Seeking optimally economical energy consumption, a tendency to dismantle energy-inefficient structures and sustain efficient ones, is the evolutionary motor in most organic systems. 5. The evolution of all systems is influenced by their coexistence with other systems and affected by the environmental conditions created by their parent system; no system can live undisturbed. 6. The evolutionary cycle: When a system's evolution, on a certain level of complexity, meets the requirements of the evolutionary motor, the system rests functioning on the results of this achievement; after a while, various disturbances will alter this balance and chaos sets in; through the resultant turbulence and flux a new level of complexity is reached, which allows an evolutionary leap to a higher level order; the evolutionary motor becomes active again and a fuller realization of the original potential, now on a higher level, becomes possible. 7. The macro-deterministic evolutionary process is non-linear; in each period of chaos, an evolutionary leap is imminent, but also a risk of complete breakdown exists; a slight input could determine the course in favor of either alternative. It is important to notice here that, despite the seeming deterministic accent in the exposition above, our approach is only macro-deterministic, and this distinction is, in fact crucial to our 3

discussions later in this paper (chapters 4 & 5). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN VALUES SYSTEM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.1. A Systemic Model for Human Values Evolution Any articulation of why one or another set of values was adopted at this or that period of time would require a value statement. It is, therefore, necessary to take some set of values as axiomatic. It is in setting this axiomatic basis that a systems theoretic approach provides a sound conceptual framework. In order to define the system of human values as an "abstract organic system", we must now translate the evolutionary postulates on organic systems (from Section 2.2.) in terms of values evolution and restate them as its definition. Here is the translation of the theoretic model of organic evolution into values evolution: 1. The human values system, analogical with organic systems, undergoes non-entropic processes of structuring and attainment to higher level social order and complexity. 2. The human values system possesses an innate potential that determines its potential to manifest social order and organization; this potential unfolds progressively: increase in the complexity of social life provides for heading towards the next level social order. 3. The evolutionary motor or motive force of the human values system, a meta-value which is itself an aspect of the human potential, stimulates the values system to embark on and maintain the progressive unfoldment of this potential. 4. The innate human tendency to value change towards `something better', a yearning for some `improvement', an intuitive reaching for `excellence', is the evolutionary motor, the meta-value, in the human values system. 5. The evolution of a society's values system is influenced by its coexistence with other such systems and affected by the context of the whole human values system; the values system of no society can live undisturbed. 6. The evolutionary cycle of values systems: When the evolution of a society's values system satisfies, at a certain level of social complexity, the "improvement" requirements of the evolutionary motor, that values system rests starting to become integrated in the society through this achievement; in due course, interaction with other societies will shake this balance and people's life values will fall into confusion and chaos; through the resultant disorientation the complexity of social life increases and a readiness to adopt new values emerges, which allows a leap to a higher social order; the evolutionary motor, the meta-value, becomes active again and a fuller manifestation of the human values potential, now on a higher level, becomes possible. 7. The macro-deterministic values evolution is non-linear: In each period of confusion and disorientation of values, an evolutionary leap is imminent, but also a risk of complete breakdown of values, a collapse to an animalistic no-values situation, exists; a slight human input or social movement could determine the course in favor of either alternative. In this model the notion "Greed is the motive force of human activity!" appears to be a well-argued statement but, indeed, without any of the accustomed negative value connotations to the word "greed"; that would be a value statement in itself. This greed has been displayed throughout millennia and has manifested itself in both positively and negatively valued ways. 3.2. The Evolution of Consciousness Now, we shall discuss the connection of values evolution with the evolution of consciousness. 4

It will be demonstrated that the two are closely linked and interdependent (cf. also Kivistö, 1992). The following quote from Peter Russell (1983, p. 55) well explains our meaning of consciousness as a potentiality in the system of existence: "Consciousness is different from a collection of [brain] cells, just as life is different from a collection of atoms. Instead of arguing that consciousness is merely a by-product of brain activity, one could take the view that since consciousness evolves out of life, consciousness is already inherent within life in some potential though latent form. Likewise, since life evolves from apparently inanimate matter, life is already inherent within matter in a latent form. Perhaps the potential for each new order is always present, awaiting the particular conditions that would allow it to become manifest. ... At least in part, the answer would seem to be a progressive increase in complexity." Based on our axiomatic principles, it is supposed here that all levels of consciousness were potentially present from the beginning of the formation of this planet (or, why not the universe) -- all levels of consciousness belong to the inherent potential of the system. The purpose is an overall mapping of the potential and actual consciousness at the levels of inanimate matter, plants, animals, and humans. All sciences that study aspects of biological evolution agree on the chronological order of the appearance of the mentioned levels: inanimate mater was the basis for organic matter, organic matter first appeared only as vegetation, then animal life evolved, and humans emerged last. We will divide our discussion into the pre-human and human periods. The pre-human evolution of consciousness consists of the emergence of inanimate matter into organic structures, into vegetation and animal life. The inorganic nature (from now on: "the mineral kingdom") displays no trace of consciousness and its elements merely exist and interact manifesting basic laws of physic; this is the first level of tangible phenomena or contingent systems (see Section 2.1.). The level of plants (from now on: "the vegetable kingdom") demonstrates no active consciousness either, but its members' existence is more oriented, endued with the power of growth and guided by both a genetic program as well as environmental conditions (macro-deterministic); this is the first level of organic systems. The animal level (from now on: the animal kingdom) shows clear signs of awareness or consciousness, as its members, depending on their degree of capacity, exhibit in varying intensities the ability to perceive their surroundings through senses and react to its stimuli by movements, activities and even emotions; this is the first level of conscious systems. Any one of these levels of consciousness (or existence) includes, by definition, the ones preceding it. Therefore, all conscious systems are also organic systems and all organic systems are also contingent systems. It is estimated that the earth formed into a planet 4'600 million years ago. First major signs of life, of primitive vegetation, evolved from monocellular organisms only after the laps of 3'150 million years. And, it took another 770 million years for the first primitive multicelled animals to emerge. This means that the mineral kingdom, the first level of contingent systems, was the only form of existence during the first 68% of the earth's life (early precambrian, and the archeozoic era in precambrian); then, the vegetable kingdom, the first level of organic systems, was the highest level of evolutionary order for 17% of the existence of earth (the proterozoic era in precambrian); the animal kingdom, the first level of conscious systems, emerged as the most advance level of ordered systems on earth and remained so until almost the present, i.e. some 15% of the geological history (the late precambrian, the paleozoic and mesozoic eras, and the tertiary period of the cenozoic era). The human evolution of consciousness refers to the time of human existence on earth. This period (the quaternary period of the cenozoic era, especially its pleistocene and holocene epochs) comprises of only a few million years, i.e. a mere 0.1% of the earth's life. 5

Biologically, there is no point in separating human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom: there are no biological evolutionary leaps significant enough to separate man as a distinct life form from animals (such as the distinction between plants and animals). But our concern is the evolution of consciousness, and here an evolutionary leap from animal to human does appear to have taken place. There are somewhat as significant differences between human consciousness and animal awareness as there are between animal awareness and vegetable non-awareness. Animals are aware, through their senses, of their surroundings and are able to react, through their instincts, to these stimuli. Thus, we can speak of "animal behavior". But human beings appear to possess an additional, and essentially different, form of consciousness -- in two respects: 1. Consciousness of ego or rational consciousness: awareness of self, that not only the environment exists but "I" exists in that environment, an awareness of one's relationship with the surrounding reality, a capacity for rational thought and of volition to act deliberately, capable of applying latent talents through rational activity. 2. Consciousness of potential or transcendental consciousness: consciousness and innate awareness of the possibility for progress and ascendence, an ability to achieve a fuller measure of the potential of the system, of a purpose, and of some truth or reality greater than ones ego, conception of standards in life and of committing oneself to high values and ideals.

These describe the evolutionary level of meta-conscious systems -- systems that are conscious of their potential. There is no indication that animals would possess and exhibit such consciousness. Thus, it is our systems theoretic ontological and evolutionary position here that the human reality is essentially higher than that of the animal kingdom, as is the animal reality higher than that of the vegetable kingdom, and the vegetable reality higher than that of the mineral kingdom. Now the definition of the evolutionary motor for the human values system becomes less vague. It is not just a desire for `something better' or `improvement': awareness of one's potential is a perquisite for the awakening of the quest for `something better' and of willingness to follow principles and act selflessly. Thus, one evolutionary process formed a foundation for the emergence of a new one. We can say: The evolutionary attainment to meta-consciousness (especially its transcendental component, consciousness of potential) provides, in fact, the context for the emergence of the evolutionary motor of the human values system. The first manifestations of meta-consciousness in human beings may have been no more than momentary breaks from the routines of "survivalist groups of intelligent animals". But, it seems that in meta-conscious systems external stimuli, instead of starting a mechanism of organic reactions, start a process of conscious or, more often subconscious, choice which, in the last analysis, is essentially a choice between instinctive consciousness (that of mere conscious or organic systems) and transcendental consciousness (i.e. ideals and principles). It is a value position humans are called to take even in their smallest everyday issues. Why does it seem, then, that it is so much easier for people to opt for (or to be inclined towards) instinctive behavior -- a behavior that, combined with human intelligence, has often proved devastating to the purpose of attaining to the potential of the system. A considerable stretch of our time perspective seems necessary here: considering the relative shortness of the period when meta-conscious systems have existed on earth (some 0.1% of its whole life), it is reasonable to maintain that this evolutionary level of consciousness is a mere child. Therefore, it has been only natural that meta-consciousness has been weak and undeveloped and has 6

easily fallen prey to the long-established and straightforward instinctive consciousness. 3.3. The Evolution of the Human Values System As indicated in the aforequoted passage by Peter Russell (1983, p. 55), evolutionary leaps to higher level orders emerge when the system is sufficiently complex to allow the required level of organization. Thus, the evolution of original contingent systems on earth became complex enough to accommodate the evolution of organic systems which, in turn, made possible the evolution of (instinctive) conscious systems which, in the end, provided for the evolution of meta-conscious systems. Meta-consciousness then accommodated the evolutionary motor for the evolution of the human values system. It is noteworthy that meta-consciousness, that is consciousness of potential, means that one of the potentials of the human values system is to realize its own potentialities -- i.e. human beings have a tendency to consciously reach for and fulfill the innate capacities within the whole system of mankind. This suggests that the evolutionary motor of the human values systems favors unity, that it prefers the survival of such values that promote integration and unification. Then, solidarity can be seen as a universal value stimulated and sustained by the meta-value of the evolutionary motor. Thus, global awareness of the wholeness of the system of mankind and a corresponding scope and quality of social organization are essential potentials and macro-deterministic goals of mankind. Such a potential, of course, cannot be realized at once but will emerge progressively as all evolutionary potentials. Although the potential is global, it starts from small units: in the beginning there were hardly larger human groups than family clans, then tribes started forming, later the city-state society evolved, and quite recently nation-states have become the supreme level of the organization of the human society. However, preliminary stages did not dissolve as new ones unfolded but they became permanent and integral components of these new ones. Thus, even today, the basic social structure of family clans, tribes and city-states are not extinct or even scarce: family clans have transmuted into the family unit as the basis of the society, tribal life has been established in the form of villages that are the heart of rural areas of a nation, and city-states have of course changed into cities that form the cultural and socio-political centers of a nation -- the existence of the nation-state is completely dependent upon these lower levels of organization. Now, what may have motivated competing, quarrelsome and warring parties to denounce hostilities, enter alliances and unions and adopt cooperation -- all requiring change of value positions in favor of solidarity and order? Our systems theoretic teleological model here would explain this as the inclination towards the potential of the system. But let us, for a moment, apply a reductionist line of thought: Reductionistically, it can be deduced that opting for cooperation and alliance was a necessary method of survival when a danger threatened mutually the groups concerned or when resources and manpower were scarce or when conflicts had become too severe a strain to the strength of the community etc. Such motives do explain the mechanisms of values choices made by mankind. Now it can be asked: Is not reaching for survival, then, the evolutionary motor? But why, in the end, did the line of values that favor internal solidarity and order dominantly shaped those societies? Why is it that, in the general evolution of mankind, values permitting conflict and strife never remained strong enough to reverse the process entirely back to the previous non-union stage? Teleologically, the innate human desire for `something better', for `improvement' and `excellence', seems to have become better gratified after these new levels of social life got rooted. In other words: The values corresponding to each higher level of social organization satisfied more completely the requirements of the evolutionary motor of the human values system. Or, put 7

more simply: the true needs of people were better satisfied, people led happier lives in union rather than in separation. At present, the established level of social order is the nation-state. We still do not live in a global community but in an international confusion of independent nations. The challenges facing these nations, however, have already ceased to be only or even mostly national: the most pressing issues, some of which threatening the very existence of mankind, are global or supra-national -- they call for an equally global approach and a corresponding world order (see Section 4.4.). Thus, the capacity of the nation-state phase of values systems to satisfy the requirements of the evolutionary motor has been fulfilled and its validity has thus expired. The evolutionary cycle (item 6. in Section 3.1.) appears now to be once again at work: the obsolete values of the peoples of the world are crumbling while their search for new values gain strength; the insistence of archaic institutions to remain in power, on the one hand, and the growing lack of people's confidence in them, on the other, have accelerated the process of the disorientation of values and resulted in a global state of confusion and chaos unparalleled in the annals of history; and the evolutionary motor has reactivated the process that must result either in a leap towards a new level order of the values system or in a collapse of the human society as we know it. For the first time in the known history of its existence, mankind is reaching for global values and a global identity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. POSSIBLE, PROBABLE AND DESIRABLE SCENARIOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------4.1. Present Trends in Values Evolution We distinguish here four major persisting global values trends in the present values chaos: (1) the most firmly established are those systems of values that are based on a materialistic world view; (2) a counter reaction to the former was the rise of `soft' and later `ecological' values; (3) a more recent tendency is the doctrine of pluralism, that we live in a world that can have no unified system of values and which therefore must accommodate the diversity of differing and even conflicting values; (4) the latest development seems to be the tendency to view mankind as a complete but diverse (and presently malfunctioning) system, the idea of "Unity of purpose in the diversity of application", with hitherto quite subtle inclinations to seek syntheses of traditional world views and their implied values systems, is an attempt to see broader unifying patterns behind old systems of thinking. The four trends were all answers to the vacuum created by the crumbling of antiquated social structures and values upheld by them. By the beginning of the 19th century, imperialism had reached its summit and the majority of the worlds nations were, at least to some degree, under European or western influence. Towards the end of the 19th century the authority of religious and secular leaders of European civilization was collapsing; it had previously provided the people with ideals to follow and had apparently failed to meet its purpose. At the same time the social structure of cultures in the conquered areas was being undermined by the colonialization of their lands and the dismantling of their systems of belief. In the middle of this tumult and the growing vacuum of values, the industrial revolution started to penetrate the minds of people. It was the rise and aftermath of the industrial revolution that gave vent to the valuing of endless material progress, and it is the failure of this materialism to satisfy the human meta-consciousness that has now disillusioned even some of the most avowed adherents of this doctrine. A counter reaction to the triumph of 8

industrialism and materialism has been the more recent resurgence of `soft values' or `ecological movements'; also the recent rise of `indigenous spiritualism' can be seen as such a counter reaction combined with the emancipation of suppressed indigenous peoples standing up for their rights. The pluralistic approach, on the other hand, attempts to provide for coexistence of diversified but confronting values and world views `as painlessly as possible' (see Smolicz, 1981). It is the tendency towards new syntheses of values systems, however, that allows the adoption of global values -- values that are universal enough to accommodate a great variety and diversity of many sub-systems of values and thinking but are, at the same time, specific enough to open genuinely new and sound perspectives for addressing the many needs of present global issues. As a result of this latest trend, cooperation among various schools of thought and even among world religions, combined with the expansion of thought provided by modern scientific understanding, is generating new patterns of thought and corresponding global values. This, in turn, has resulted in both integrative results, such as heightened solidarity and cooperation between hitherto antagonistic groups, and also disintegrative offshoots, such as movements that utilize this trend purely for their own opportunistic reasons (which is a value orientation opposed to the unifying trend they proclaim). Thus, the emergence of new patterns is also effected by the confusion of the chaotic period of transition. 4.2. Possible Scenarios of Values Evolution Scenarios on two issues appear relevant to our discussion: (1) on the values transformation and (2) on behavioral and practical change. Here is a short scrutiny of the direction of possible scenarios on these issues: (1) Direction of possible scenarios on the values transformation: there seem to be quick advances, or at least changes, in emergence of new values but they may prove superficial; for instance, economical justice is now generally regarded as a fundamental value but little is done for its attainment and, even if effective political and economic steps would be at hand, citizens of wealthier countries may not, after all, be ready to give up some of their living standards that easily. (2) Direction of possible scenarios on behavioral and practical change: both a quick survivalist as well as a slow profound process seem quite possible, but a quick profound one seems highly unlikely; for instance environmental problems are globally felt to be pressing, and it is quite possible that some decisive steps will soon be taken as more and more environmental catastrophes overtake, but it seems most unlikely that the issue would be quickly and efficiently taken under control by very sustainable non-survivalist measures. The overall perspective of our collective progress and regress must depend on the combined effect of these two issues. The remainder of this paper will study probable directions of this effect and the possibilities of conscious human input to shape it. 4.3. Probable and Desirable Scenarios of Values Evolution Our title here speaks of "Probable and Desirable Scenarios ...". But is not this desirability a concept whose definition is necessarily a value statement? How can we then assess, through a values position, the desirability of a value or a scenario of values evolution? Here again the evolutionary motor will come to rescue! The evolutionary motor of the human values evolution is a value statement -- in fact a meta-value statement (items 3. & 4. in Section 3.1.) -- that "change towards `something better', a yearning for some `improvement', an intuitive 9

reaching for `excellence'" is something innately desirable to human beings. Now, according to our postulates, because all probable scenarios (if not leading to collapse and extinction) are motivated by the evolutionary motor, probable and desirable are equivalent (except when probable leads to collapse and extinction). Thus, on the basis of previous discussions and the above evaluation, we will describe here what could be called "a desirable probable scenario of the evolution of the human values system" and some of its possible consequences: Values will continue to alter rapidly and superficially, but such changes are outward signs of a profound values transformation which is slow and more subtle. The tangible results of such transformation may gradually become more manifest in human behavior and social organization as we approach a more distant future; in the near future, however, human behavior will evince the unstable modes of chaotic and popular values, and most people will remain indecisive whether to adopt this or that set of values or to follow any values at all. Sociopolitical organization, on the other hand, will seek more and more to adapt to the requirements of imminent hazards but will be unable, in its archaic inertia, to meet adequately these challenges. Consequently, global problems (such as economic instability, environmental degradation, scarce resources, mass starvation, political and military conflicts, increasing multitudes of refugees, and organized crime) combined with the problems at the grass-root level that are global in scope (such as the disintegration of families, unemployment, racism, increase of violence and crime, alcoholism, and spread of drug abuse and aids) will multiply exponentially and cause global catastrophes threatening the very survival of mankind. The behavioral and organizational response will be swift enough, however, to prevent complete collapse, and the most urgent needs will be met. This strain and effort, on the part of a desperate humanity, will finally provoke the evolutionary leap of the human values system to its next higher level order, whatever it may be. The duration of the leap process itself may be brief or lengthy but, after that cataclysmic period, the process will be unalterable and will, in due time, produce the corresponding sociopolitical world order and civilizational advances. It must be remembered here that, despite the highly optimistic spirit of this scenario, its forecast on the near future is quite gloomy. Now we shall examine possibilities offered by the present predicament to effect constructive change. 4.4. Implications on World Order Development Ever since humans started to work in groups and form communities, an inseparable characteristic of human organization have been systems of collective security for safeguarding the interests of the community as a whole and its members. Institutions and the social order emerging for this purpose have embodied and upheld the general values of the members of the community. If values changed, the ensuing tension enforced also institutional change through a crisis which, depending on the level of change sensitivity in that society, was more or less painful. It seems that the current global paradigm presents the first such situation on the global level -- a situation that concerns the whole human society. The nation-state, especially, bears relevance to this discussion, because it is the latest and broadest of the established levels of social order and the springboard for the yet unattained global order. At this national level we are set aback by nationalism. There is no nation whose administration is mainly founded upon global or at least international values. Moreover, ordinary citizens seem lost between emerging global sentiments and cherished love for homeland resulting in radical nationalism, on the one hand, and lethargic disinterest in one's national heritage and identity, on the other.

10

And, although there are many international agencies, none of them, including the United Nations Organization, is based upon global institutional principles. These agencies may represent embryonic stages that can later emerge into institutions of a global administration but, at present, they all still uphold, in the last analysis, the sanctity and finality of nation-state sovereignty. The following passage (Moskowitz, 1968, p. 1) well describes this predicament: "What stands in the way of an enduring peace and world order today is the preemption of international relations by the sovereign state, whose power ultimately arbitrates on all occasions when differences regarded as vital to the national interest arise among the nations. The traditional framework of international relations, in which the interests and advantages of the state, real or imaginary, determine a nation's foreign policy, cannot bring forth the kind of international cooperative effort which is necessary to cope successfully with the formidable problems of the age." A world of global values can be administrated only by global arrangements. Such arrangements must include global legislation. As long as a tangible measure of national legislative, executive and judiciary as well as military power is not surrendered to some world authority, international arrangements will remain cosmetic. Thus, our scenario calls for the formation, at some point, of a world parliament (legislative), a world government (executive), and a world tribunal (judiciary) supported by a world force directly under their authority. This is tantamount to establishing the principle of collective security on the world level. Such developments seem still very distant, but present embryonic international institutions seem to be reaching towards that scenario (e.g. Boutros-Ghali, 1992). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. CONTRIBUTING TO THE EVOLUTION OF VALUES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.1. Social Consciousness and Values Systems Two types of social loyalty can be distinguished: the one is based on the desire to preserve the achievements of the society (power of tradition), the other is derived from the desire to promote the development of the society (power of progress). Both these serve a purpose in relation to the evolutionary motor of the human values system: the one seeks to prevent any loss in already gained advances, the other aspires to gain new advances. In stable times, where no evolutionary leap is imminent, both loyalty to tradition and loyalty to progress play equally significant roles. But, in tumultuous periods of possible evolutionary breakthrough, these loyalties are polarized as opposite competitive forces. Loyalty to tradition becomes a mainly decelerating force whereas loyalty to progress becomes a chiefly accelerating force in the evolutionary process. And it is the individual and collective human choices, conscious or subconscious, that will determine which force becomes dominant at the transitional period. Also today the dilemma is the same: conventionalism vs. visionary dissidence. 5.2. Positive Vision and Values Development Positive visions of the future have always had a profound effect on human progress. They both provide perspective and goal-orientation as well as foster motivation and enthusiasm through optimism. In the words of Ervin Laszlo (1989, p. 65): "Ideals and positive visions are important not because they can be immediately and fully attained, but because they can set standards by which we can direct our steps." Also Elise Boulding (1988, p. 116) writes: 11

"History ... can be read as just such a succession of acts of the imagination ... In any cultural epoch, only certain images of the future out of that much wider pool develop enough cultural resonance to affect the course of events. There is a selective empowerment of certain images, which `explode' later, like time bombs, into the realized future." Throughout history, perhaps the most powerful instrument for producing such visions have been world religions. Regrettably, however, religions, at the time of their appearance the most progressive force of society (especially in terms of values evolution), later always deteriorated and fell prey to ignorant fanaticism becoming instruments of destruction. And powerful instrument they indeed are for stimulating and mobilizing human beings. The consequences of the corruption of this instrument and its fall into opportunistic hands have, therefore, been equally dramatic. Referring to this phenomenon, the Persian sage Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892) wrote: "The weakening of the pillars of religion hath strengthened the foolish and emboldened them and made them more arrogant ..." (1978, 63-64). Perhaps, if people would combined their religious faith and piety with their faculty of reason and rationality to serve their search after truth, they would not be so easily lead to bigotry and fanaticism by their leaders or fellow believers. 5.3. The Synergic Model of Collective Truth Finding If positive and realistic visions are to be created, the question is: how to generate visions that are simultaneously positive yet realistic, so as not to result in frustration? Let it be reminded that the faculty of thought and the power of imagination are products of the evolution of consciousness (Section 3.2.). Human thought is stimulated by experiences and is capable of grasping abstract realities from concrete ones. Thoughts are also expressed through human communication and, through it, humans can expand their thought by becoming aware of things others have conceived. But, as an experience that stimulates thought, this communication can also stimulate completely new understanding in all involved and produce a novel collective comprehension of hitherto unattained realities. This we can call the "synergy of human minds". The "synergic model of collective truth finding" means that through a communication and conversation where all genuinely are in pursuit of new understanding and comprehension, ideas will emerge that will transcend the sum of the original participating ideas. Perhaps attainment to such collective comprehension is the maturest expression of human understanding! But such a process of consultation is quite different from current communicational and consultative modes. Such consultation requires an atmosphere that reconciles frankness and politeness, listening and contributing. It also requires not becoming offended by opposing ideas, on one hand, and being detached from ones ideas and open to new ones, on the other. The participative principles of such sincere consultation could be summed up in these attributes: truth-seeking, intelligent, frank, and cordial. Such consultation, I believe, is able to "generate visions that are simultaneously positive yet realistic, as not to result in frustration". As such modes of human interaction are very uncommon, its obstacles must be removed. A prerequisite for this is ongoing world-wide practice of consultation between people. Modern communications technology provide the practical means for this. So the means are there. Deliberate input by conscientious contributors can significantly promote the emergence of such modes of consultation and communication. 12

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------6. EPILOGUE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is the fundamental position of this writing that human nature, despite its proneness to instinctive selfishness and shortsightedness, is, through its awareness of its own potential, essentially inclined towards `ascendence': a desire to follow some spiritual principle, to dedicate one's life to high aims, a craving to search the truth. Therefore, it is these twin tendencies within man and his freedom of choice to be motivated by either of them that determine what values he will choose to follow, how painful our near future will be and how fully the distant future will witness the realization of innate human potentials. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------BIBLIOGRAPHY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Anon. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webester Inc., 1990). Bahá'u'lláh. [The original works of Bahá'u'lláh date back to the second half of the 19th century.] Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh (Southampton, United Kingdom: The Camelot Press Ltd., 1978). Boulding, E. Building a Global Civic Society -- Education for an Interdependent World (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1988). Boutros-Ghali, B. An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping, report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council, 31. January 1992 (New York: The United Nations Organization, 1992). Capra, F. "Criteria of Systems Thinking", in Futures, the Journal of Forecasting and Planning, vol. 17, no. 5/1985 (London: Butterworth & Co. Ltd, 1985). Harman, W.W. Global Mind Change (Indianapolis, Indiana: Knowledge Systems Inc., 1988). Kivistö, T. "Global Megatrends -- Conclusions for the Future of Construction", in Futura, the magazine of the Finnish Society for Futures Studies, vol. 11, no. 3/1992 (Finland). Laszlo, E. Evolution -- The Grand Synthesis (Boston: Shambhala Publications Inc., 1987). Laszlo, E. The Inner Limits of Mankind: Heretical Reflections on Today's Values, Culture and Politics (London: Oneworld Publications Ltd., 1989). Mannermaa, M. Evolutionaarinen tulevaisuudentutkimus, released by Finnish Society for Futures Studies (Helsinki, Finland: Government Printing Center, 1991). Moskowitz, M. The Politics and Dynamics of Human Rights (New York: Oceana Publications Inc., 1968). Russell, P. The Global Brain (Los Angeles: J.P.Tarcher Inc., 1983). 13

Smolics, J.J. "Culture, Ethnicity and Education: multiculturalism in a plural society", in The World Yearbook of Education 1981: Education of Minorities, edited by J.Megarry & S.Nisbet & E.Hoyle (London: Kogan Page Ltd., 1981). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------To submit comments, please email: [email protected]

14