Just how does one begin to understand a modern world plagued by
seemingly intractable regional conflicts over the same disputed
territories, even as it is wracked by violent new
conflicts-at-a-distance more clearly related to factors like religious
differences, distribution of wealth, and notions of history; just as
cable TV warns of a series of apolitical new threats to human existence
in the form of pandemics, tsunamis, super-volcanoes and collisions with
space objects?
Ironically, global warming, a somewhat older ‘threat,’ originally
dismissed by skeptics until its credibility was restored by recent
intense weather events and some additional objective evidence, isn’t
easily classified according to the first paragraph's schema; not for
lack of criteria that could assign it to one of three arbitrary
categories, but because it displays features of all three: to a
considerable extent, it can be seen as regional, political, and
all-embracing.
Which leads me, in roundabout fashion, to a point: the
best way to understand our accumulated modern threats may be that all are
uniquely human perceptions; some are of phenomena which have always
existed, but only recently been disclosed by scientific
enhancements. Others have clearly developed from the accelerating
human population explosion (also enabled by science) of the last
several centuries. Finally, global awareness of all is
being intensified by recent advances in information technology (IT ).
Is ‘science,' then, a common denominator of our global problems? Although
that's a notion to warm every creationist’s heart, it’s quickly
dismissed by noting how avidly religious fundamentalists make use of
scientifically-generated technology. The only ‘revelation’ is it that
forces them to display an even greater degree of hypocrisy (‘cognitive
dissonance’) than many other humans. Since they are also clearly not
that embarrassed by their scientific ignorance, revealing it hasn’t
(and probably won’t ever) change their behavior.
Is ‘denial,’ then, the elusive common denominator?
The answer seems to be that while our unwillingness to confront
unpleasant (‘inconvenient’) truth is certainly common enough to be
thought of as part of ‘human nature,’ it’s clearly not the only factor
responsible for the current mess of insoluble problems. An
equally basic element may have more to do with our evolutionary descent
from hierarchical mammalian predators and our retention of several of
their behavioral characteristics.
