With the tools provided by science, people have refuted the literal understandings of most traditional myths and dogmas of superstitious religion. Metaphors may remain as a source of inspiration, but the literal readings are no longer as tenable as they were even a couple of hundred years ago. But, despite this, widespread irrationality persists.
Indeed, even organized science itself isn’t as perfectly rational as it may seem. Along with the examples of capitalism and democracy, Singer describes how the process and conduct of scientific research ultimately take place in an irrational environment, something he labels “structural chaos.”
By this he means that there is no centralized planning, no specific direction given, and no efficient or predictable means of achieving desired ends. Instead, we have an ad hoc system where everyone is free to do whatever they want, which results in waste, inefficiency, and all sorts of problems.
Despite that, these might be the best systems we can have. No one can be trusted to control the direction of scientific research, so scientists have to be free to pursue their own goals, even if it means wasting time on things no one cares about. Planned economies may help those dispossessed by capitalism, but they also have a poor track record themselves. And democracy results in all sorts of difficulties, but dictatorships are always worse.
So irrationality will not only always be with us, it may also be necessary to a certain degree and in certain areas. So what is a rationalist to do?
- “But altruistic rationalists also need to give up the myth of the perfectibility of humankind, beatific and alluring as it might be. They have to realize that while the institutions of our society are deeply flawed, they may nevertheless be the least ineffective ways to accomplish the greater good, given the facts, and not the myths, of the human condition.”
Instead of relying upon myths about human nature, rationalists should focus on more realistic aims of minimizing waste in our irrational systems and reduce the burdens they can create on society, individuals, and everyone’s future. Thus, slow, step-by-step progress might be achieved over time.
Singer realizes that such work might be very discouraging, but it is even more discouraging to try to make everyone a rationalist when it simply won’t work. Thus, Singer’s goal with this book is to try to encourage rationalists to focus their energies on realistic goals — there are few enough of them as it is, and the future of human society may not survive if too many of them just give up and don’t bother working for improvement.
Singer is a molecular and cell biologist who, until age 60, did not “think seriously about things beyond the classroom and laboratory.” For this reason, perhaps, a great deal of time is devoted to discussing biology and its implications for politics and society. Whether or not this is justified depends upon his audience — skeptics already familiar with biology may be bored at times, while those interested in expanding their scientific horizons will welcome the information.
« Back...
