|
Prince Charles Speaks for the People - and Scientists
Too
Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society and Department of Biological Sciences, Open
University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
A slightly edited version of this article appeared in The Guardian (24
May, 2000) under the title, "Back to Nature"
Prince Charles embarrassed the government and the scientific
establishment with his Reith lecture broadcast on BBC Radio 4 last
Thursday. 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 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, myself 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 in it.
Nor do you 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 Bertrand Russell's view that that the
universe is "all spots and jumps" without continuity, coherence
or orderliness.
Prince Charles was 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 world wide
are successfully farmed in this way. 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. 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 that he ended 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 like 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.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Reader in Biology at the Open University is among a
group of more than 300 scientists from 39 countries who are calling for a
moratorium on environmental releases of GMOs and support for organic,
sustainable agriculture. For more details see www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
| |
|
