Thinking Beyond Science

It is an archetypal pattern in collective human behavior. First there is an ‘anticipation stage, where pressure builds up in a society to make a decisive break with the past. When this new energy finds a focus and the break is made, this leads on to a ‘dream stage, where for a while it seems the liberating new make-believe is carrying all before it. But precisely because this make-believe knows no limits, it leads to a ‘frustration stage where it is driven to push on even further in pursuit of that elusive goal, in ways even more detached from the real world.

By now, uncomfortable contradictions are beginning to intrude, until the ever more extreme groupthink brings about a ‘nightmare stage, where the supposedly idealistic vision which originally inspired it has been turned completely on its head. This eventually leads to some sort of ‘collision with reality, where the groupthink is brought face to face with the unforeseen consequences of where it has all been leading. We shall be seeing different examples of this sequence – in particular (despite the joking claim that anyone who claims to remember the Sixties can’t have been there) in how the events of that period unfolded.

The belief that the earth faces an unprecedented threat from human-induced climate change – such as currently to constitute a ‘climate emergency – has been one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of either science or politics. It has led scientists and politicians to contemplate nothing less than a complete revolution in the way mankind sources the energy required to keep modern industrial civilization functioning, by phasing out the fossil fuels on which that civilization has been built.

How is it that, of all the countless millions of species to have existed, the evolutionary process eventually produced just one which displays those two absolutely crucial but seemingly contradictory attributes that mark it out from every other form of life? On one hand Sophocles was able to marvel at the mental ability so immeasurably superior to that of any other animal that it enabled human beings to become ‘masters of the ageless earth? On the other hand, this had brought with it that ‘curse’ which enabled them to be drawn into uniquely evil ways, leading them to behave to one another and the world around them worse than any other animal.

To put this into more modern terms, on one hand they had developed a brain much larger than that of any other animal, giving them a wholly new form of higher consciousness and a much greater understanding of the world around them, enabling them to communicate through language and to create all the wonders of human civilization. On the other, this had unleashed all those uniquely damaging impulses which would eventually give them the power to destroy all life on earth. Furthermore, in terms of geological time this all happened so quickly that it could not possibly have been brought about just by the cumulative effect of an infinite succession of natural variations and mutations.

Every other species, in its struggle to survive, lives its life in unthinking obedience to natural instinct. It is that which dictates everything it does, from how it acquires its food to how it relates to other members of its own species. It also dictates how it plays its part in the miraculously complex interdependence of the rest of nature, so that every species depends for its survival on countless others. Above all, instinct dictates how each species complies with that supreme underlying biological one imperative in all forms of life: the need to reproduce itself, and thus to ensure the continuance of its own species.

As individuals human beings are to a great extent just as subject to the dictates of instinct as any other animal. Instinct tells them that they need to eat, to sleep, to form social groups and much else, just as instinct gives them a sex drive. But the difference arises in the unique extent to which human beings have broken free from that all-embracing instinctive framework. In crucial respects, when it comes to the ways in which they act out those instincts, they can vary how they choose to.

Every other animal knows only one way to acquire its food. But the further human beings have moved from a state of nature, the more they have learned a whole range of different means, from planting seeds in the ground to buying ready meals at a supermarket. When they form social groups, these may be as wildly different as a society ruled by a Communist dictatorship and a local golf club. When it comes to making a home for shelter and to protect their young, ‘foxes have holes, as the saying goes, ‘and the birds of the air have nests? But every blackbird’s nest looks much like another, because its design is dictated by instinct. The structures human beings call home, however, can take on any form, from a mud hut to Versailles, from an igloo to a 27-storey tower block.

And a crucial consequence is that humans have the capacity, individually and collectively, to feel and to act egocentrically. It would be absurd to speak of an egocentric fish or a selfish bee.

But human beings can act entirely selfishly, cutting themselves off from everything and everyone outside themselves. And this gives rise to all those anti-social forms of behaviour which mark them out from all other species. They can engage in ruthless competition with one another for entirely selfish ends. They can experience jealousy and envy. They can become obsessed by irrational hatreds and resentments. They can get drawn into meaningless arguments with other people who are just as convinced that they are right. They can lie, cheat and deceive one another, and indeed themselves. They can commit every kind of crime, engage in senseless cruelty and irrational acts of violence. They can wage wars with one another. And they can seek sexual gratification in ways wholly unconnected with the purpose for which nature has given them a sex drive. And all this has introduced into human life a unique element of instability.

Throughout history no human achievements have been more significant than those inspired by the wish to resolve that crucial split in human nature. This is why every society has consciously devised different ways to control and transcend all those egotistical impulses which are so disruptive: most obviously, codes of moral behaviour, and political systems and frameworks of law to promote and maintain social order.

In a deeper way, it is this desire of human beings to experience a sense of connection between their own inner life and others’ and with the world outside themselves, which has led them to every kind of artistic expression. They have found meaning in creating the patterns of music, as they join together in singing and dancing; they have created beautiful forms and images in paintings and sculptures, in jewels and clothes and every kind of decoration, in the designs of their buildings, in the rhythms and magic of poetry.

Conclusion 

Technically, the ‘blind spot describes the small portion of the visual field of each eye that corresponds to the position of the optic disc (also known as the optic nerve head) within the retina. As there are no photoreceptors (i.e., rods or cones) in the optic disc, there is no image detection in this area. Necessarily, blind people (the subject of ‘ableist concern) cannot, by definition, have blind spots. Only sighted people can experience these phenomena.

Source : Groupthink: A Study in Self Delusion by Christopher Booker

Goodreads : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40046148-groupthink

Read Previous Article : https://thinkingbeyondscience.in/2024/11/26/the-divide-of-belief-and-identity-groupthink-moral-superiority-and-the-crisis-of-balance-in-modern-society/