Interview with Walter Anderson

Introduction
Walter Anderson, president of the World Academy of Art and Science, has published 17 books on a range of subjects including political and cultural change, psychology, human evolution, Buddhism, biotechnology, and world politics. Many of these have been republished in foreign-language editions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. His best-known book, Reality Isn't What It Used To Be, has been in print for over 13 years and was honored as "one of the 100 most important books about the future." He serves on the editorial boards of The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Constructivism in the Social Sciences, and Futures. He writes occasional articles and reviews for these publications, and also for magazines such as Mother Jones, Reason, Psychotherapy Networker, and Time.

Welcome Walt.

Kip Winsett
In a recent communication with Richard Farson you mentioned that the thesis of the new book you’re currently working on, "is that human evolution is a long transition from the given to the made, in which we keep discovering that things we thought of as simply handed to us by nature or God are also in part the products of human creation. Currently the two facets of this I see us struggling with are (1) the recognition that we are now responsible for the course of biological evolution on Earth, and (2) the recognition that social institutions, religious doctrines and scientific findings are also in a sense constructed."

I’m especially intrigued by your 1 the recognition that we are now responsible for the course of biological evolution on Earth, particularly as you’ve characterized us as struggling with it. When you say "we", to whom are you referring? And how, precisely, are "we" responsible? particularly as you’ve characterized us as struggling with it. When you say "we", to whom are you referring? And how, precisely, are "we" responsible?

Walter Anderson
Kip, I've been writing about this for about 20 years. Nowadays instead of summarizing my own arguments I usually quote Paul Crutzen, the Dutch meteorologist (and Nobel laureate) who's proposing a new name for the present epoch: the Anthropocene. "It sems to us," he wrote recently, "more than appropriate to emphasize the central role of mankind in geology and ecology." So it appears that after 12,000 years the Holocene epoch -- which spanned all of recorded human history -- is coming to a close. Global warming is the indicator of this that gets the most attention, but it's far from the whole picture of human-induced modifications of ecosystems. Crutzen won his Nobel (along with Sherwood Rowland of UCI and somebody else whose name I can't remember just now) for work on atmospheric ozone depletion.

Richard Farson
Walt, I've been communicating with a biological and ocean scientist about global warming, and it is clear that just the technical stuff is so extraordinarily complex and interdependent, let alone the social, political and psychological sides of things, that it is difficult to imagine a code of responsibility that would cut across all of the aspects that humans touch. For example, there are a billion and a half cattle on earth, and even more hogs, sheep, goats, camels, buffalo, etc. and the flatulence from domesticated animals, not counting pets (there are 65 million dogs in the US) accounts for about 15% of the methane produced, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Humans are clearly responsible. Right? When does unending complexity transcend the assignment of responsibility? Or does it?

Walter Anderson
Dick, I don't quite grasp the meaning of your term "code of responsibility." I'm talking about a condition of responsibility -- and keep in mind that I am not just talking about climate change, which only happens to be the specific case that brings the larger picture into clearer focus. One of the things that is happening now, and another reason why I find the "Anthropocene" designation useful, is that the global environmental-monitoring system -- all the satellites and deep-ocean probes, all the birds and marine wildlife and migrating herds of land animals with transmitters attached to them so their movements can be tracked -- is growing exponentially. The planet is wired; it's a bionic biosphere. This is arguably the greatest engineering feat of all time, and nobody planned it. But it's there, and it means we are going to keep getting more information about ecological conditions and making decisions about them. And I don't see any central authority for doing that. It's yet another complex system.

Kip Winsett
The word responsibility seems to me to imply some level of duty or obligation. Are you using it in that sense? Are you advancing the proposition that humans have crossed some threshold such that they now have some moral or ethical duty to life itself that no other species has? You also seem to be saying that we even have the responsibility to get our act together as a species and collaborate within a hierarchical structure in order to properly maintain and control our effect upon the world.

Walter Anderson
Kip, my immediate answer to your question is yes, I am saying we (let's say the human species) have a duty and responsibility in relation to all life on Earth. But let me refine that a bit: "duty" and "responsibility" are moral terms, and which I am mainly trying to communicate is the empirical fact that the human species impacts all other life as well as other factors relevant to biological life -- water systems, land surfaces, the ocean, weather, etc. -- already. As Peter Raven (director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and a world-class biologist) puts it "We human beings are in fact managing the entire planet Earth, every square centimetre, right now, and the illusion that we are not, that any one of us can be exempt from this task, is extremely dangerous."

No, I am not proposing the creation of a hierarchical structure. A global system of environmental governance has been evolving rapidly over the past century, and it is extremely multicentric.

I'm not exactly proposing that we start taking responsibility, but trying to point out that we have been taking it as civilization has developed over the centuries, and that it wouldn't be a bad idea if we all knew it.

Jane Poynter
Hi Walt, what a wonderful topic! I lived in a tiny biosphere where the human population's effects on the entire system were quick and obvious - it was on a human scale - and thus each individual took responsibility for their actions. However, I wonder if the vast scale of our Earthly biosphere makes it more difficult for people to relate at a visceral level and thus take personal responsibility for their own actions. Do you think the current groundswell of "green" in this country is simply a short-term fashion statement, a passing trend whereby being environmental is cool? Or could it be the beginnings of a deeper change in America, where it's getting increasingly difficult to ignore our enormous effects on the biosphere?

Walter Anderson
Hello, Jane. I visited the Biosphere some years back, with a group of WBSI folks, not long before the Biospherians went in -- a fascinating experience that I remember well.

I think (and hope) Green thinking is here to stay, but I also think much of it will have to evolve beyond the somewhat simplistic anti-technological and anti-globalization stands that have tended to dominate.

I think it's possible for people to develop a global environmental awareness and sense of responsibility based on the kind of information now becoming available and a realistic gestalt of the whole biosphere (I mean Earth) that includes humanity and human impacts but not of course all the details. We don't know all the details of what goes on in our own bodies. (Probably would rather not.)

Richard Farson
The sensiblity about their environment that the Biospherians developed was at a level none of us will ever approach. But I must say that reading Jane's new book about her expereinces in that two year and twenty minute incarceration brings us as close as we are ever likely to get to the kind of awareness that you are talking about, Walt.

Think we humans will give up eating meat?

Kip Winsett
In terms of the book you're writing Walt, what next? Where is it that you're going with your observations?

Walter Anderson
Kip, where I'm going -- what I'm trying to do in this project -- is to draw a picture, sort of a map, of where the human species is at this point in its evolution. Think of it at something like one of those things you may see in a subway station that shows the city streets and the transit lines, and then has a big red dot or something that says: "You are here." The "here" is the point at which we discover that the evolution of life on Earth doesn't just happen to us: we also happen to it. Biological evolution has been modified and in a sense directed by human beings for thousands of years. What's happening now is that, with the growth of environmental concerns, with biotechnology, with global warming, we begin to find it out.

Mary Boone
Walt, I remember hearing years ago that our sense of mastery over the universe was part of the reason we've gotten into such a mess. The sense that we have "dominion" over animals, plants, etc. has, in the past, led us to abuse that "power" to a certain extent. My question to you is, how do we get people to understand that we have this "power" while simultaneously teaching them not to abuse it even further?

I noted in your comments that you were very careful in the wording. You said "the human species impacts all other life as well as other factors relevant to biological life -- water systems, land surfaces, the ocean, weather, etc. -- already. Then you quoted Peter Raven : "We human beings are in fact managing the entire planet Earth"

To me, there's a world of difference in the language here in the terms "impact" and "managing" -- I think the latter is a bit more treacherous in terms of the problem I posit above. Does this make sense to you?

Kip Winsett
The subway maps offer a view of where one winds up. Are you trying to pinpoint various future platforms, so to speak, based on where we are and where we've been?

I've really been thinking about your comments so far and the picture that is beginning to form is of humans as a species slowly becoming conscious of themselves as a species and of their interactive role both witin the species and with the rest of life. Sort of an awakening of awareness beyond one's immmediate individuality, social roles and cultural identity. Is this what you have in mind?

Walter Anderson
Mary, I understand your reservations -- especially as somebody who spent many years involved in environmental causes and held the same concerns about the "dominion over nature" kind of thinking. Over the years, without entirely abandoning those concerns, I came to realize that the extent of human involvement in all the life of the planet is so extensive -- de facto management, as Peter Raven pointed out -- that we need to accept it for what it is, recognize that accepting it is a major transition in human evolution, and get better at it.

I see no way that we can "back out" of this. We can over time reduce the size of human population, volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, etc., but those are acts of management too. I have visited many "nature preserves," wilderness areas, etc., and observed that they, too, are managed.

Walter Anderson
Kip, all metaphors are approximate, and I am not offering a set of maps telling where we might wind up. That would call for some serious scenario-construction work, which is an intellectual exercise that can't really be done well in this medium and time frame.

I agree completely with your second observation, about an awakening of awareness. It's a slow process. I tend to mark the beginning (somewhat arbitraliy) with the publication in 1864 of the book Man and Nature, or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action, by the American scholar George Perkins Marsh. It inspired the early "conservationist" movement in the U.S., and the scientific study of human modifications of the environment.

Kip Winsett
I find it difficult to assess whether or not "we" (meaning people in general) are becoming more aware or if there are simply more people who are aware simply because there are more people.

Why do you equate awakening awareness with the physical world?

Richard Farson
Implicit in the idea that humans are causing these changes is that we then can manage or alter them. But that is probably not the case. Even technology, which we clearly invent and manufacture, becomes, in Langdon Winner's term, autonomous. We could no more end the automobile or the computer or the television even if we wanted to, could we? Perhaps, Walt, you are not calling for our management, but simply our awareness.

Walter Anderson
Kip, I think one of the troubles we have with "awareness" is that, once we become aware of something, we no longer notice it. The discovery of the world that followed from the age of exploration, mapmaking, etc., was a powerful, mindblowing experience to people at the time. So was the discovery, that went with it, that the whole world was populated by human beings.

Another discovery, the one we associate with Darwin and evolution, was that we are a part of, and literally related to, all biological life. Some people are still fighting that one.

Walter Anderson
On the contrary, Dick, we cannot not manage them, and we cannot not alter them. What I am calling for is an awareness of management -- which also requires a clear understanding of how management happens. To manage complex nonlinear systems, of which we are a part, is much different from operating a toaster. Especially when our management is itself complex -- some people pollute the water, other people clean it up. People are managing the evolution of animals all over the world, and it becomes political; some people want to preserve the florida panthers, and others want to get rid of them.

Richard Farson
I have trouble with my toaster.

Kip Winsett
In your # 23 you say once we become aware of something, we no longer notice it.

In your 24 you say What I am calling for is an awareness of management -- which also requires a clear understanding of how management happens

Why bother?

Some people want to dialog about how to manage things, some people want to bully others to behave in a certain way, some want to coerce through law, some tell stories to elicit behaviors. All of these are ways in which people "manage" the complex system of life. All of those methods have 'evolved' in their complexity over the millennia as the complexity of our lives "appear" to us to have evolved.

To a large extent, however, the appearance of increased complexity is an illusion that is a product of our own aging. The world apperas much more complex to me than it does to my 27 year old son, and even more complex than to my 12 year old son. The more aware we are, the more we notice subtle nuance and interconnection.

Toffler, in his book "Future Shock", written some decades ago, described life as continually accelerating (a fact which astrophysicists have confirmed about the structure of the physical universe itself).

In the recent and fairly popular book "Blink", Malcolm Gladwell suggests that there are an immediate 2 seconds in which humans can actually make competent decisions about themselves, the world, and the relationship between the two.

All of this is by way of questioning whether or not awareness at the level you seem to be addressing is useful to us in any immediate sense - or for that matter with respect to making sound decisions about the near or far future.

Perhaps it's more useful for examination of the past.

Walter Anderson
Kip, a state of indifference to how the various ecosystems and life-support systems in the world are actually working is okay as long as they work satisfactorily. I'm not an environmental alarmist -- don't even consider myself an environmentalist any more, in fact -- but I think there's persuasive evidence that we are in for some serious complications, and I don't think people are likely to be prepared to deal with them. People didn't make competent 2-second decisions about what to do in New Orleans a year ago, they're not making competent decisions now about how to deal with AIDS in most of the world, and our government is not making competent decisions now about the threat of global climate change.

Richard Farson
I suppose that it can be argued that there is no difference between the political parties, but one distinction that should be made is that the Democratic Party, or at least the Democratic intelligencia, is better able to embrace the co-existence of opposites, deal in subtle nuances, and handle complexity better--all fundamental aspects of wisdom. Which means that the issues you want us to deal with as a government, these ecological and global issues, are more likely to be dealt with effectively by a Democratic government.

What, there are some who would disagree?

Kip Winsett
Walt, quite right "People didn't make competent 2-second decisions about what to do in New Orleans a year ago," However, here we are a year later and there's been no improvement in the decision making with respect to new Orleans.

People are certainly aware of the many problems. There is ample (on paper) management experience yet New Orelans looks likely to become not much more than a memory.

OK, now, that's not entirely true, there will be some changes made to policy, disaster preparation, etc. but nothing of any magnitude.

We have all of the components available to manage more effectively all aspects of our very complex social life, and there is ample awareness that things could be better - but little is happening. Are we poised on a cusp?

Walter Anderson
It may be that the wisest decision to make regarding New Orleans would be to say it is not a safe place to build a city and get the hell out. That would take a lot more guts you are likely to find in any democratic government, certainly this one. Also it would take a high degree of certainty that New Orleans is in real danger of being hit again, and we don't have that kind of predictive capability -- yet. Another response would be to learn how to control the weather, at least to some degree. I wouldn't rule that (or anything else) out as a future scenario, but I wouldn't buy property along the levees on that expectation. Yet another response would be to invest huge amounts of money and effort, as the Dutch have, to maintain an artificial environment -- that is, build levees of sufficient strength to resist any storm that might conceivably occur.

There are all kinds of artificial environments, of course, including most of California. Read the book Cadillac Desert sometime, if you haven't already.

Douglas Strain
Dear Walt,

I find it very discouraging to take the position that we do not make wise decisions

because we don't have the "guts". I thought wise decisions usually resulted from

having the facts and the "brains" to use them. I was glad to see that you would not "buy property along the levees". Is that because you don't have the "guts" or because you do have some facts and some "brains"?

Walter Anderson
Doug, fair question -- I was indirectly responding to Dick's question about democracy as the best system for making decisions of environmental management. It's extremely difficult in a democratic system to make decisions that you know are unpopular and that may lose elections for you or members of your party. I'll take democracy anyway, but its failures in that regard, past and present, are manifold. As for buying property along the levees, I wouldn't do it -- not exactly because I have the facts, but because I don't have them, that is, any reason for feeling moderately secure that it would be a sensible place to settle down.

Kip Winsett
This week has gone by so fast Walt, thanks for sharing with us the subject of your book.