Bahá’í World/Volume 33/World Watch: Progress

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 33

Next→

[Page 201]

World Watch

Ann Boyle: [00/65 at some current views of the opportunities and

challenge: presented 5} :Drogress. ”

ebster’s dictionary defines “progress” as movement nearer

to some aim, or a supposed gradual advancement 0r im-

provement in the condition of mankind, especially from a scientific or material standpoint. The latter half of the twentieth century, in particular, has seen unprecedented advances in science and technology, the fruits of Which have been diffused throughout the world. The increase in material wealth that this has brought to the First World is generally seen as the benchmark of progress, and with the expansion ofglobal markets and communications networks, that materialistic concept has been widely promoted through the media, business and technology sectors, and social and economic development theories and initiatives. People everywhere now desire something akin to the material comfort they see in Western mov— ies and television shows; allied to this are (to a greater or lesser degree) expectations connected to work, wages, education, living standards, democratic governance, and human rights. As one writer has observed, “progress in the Western sense has become a virtually universal aspiration”‘—even though its achievement may still be a distant dream for the vast majority of the world’s peoples. But is it, in fact, an entirely desirable or sustainable aspiration, or do we

ZOI

[Page 202]202 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

perhaps need to reconsider our View of progress and the criteria we use to measure it.>

First, the good news. In 7776 Writ! Ix Flat: A Briesz'story 0f the Twenty-first Century, Thomas L. Friedman posits that a recent technological advance, the development of “a global, Web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration—the sharing of knowledge and work—in real time, without regard to geography, distance, or, in the near future, even language,” is one of the biggest steps forward that humanity has ever made. And while he admits that it is not yet accessible to everyone, he argues that “it is open today to more people in more places on more days in more ways than anything like it ever before in the history of the world.”2 This leveling of the playing field (or “flattening of the world”) through technology provides humanity with greater opportunities than it has ever had before—and could even promote peace. Accord— ing to Friedman’s slightly tongue-in-cheek “Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention,” no two countries that are part of a just-in—time global supply chain for any large corporation would ever want to wage war because it would entail such serious disruption to their economic well—being in a competitive, interdependent world.3 In short, he argues, “we are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single global network, which—if politics and terrorism do not get in the way—could usher in an amazing era of prosperity and innovation.”4

Gregg Easterbrook also sounds a positive note in his recent book The Progress Paradox—even though, as the volumes subtitle How Lifi Gets Better While People Feel Worse suggests, progress has not necessarily made us happier. But while we may think things are getting worse (a perception promoted in the media), Easterbrook contends that conditions for many people are getting much better. He admits that “more than a billion people live on $1 a day,” but, he continues, “In 1975, 1.6 billion people lived at what the United Nations classifies as ‘medium development,> meaning with reason— ably decent living standards, education, and health care. Today 3.5 billion people do—a stunning increase in the sheer number of human beings Who are not destitute.” He also cites a long list of other signs of progress: the spread of democracy in the developing world, a rise in global adult literacy from 47 percent in 1970 to the

[Page 203]WORLD WATCH 203

current 73 percent, the big increase in school enrollment for girls, the spread of modern communications, the decline of infant mortality, a rise in life expectancy, a drop in the percentage of people who ate malnourished, nuclear disarmament, a decrease in the number of armed conflicts, and lower annual global military spending.5

In contrast to Friedman’s and Easterbrook’s largely upbeat per- spectives, however, a spate of recent publications have sounded the alarm about current notions of “progress” and humanity’s prospects if we continue to follow our current path. Ronald Wright’s A 5/70” History ofProgress, Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, and Jane Jacobs’ Dark Age Ahead, for example, all offer somber warnings.

Wright’s and Diamond’s discussions are organized largely around threats to the environment. In A 5/70” Hixtory ofProgress, Wright separates the threats into three categories developed by archaeolo— gist Joseph Taintet in his analysis of past societal collapses.6 The first category, the Runaway Train, portrays a catastrophic course from which society cannot depart; in Wright’s view, today’s upsurge in population and pollution, the acceleration of technology, and con— centration of wealth and power are our society’s “linked runaway trains.”7 The second category, the Dinosaur, describes a government or rulers that cannot evolve to meet changing needs and conditions; in our world, “the dinosaur factor” is evident in vested interests’ opposition to change and “inertia at all social levels” in the face of current crises.8 The third category, the House of Cards, denotes the society’s weak infrastructure, contributing to its rapid and complete demise? Wright notes that as we place higher and higher demands on our environment and ecosystems, we are becoming more and more vulnerable to “natural fluctuations” such as crop failures caused by increasing weather instability (droughts, Hoods, fires, and hur— ricanes), pollution surges, and disease.10 Progress, then, has created grave problems that need our full attention and commitment, or we stand in danger of becoming yet another cautionary example on the long list of failed societies.

In his 1996 Pulitzer Prize-winning book Gum, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond looked at environmental factors that contributed to the rise of certain civilizations; in 2005, with Colhpse, he has turned to their demise. Are there lessons we can learn, he asks, about what

[Page 204]204 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

makes a society vulnerable, about ways to avoid committing “eco- cide,” about recognizing indicators of approaching collapse, and about devising effective measures to stave it of . ‘1

Damage to the environment and the ways in Which a society deals with its environmental problems, climate change, and the presence of friendly or hostile neighbors are all common factors in the survival or collapse of past societies, says Diamond;12 we would be wise to give them careful consideration. And attached to these larger elements are 12 more specific, linked problems, which have all arisen because of our success as a society—our progress—and must be addressed if we are to avoid environmental catastrophe today: the destruction of natural habitats (or their conversion to man—made habitats); unsustainable or mismanaged wild food stocks (especially fish); the loss of species and biodiversity; the loss of arable land through ero— sion; the dwindling of affordable fossil fuel sources; the depletion of fresh water sources; the overuse of earth’s limited photosynthetic capacity for human purposes, to the detriment of natural growth; the release of toxins into the natural environment; threats posed by the introduction or inadvertent transfer of alien species; problems associated with global warming; the demand of an increasing hu— man population on natural resources; and the effects of high—impact living on the environment.13

The urgency of our situation is evident when we consider the following facts: people in the First World consume 32 times more resources and generate 32 times more waste than people in the Third World, and “if the people of China alone achieved a First World living standard while everyone else’s living standard remained con— stant, that would double our human impact on the world.”14 Of course, people in the Third World want to live like people in the First World, and they are encouraged in this hope by First World and United Nations development agencies; yet, Diamond says, the prospect is unsustainable. In fact, the First World itself cannot continue much longer on the same course, since it is rapidly using up both its own resources and those from the Third World. “What will happen,” Diamond asks, “when it finally dawns on all those people in the Third World that current First World standards are unreachable for them, and that the First World refuses to abandon those standards for itself?”15

[Page 205]WORLD WATCH 205

The challenges are serious but not insurmountable. In some ways, Diamond writes, we are at lower risk than past societies, thanks to the positive effects of technology, globalization, modern medicine, and our wider knowledge about past and other modern societies. On the other hand, the “unintended destructive effects” of that same technology, our heightened interdependence because of globalization, our dependence on modern medicine, and our huge population all serve to increase our risk.‘6

In her recent book Dark AgeAbazd, renowned urban anthropolo— gist Jane Jacobs focuses on problems facing contemporary North American society through the lens of culture rather than environ— ment. “We show signs,” she warns, “of rushing headlong into a Dark Age”—“a culture’s dead end,”17 as five essential “pillars” of culture are being weakened to the point of irrelevance.

The first pillar, family and community, has been undermined by factors such as the disproportion between housing costs and me— dian income and by automobile culture.18 The second pillar, higher education, now focuses on “credentialing” rather than “educating” students—gearing degree programs to lead to high-paying jobs and leaving society short—changed, since “A vigorous culture capable of making corrective, stabilizing changes depends heavily on its edu— cated people, and especially upon their critical capacities and depth of understanding.”19 Third, in the fields ofscience and science—based technology, we have sloppy scientific practices even while we claim to venerate science almost to the point ofworship, and in the mod- ern interconnected world, the consequences of such bad science may be “devastating.”20 Fourth, the disappearance of subsidiarity (“the principle that government works best—most responsibly and responsively—when it is closest to the people it serves and the needs it addresses”) and fiscal accountability (“the principle that institu- tions collecting and disbursing taxes work most responsibly when they are transparent to those providing the money”) has seriously reduced the effectiveness of government at all levels.21 And fifth, the lack of self—policing in learned professions such as accounting has contributed to a culture of greed and dishonesty in the high echelons of North American business, where “a presentable image makes substance immaterial.”22

[Page 206]206 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

Jacobs’ concerns relate to the undermining of integrity in the human support networks that form the basis of society, in educa— tion that nurtures thoughtful citizens who can advance society, in scientific practice that should protect our physical well—being, in governance that should be responsible and accountable to those who elect it, and in the corporate world that should nurture honest leaders. Absent such integrity, problems such as “racism, ptofligate environmental destruction, crime, voters’ distrust of politicians and thus low turnouts for elections, and the enlarging gulf between rich and poor along with attrition of the middle class”—which she sees as symptoms of the decay—assume greater and greater ascendancy.23

Easterbrook also attributes rampant dishonesty and bad charac— ter in business leaders in America to our intense pursuit of material progress, while other negative consequences include the lack of social justice associated with poverty, near-povetty, and the lack of universal health care.24

One final point about integrity. Francis Fukuyama has devoted an entire volume to a discussion of trust as a necessary element in successful relations—whether economic or social, at the local, na- tional, or international level. His focus is social capital, “a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society” and is “created and transmitted through cultural mechanisms like religion, tradition, or historical habit.” In communities that share ethical values, social capital arises from mutual trust arising from “prior moral consen— sus” rather than “a rational investment decision.”25 Furthermore, Fukuyama argues, such social capital has an impact on the economy: “If people who have to work together in an enterprise trust one an- other because they are all operating according to a common set of ethical norms, doing business costs less.”26 Conversely, if there is no trust in society, doing business costs more, since relationships must be governed by formal, enforced regulations. Thus, values directly affect the cost and pace of “progress.”

Thomas Friedman, while largely focusing on the opportuni— ties brought by technological advances, identifies another kind of threat inherent in our interconnected world, namely that technology “superempowers” both innovators and those bent towards more de— structive ends,” and creates instability by increasing the gap between

[Page 207]WORLD WATCH 207

the haves and the have-nots.28 How can we deal effectively with these threats? His response is as much a warning as an answer:

We need to think more seriously than ever about how we encour— age people to focus on productive outcomes that advance and unite civilization—peaccful imaginations that seek to “minimize alienation and celebrate interdependence rather than self-suffi— ciency, inclusion rather than exclusion,” openness, opportunity, and hope rather than limits, suspicion, and grievance.29

As he puts it, “there may be nothing more dangerous today than a failed state with broadband capability.”30

Another somber note is sounded by Ronald Wright, who con- cludes A Short History ofProgress with the warning:

Things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the big— gest mistakes. The Io,ooo—year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don’t do, now. The reform that is needed is not anti-capitalist, anti—American, or even deep environmentalist; it is simply the transition from short-term to long-term thinking. From recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle.31

And while Jared Diamond is similarly concerned, his tone is cautiously optimistic at the conclusion of Collapse, where he argues that since we ourselves have created the problems we face with the environment, we also control our handling of them. In that connec- tion, we face two crucial types of choices. Like Wright, Diamond contends that the first is “the courage to practice long—term thinking, and to make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible but before they have reached crisis proportions.”32 The second is “the courage to make painful decisions about values”33—to ask which of our traditional values are suited to this new situation and which should be discarded or changed. For example, we need to reassess the extent to which we will be able to retain the values and standards of the First World’s consumer society. Diamond sees hope in the expanding diffusion of environmental awareness and in the opportunities we have, because of our interconnectedness, to learn from each other’s mistakes before it is too late.34

[Page 208]208 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

As we have noted, Jane Jacobs’ worries about where we are headed also stem from values-related concerns. She concludes her book with the following caution:

History has repeatedly demonstrated that empires seldom seem to retain sufficient cultural self-awareness to prevent them from overreaching and overgrasping . . . a society must be self—aware. Any culture that jettisons the values that have given it com- petence, adaptability, and identity becomes weak and hollow. A culture can avoid that hazard only by tenaciously retaining the underlying values responsible for the culture’s nature and success. That is a framework into which adaptations must be assimilated.35

Thomas Friedman would agree. While he is a huge booster of global- ization and the interconnectedness it brings, he also admits that “a flat, frictionless world” can “pose a threat to the distinctive places and communities that give us our bearings, that locate us in the world.” In other words, values and culture may be in jeopardy:

Some obstacles to a frictionless global market are truly sources of waste and lost opportunities. But some of these inefficiencies are institutions, habits, cultures, and traditions that people cherish precisely because they reflect nonmarket values like social cohe— sion, religious faith, and national pride. If global markets and new communications technologies flatten those differences, we may lose something important. That is why the debate about capitalism has been, from the very beginning, about which fric— tions, barriers, and boundaries are mere sources of waste and inefficiency, and which are sources of identity and belonging that we should try to protect.36

Again, long—term thinking is necessary, and careful, deliberate consideration needs to be given to which “inefficiencies”—or val- ues—are too important to allow to be discarded, either deliberately or inadvertently, in the name of “progress.” In the introduction to Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, Lawrence E. Harrison writes, “Integrating value and attitude change into develop- ment policies, planning, and programming is . . . a promising way to assure that, in the next fifty years, the world does not relive the

[Page 209]W0 RLD WATCH 209

poverty and injustice that most poor countries, and underachieving ethnic groups, have been mired in during the past half century.”37 However, Harrison notes, “the extent to which cultural change should be integrated into the conceptualizing, strategizing, plan— ning, and programming of political and economic development” is highly controversial—especially when proposals for such changes are initiated by the First \World.38

Cultural relativists argue that “each culture defines its own goals and ethics, which cannot be evaluated against the goals and ethics of another culture”39 and fear that promoting value changes will obliter— ate cultural diversity. In response to such objections, Harrison points out that, in fact, 50 years of steadily improving global communica— tions have ensured that Western notions of progress have spread all over the planet, and furthermore, it is patronizing to believe that the concept of progress as encompassing “a longer, healthier, less burdensome, more fulfilling life” is not found in many cultures.

The controversy highlights the challenge of finding the balance between standing aside and doing nothing to assist a society to ad- vance and the temptation to exercise excessive, paternalistic control over its development. Surely the solution to the dilemma is to work with a society to help it clarify its own values in light of its current situation, to chart its own course of progress, and to provide desired assistance without any strings attached.

While scientific, technological, and other material advancements are obvious fruits of progress, it is clear that the “progress” we see around us carries great threat as well as great promise—and that is perhaps its nature. Gregg Easterbrook refers to the “unsettled character” of progress: even though “we’d like to think progress causes problems to be solved in a final sense,” more often we find that “for each problem solved, a new one crops up.”40 Because the problems in our modern world are greater in scope and therefore potentially much more dangerous than those in previous eras, given our interdependence, we need to think carefully about the kind of “progress” we pursue.

Rather than looking at progress purely from an economic vantage point, some experts are attempting to develop measurements based on less tangible but no less important factors that are not found in the GDP (Gross Domestic Product)—the international standard of

[Page 210]210 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

progress and achievement. Some of these alternative efforts have incorporated the concept of social capital as a measure of progress. One index, called the Measure of Domestic Progress (MDP), “adjusts personal consumer expenditure to account for a variety of economic, environmental, and social factors not included in the GDP.” It “adds in the benefits of household labor, accounts for income inequality, subtracts social costs (such as crime, congestion, family breakdown) and environmental costs (such as air pollution, resource depletion, and the ‘hidden’ costs of climate change) and makes adjustments for long term investment and economic sustainability.”41 While critics object that these sorts of indices are of limited use because intangibles cannot be reliably quantified, surely their use in addition to purely economic indices is helpful in painting a more complete picture of society’s real progress, including social and environmental indicators.42

Such measures accord with Gregg Easterbrook’s assessment that humanity must move beyond the purely material measures of prog- ress that have preoccupied us. In earlier stages ofhistory, we assigned top priority to material security, comfort, and health, and second place to “the great questions of meaning.”43 Now, however, we have arrived at a point where we want both:

[S]ociety is undergoing a fundamental shift from “material want” to “meaning want,” with ever larger numbers of people reason— ably secure in terms of living standards, but feeling they lack significance in their lives. A transition from “material want” to “meaning want” is not a prediction that men and women will cease being materialistic; no social indicator points to such a possibility. It is a prediction that ever more millions will expect both pleasant living standards and a broad sense that their lives possess purpose.44

Easterbrook sees this shift as “progress on an historically unprec- edented scale—involving hundreds of millions of people” and a transition that “may eventually be recognized as a principal cultural development of our age.”45

While Lawrence Harrison admits that “an end to poverty is clearly one of the universal goals, and that inevitably means higher levels of consumption,” he does not wish to limit the definition of

[Page 211]WORLD WATCH 211

progress to “the affluent consumer society.” Rather, he looks to the Universal Declaration of Human Ri hts for broader arameters: g

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person . . . human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief . . . All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimi— nation to equal protection . . . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well—being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services . . . Everyone has the right to

education.46

In Harrison’s View, then, we can best measure progress by the extent to which people enjoy the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights. This, in turn, leads more and more people not only towards material progress but also towards more meaningful lives, in which we are better able to address “big” questions such as these: What does it signify, to exercise stewardship over the earth? How do we foster wise, moral leadership in our societies—whether in governance, academic life, or business? How do we educate our brightest youth so that they think effectively about and become committed to addressing the broader questions of society rather than simply becoming trained for lucrative jobs? How can we learn to live together on this planet as one people—one human family—so that everyone feels justly treated? How do we balance the pursuit of material well-being with that of social justice?

Religion would seem to be a force that might help us answer such questions. Yet religion has often been identified as a force that impedes progress, especially when religious feelings isolate follow— ers from humanity as a whole. Friedman, for example, cautions, “Religions are the smelters and founders of imagination. The more any religion’s imagination—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Bud- dhist—is shaped in an isolated bubble, or in a dark cave, the more its imagination is likely to sail off in dangerous directions.”47 And Diamond writes, “Religious values tend to be especially deeply held and hence frequent causes of disastrous behavior.”48

[Page 212]212 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

The world-govetning council of the Baha’i Faith, the Universal House of Justice, would agree. In a letter to the world’s religious leaders in 2002, it wrote:

[R]eligious institutions have too often been the chief agents in discouraging exploration of reality and the exercise ofthose intel- lectual faculties that distinguish humankind. Denunciations of materialism or terrorism are of no real assistance in coping with the contemporary moral crisis if they do not begin by addressing candidly the failure of responsibility that has left believing masses exposed and vulnerable to these influences.49

Yet at the same time, the Baha’i writings refer to religion as “the light of the world” and state Clearly that human happiness, achieve- ment, and the progress of society come from obedience to divine law.50 Reaching “to the roots of motivation,” says the Universal House of Justice, religion is “the seminal force in the civilizing of human nature,” and “is also capable of profoundly influencing the structure of social relationships. Indeed, it would be difficult to think of any fundamental advance in civilization that did not derive its moral thrust from this perennial source.”51

The concept of progressive revelation, which lies at the heart of the Baha’i Faith, teaches that the Founders of all the world’s great religions have been sent by God at different points in human history to guide us towards the next stage of our social as well as our spiritual development. In this day, Bahé’i’s regard the principle ofjustice—one of their religion’s central tenets—as “the practical expression of aware- ness that, in the achievement of human progress, the interests of the individual and those of society are inextricably linked.”52

Given such teachings, Fukuyama’s concept of social capital and its importance in relationships resonates strongly with Baha’is. As the Baha’i International Community has stated:

Social advancement . . . arises from the ideals and shared beliefs that weld society together. Meaningful social change results as much from the development of qualities and attitudes that foster constructive patterns of human interaction as from the acquisition of technical capacities. True prosperity—a well-being founded on peace, cooperation, altruism, dignity, tectitude of

[Page 213]WORLD WATCH 213

conduct, and justice—flows from the light of spiritual awareness and virtue as well as from material discovery and progress.53

Indeed, while Baha’is applaud the scientific, technological, and material advances that have been made throughout the past century, they also share many of the concerns voiced by Diamond, Wright, Jacobs, Friedman, and Easterbrook, recognizing in progress as it is currently defined a force capable of both great good and great destruction. As ‘Abdu’l—Baha observed:

[When thou lookest at the orderly pattern of kingdoms, cities and villages, with the attractiveness of their adornments, the freshness of their natural resources, the refinement of their appli- ances, the ease of their means of travel, the extent of knowledge available about the world of nature, the great inventions, the colossal enterprises, the noble discoveries and scientific researches, thou wouldst conclude that civilization conduceth to the happi— ness and the progress of the human world. Yet shouldst thou turn thine eye to the discovery of destructive and infernal machines, to the development of forces of demolition and the invention of fiery implements, which uproot the tree of life, it would become evident and manifest unto thee that Civilization is con— joined with barbarism. Progress and barbarism go hand in hand, unless material civilization be confirmed by Divine Guidance, by the revelations of the All—Merciful and by godly virtues, and be reinforced by spiritual conduct, by the ideals of the Kingdom and by the outpourings of the Realm of Might.54

For humanity to achieve true prosperity and progress, Baha’i’s believe, all peoples must have the opportunity to develop their capability “to participate in the generation and application ofknowl— edge,” so that “all of the earth’s inhabitants [can] approach on an equal basis the processes of science and technology which are their common birthright.” And like Friedman, Baha’is see technology as contributing to this forward movement. As the Baha’i International Community has written, “the accelerating revolution in communica— tion technologies now brings information and training Within reach of vast numbers of people around the globe, wherever they may be, whatever their cultural backgrounds.”55

[Page 214]214 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

In line with its view that both spiritual and material advance— ment are necessary for the achievement of genuine well-being, the Baha’i community supports efforts to re—evaluate the indices used to measure progress, particularly in development work. While recogniz— ing the usefulness of accepted indicators in monitoring and shaping progress, Bahé’r’s see the need “to extend the boundaries of what is valued and measured, to make development indicators more reflec— tive of what actually constitutes individual and community progress” including “human capital, social capital, culture, social integration, and community well—being.”56 As the Baha’i International Commu- nity writes, such indicators should be “based on universal principles which are essential to the development of the human spirit and therefore, to individual and collective progress” and should “emerge from a Vision of development in which material progress serves as a vehicle for spiritual and cultural advancement.”57

Since numerous global action plans generated at recent United Nations summits mention governmental commitment to spiritual as well as social and economic development, the Baha’i community feels that it is timely to explore, with other religions and development agencies, the elaboration of nonmaterial indicators to measure human progress. In that connection, the Baha’i International Community has put forward five principles that could serve as a foundation for spiritually based indicators: unity in diversity, equity and justice, equality of the sexes, trustworthiness and moral leadership, and independent investigation of truth (freedom of conscience, thought, and religion).58 Indicators based on those principles could then be developed to address policy areas such as economic development; education; environmental stewardship; meeting basic needs in food, nutrition, health, and shelter; and governance and participation.59

While efforts to identify and use spiritual indicators of devel— opment are geared to society as a whole, Gregg Easterbrook also stresses the practical value of individuals’ acquisition of spiritual qualities such as forgiveness and gratitude. Of the former, he says,

Even when someone wrongs you, feeling fury or experiencing hate only causes your life to descend into unhappiness and resent— ment. Then you are the one who suffers, not the person you’re angry at. Forgiving, on the other hand, lifts the burden. Perhaps when Buddha, Jesus, Baha’u’llah, and other great spiritual figures

[Page 215]WORLD WATCH 215

taught followers to forgive those who sin against them, this wasn’t only the pronouncement of holy philosophy—they were giving practical down—to—earth life advice.60

And of gratitude, Easterbrook writes, “Grateful people tend to suffer less anxiety about status or the accumulation of material possessions. Partly because of this, they are more likely to describe themselves as happy or satisfied in life.”61 But beyond their benefit to individuals, he concludes, such qualities also profit humanity as a whole:

Spiritual awareness generally links, in research, to increased chance of happiness, lower stress, and less depression. In turn, the more people who appreciate the interconnectedness of all life, the greater the chance that society as a whole will be :1 element place.62

Having glanced at a number of perspectives on issues connected to progress, we come again to the question: What prospects lie be- fore us? Will society become more clement, more populated with forgiving, grateful, happy, less stressed people? Will we moderate our expectations of material wealth to allow for a more equal distribution of resources? Will the “flattening of the world” usher in the “amazing era of prosperity and innovation,” as Thomas Friedman predicts, or will our society collapse from the weight of our overconsumption and resource depletion, as Ronald Wright and Jared Diamond fear? The answers are as yet unclear, but, as Diamond writes,

[B]ecause we are rapidly advancing along this non—sustainable course, the world’s environmental problems will get resolved, in one way or another, within the lifetimes of the children and young adults alive today. The only question is whether they will become resolved in pleasant ways of our own choice, or in unpleasant ways not of our choice, such as warfare, genocide, starvation, disease epidemics, and collapses of societies.63

And Ronald Wright echoes the point:

We have the tools and the means to share resources, clean up pol— lution, dispense basic health care and birth control, set economic limits in line with natural ones. If we don’t do these things now,

[Page 216]216 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

while we prosper, we will never be able to do them when times get hard. Our fate will twist out of our hands. And this new century will not grow very old before we enter an age of chaos and collapse that will dwarf all the dark ages in our past.64

These two predictions resonate with Baha’i’s, who recall a similar observation made in 1985 by the Universal House of Justice in a statement titled T/Je Promise of World Peace. It said:

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behavior, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this criti— cal juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be uncon- scionably irresponsible.65

To address the problems we face and provide us with the impetus to move forward in a wise manner, we need a compelling Vision. But where can such a vision be found today? Some may look to the globalization movement, but Friedman condemns its failure “to play any constructive role in shaping the global debate on how we globalize, precisely when such a role has become even more impor— tant as the world has gotten flatter.” And while globalization is not going away, it does need to become “more compassionate, fair, and compatible with human dignity.” In short, says Friedman, “There is a real role today for a movement that could advance the agenda of how we globalize—not whether we globalize.”66

Baha’fs see the Baha’i Faith as such a movement, with teachings and principles appropriate to this interconnected world. As Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, wrote in 1931:

Surely the world, contracted and transformed into a single highly complex organism by the marvellous progress achieved in the realm of physical science, by the world—wide expansion of commerce and industry, and struggling, under the pressure of world economic forces, amidst the pitfalls of a materialistic civilization, stands in dire need of a restatement of the Truth underlying all the Revelations of the past in a language suited

[Page 217]WORLD WATCH 217

to its essential requirements. And what voice other than that of Baha’u’llah—the Mouthpiece of God for this age—is capable of effecting a transformation of society as radical as that which He has already accomplished in the hearts ofthose men and women, so diversified and seemingly irreconcilable, who constitute the body of His declared followers throughout the world.>67

The experience of the Baha’i community offers compelling eVi— dence “that humanity can live as one global society, equal to whatever challenges its coming of age may entail.”68

United by its belief in one God Who has progressively revealed His will through a series of Divine Educators, its conviction that we are all members of one family, and its commitment to establishing a just world where all people can live in dignity, the Baha’i com— munity is working with some urgency to promote an understanding of “progress” that encompasses both the spiritual and the material aspects of life, for, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahai warned:

[U]ntil material achievements, physical accomplishments and human virtues are reinforced by spiritual perfections, luminous qualities and characteristics of mercy, no fruit or result shall is— sue therefrom, nor will the happiness of the world of humanity, which is the ultimate aim, be attained. For although, on the one hand, material achievements and the development of the physical world produce prosperity, which exquisitely manifests its intended aims, on the other hand dangers, severe calamities, and violent afflictions are imminentf’9

Thoughtful observations and warnings by commentators such as Jared Diamond, Ronald Wright, Jane Jacobs, Thomas Friedman, and Gregg Easterbrook can only serve to raise greater awareness of serious issues surrounding our well—being—if not our very survival; to fuel discussion about the kind of society we want; and to spark positive action while there is still time.

[Page 218]218 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

NOTES

1

26 27 28 29 30

m

1

Lawrence E. Harrison, Introduction to Culture Matters: How Value; Shape Human Progress, Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. xxvi.

Thomas L. Friedman, The erd is Flat: A Brieinstory of the Twemy—first Century (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), pp. 176—177.

Ibid., p. 420.

Ibid., p. 8.

Gregg Easterbrook, The Progress Paradox: How Life Get: Better While People Feel \Wom’ (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2004), pp. 68—74.

See Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge: Cam— bridge University Press, 1988), p. 59; cited in Ronald Wright, A Short Hixtory 0fPr0gres: (Toronto: Anansi, 2004), p. 107.

Wright, p. 128.

Ibid., p. 129.

Ibid., pp. 107—108.

Ibid., p. 130.

Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (New York: Viking, 2005), p. 8.

Ibid., p. 11.

For a detailed discussion of each of these points, see Diamond, pp. 486— 96.

Ibid., p. 49;.

Ibid., p. 496.

Ibid., p. 8.

Jane Jacobs, Dark Age Ahead (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2005), pp. 3—4. Ibid., p. 38.

Ibid., p. 63.

Ibid., p. 99.

Ibid., pp. 103 and 124.

Ibid., p. 136.

Ibid., pp. 24—25.

Easterbrook, p. 255.

Francis Fukuyama, Trust: 7776 Social Virtues and the Creation 0fPr05perz’ty (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 26.

Ibid., p. 27.

Friedman, p. 8.

Ibid., p. 279.

Ibid., p. 443.

Ibid., p. 435.

Wright, p. 131.

[Page 219]32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4

42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57 58

WORLD WATCH 219

Diamond, p. 522.

Ibid., p. 523.

Ibid., pp. 522 and 525.

Jacobs, p. 176.

Friedman, p. 204.

Harrison, 1;). xxxiv.

Ibid., p. 1001.

Ibid., p. xxvi.

Easterbrook, pp. 84—85. http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/well—beingmdp.aspx. See also http:// www.gpiatlantic.otg/ for another proposed measure, the Genuine Progress Index.

These new measuring tools have been implemented in some cities in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, and even at the national level in Bhutan. For an interesting article on the introduction of this kind of index in Bhutan, see Andrew Revkin, “A New Measure of Well-being from a Happy Little Kingdom,” 7778 New York Times online (4 October 2005).

Easterbrook, p. 210.

Ibid., p. xix.

Ibid., p. 211.

Harrison, p. xxvi.

Friedman, p. 463.

Diamond, p. 432.

The Universal House of Justice, 7?) the \Vorldic Relzgz'ous Leader: (Haifa: Bahé’l’ World Centre, 2002), p. 2.

Abdu’l—Bahé, The Secret osz'w'ne Civilization (Wilmette, IL: Bahé’l’ Publish— ing Trust, 1990), p. 71.

T0 the LVorld’s Religious Leaders, pp. 6—7.

Bahé’l’ International Community, The Prosperity of Humankind (1995), sec— tion 2.3

Bahé’f International Community, Overcoming Corruption in Public Institu— tion: (2001).

‘Abdu’l-Bahé, Selections fiom t/Je Wiring: of ‘Alm'u’l—Ba/m’ (Wilmette, IL: Bahé’l’ Publishing Trust, 1996), p. 297.

T/ae Prosperity of Human/ez'nd, section 4.4.

The Bahé’l’ International Community, Valuing Spirituality in Development: Initial Considerations Regarding the Creation of Spiritually Based Indicators for Development. A concept paper for the World Faiths and Development Dialogue, Lambeth Palace, London, 18—19 February 1998 (London: Bahai’f Publishing Trust, 1998), 11, p. 10.

Ibid., 111, p. 12.

Ibid., IV, pp. 14—18.

[Page 220]220 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2004—2005

59

Ibid., v, pp. 19—24.

Easterbrook, p. 231.

Ibid., p. 239.

Ibid., p. 239.

Diamond, p. 498.

Wright, p. 132.

65 The Universal House ofjusticc, The Promise 0fLVaer Peace (Haifa: Bahé’l’

World Centre, 1985), p. 1.

Friedman, p. 387.

67 Shoghi Effendi, The erd Order 0fBzz/M’u’llzz’l7: Selected Letters (Wilmette, IL: Bahé’i Publishing Trust, 1991), p. 47.

68 7726 Promise of‘Wr/d Peace, p. 20.

69 ‘Abdu’l-Bahé, Selections, pp. 297.

60 61 62 63 64

66