|
ISIS Report 12/09/08
Prince Charles Speaks for the People and for Many Scientists Too
Prince Charles first spoke out against genetic modification in the 2000
Reith Lecture Respect for the Earth when he was viciously attacked
by the scientific establishment; this was one of the very few articles defending
him that got into the mainstream media and is just as relevant today as it
was then
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Prince Charles embarrassed the government and the scientific establishment
with his Reith lecture broadcast on BBC Radio 4 (17 May 2000). In his wide
ranging talk, which drew on the work of theologians, philosophers, scientists
and economists, he said much that surely expressed the views of the majority
in this country. Is it possible that the prince is more in touch with the
common people than our elected Government?
The idea that there is a sacred trust under which human beings
accept stewardship for the earth is common to most spiritual traditions, including
those that do not acknowledge a Creator. The Prince urged us to recapture
this sense of the sacred, in which we accept that there are bounds of balance,
order and harmony in the natural world and that development is progress only
if it is sustainable. He singled out gene biotechnology (genetic modification)
for attack as an unacceptable transgression of Nature's limits, treating our
entire world as a “laboratory of life” with potentially disastrous consequences.
Did he attack science? Was he anti-science, as has been claimed?
Not at all. Many scientists, me included, were quite comfortable with what
he said. His attack was aimed at the “impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism”
(he might have said, “rationalisation”) that obscure our sense of the sacred
and respect for the earth, and in the end lead us to regard the whole of nature,
including human beings, as something that can be “engineered for our own convenience
or as a nuisance to be evaded and manipulated”. That view may indeed infect
science, but it is not at all inherent to it.
Nor does one have to believe in a Creator to agree with Prince
Charles that that there is a “perfect unity, order, wisdom and design of the
natural world” and opposing British philosopher Bertrand Russell’s view that
that the universe is “all spots and jumps” without continuity, coherence or
orderliness.
Prince Charles is speaking for the people when he called for
support for organic farming. Who could disagree when he argued that if a fraction
of the money currently being invested in developing genetically manipulated
crops were applied to understanding and improving traditional systems of agriculture,
which have stood the all-important test of time, the results would be “remarkable”?
There is already a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture
that integrates indigenous with western science, and is adapted to local ecological
and social conditions. Some 12.5 million hectares worldwide are successfully
farmed in this way. (This has since increased to 31 million ha by 2007). Yields
have doubled and tripled, and are continuing to increase, far in excess of
anything that GM crops have to offer. Support for this is growing among farmers,
trade-unions, consumers, indigenous peoples and diverse public interest organisations.
Not, however, from industry, because when farmers are free to keep their seeds,
and to harvest and sell their own produce locally, corporate monopolies cannot
hold the hungry to ransom.
Prince Charles could have taken heart from the fact that the
mechanistic view is rapidly losing ground within contemporary western science.
An organic revolution is sweeping across the disciplines, from quantum physics
to the ecology of complexity and molecular genetics. In every discipline,
the message is the same: nature is dynamic, interconnected and interdependent.
Proponents of gene biotechnology are stuck in the mechanistic era, and our
mainstream academic institutions are perpetrating the outmoded paradigm if
only because it serves so well to promote the genetic engineering of life.
The emerging science of the organism reinstates the holistic perspectives
of indigenous cultures world wide. (see third edition of my book The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics
of Organisms). It also reveals that the romantic poets’ vision of the
oneness of nature is the truly rational point of view, while the mechanistic
tradition is deeply flawed and irrational.
I was disappointed Prince Charles ended his lecture by saying
that taking a cautious approach or achieving balance in life is never as much
fun as the alternatives. He made it sound as if living in a sustainable world
means leading a less satisfying life. Yet just the opposite is the case. Instead
of being isolated and anxious in a culture dominated by competition and exploitation,
we can look forward to experiencing the joy of being connected and sustained.
It is being able to sing and dance in tune and in step with all there is in
the universe while we take part in co-creating it.
A slightly edited version of this article first appeared in The Guardian
(24 May, 2000) under the title, “Back to Nature”
| |
|
