In physical scientific terms, it seems clear that global health is under threat: in the composition of the atmosphere, in animal, plant and fish extinctions; in climate change; pollution of rivers, even of oceans; homicide; in the surprise of plagues etc. etc. and also, in many places mankind’s warped notion of public service is to be seen.
Is the cause equally clear? Probably Homo sapiens – as is imagined in the so-called Sixth Mass Extinction; but why?
What is our future to be? Has our understanding of our responsibilities, in the form of the education we've had and are passing on to our children, failed us? Has our science been too self-absorbed, too slanted? Because of its material orientation, too ready all these years to distain or ignore the reality of the abstract part of our mind-body reality? For how long have we been distracted by the glamour of cars, weapons of war, rockets, etc., etc. which, paradoxically, actually originate in the abstract world of emotions and intentions where we live anyway? Are we not made both physical and metaphysical, body and mind?
Admittedly the abstract world is still shrouded in superstitions which, through science, never-the-less has mesmerized us by its more visible, material expression.
In the light of the continuing evidence of global degradation and its consequent pain and suffering – that flourish so in the body and psyche of the human individual - it is a demonstrable fact, directly or indirectly, that life is far from the perfection we can imagine so we are, I think, justified in assuming that individual self-responsibility should be engaged to solve the problem systematically, with rational optimism rather than to be willing victims of a glamorous physicality, or to rely stoically on the ever-so-slowly unfolding processes of democracy and conservatism.
In case the fault lies with our education (which I see as a source of hope and salvation) I offer a few educational ideas that might help if introduced judiciously at the right level of understanding. I am not pedagogically trained, so would welcome discussions.
Science
Physical science has adequately proved that the material aspects of Nature, when examined closely enough, are orderly, never chaotic and visibly productive; whereas abstract Nature – for that is the realm of joy and suffering in which we exist and where we exercise the conscious faculties that enable us to examine Nature and make choices, and can be expected to be likewise governed by natural laws that are orderly, non-chaotic, survival-orientated and potentially as productive. For it would surely be quite absurd for anyone to sponsor the search for ‘truth’ in the evolving metaphysical fields of pedagogy, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy or psychology and the like (spending millions in the process) if they were not seriously expecting to discover in them the truth, some fresh aspect of the ‘truth’ or a greater refinement of it. At least that seems to be the underlying logic.
In researching metaphysical subjects, I think it is never hopeless chaos that we find; sometimes we may be disappointed in our main expectations, but we at least expect reason to prevail - albeit sometimes in surprising forms or with laws that are still difficult to refine into measurable terms. Do we want to call this investigation of abstract subjects ‘science’ too?
Indeed, philosophically-speaking, this is probably the most important discovery of physical science we need to understand: If we find the rule of law applies so rigorously in the physical world why not throughout the abstract world of connections, emotions, intentions, concepts, applications, constitutionality, morality and bodymind healing etc. also - and discover that it is as richly productive?
From the point of view of medical research and application the interesting thing about these observations is that our living constitution consists of body, emotion, mind and spirit so, to be strictly scientific, all four (or evan two, as a bodymind acceptance of reality would be a good start) aspects need to be accepted and not just the physical as seems to be the case at present with surgery and pharmacology dominant in prevalent allopathic doctoring.
Science as we have known it is accustomed to dealing with the physical world, its forces and effects. And it has done this spectacularly well, but there is the other realm, the abstract realm, the realm where we actually live. To examine and understand this world more accurately, more convincingly and beneficially we seem to need other tools, theories and assumptions where ‘science’ may require different qualities and references. Numerical measurement of reality is but one selected criterion of how science is applied successfully. What is your opinion? Am I barking up the wrong tree here?