Opinion: Obedience or Responsibility

Some of us acknowledge that we owe much more than our existence to our prehistoric ancestors. Among many other things, they created languages; accumulated and passed down knowledge about edible, medicinal, and poisonous plants; and developed cuisines that incorporated cooking, food preservation techniques, etc. Some of them also domesticated and selectively bred some of the animal species that we still live with. In addition to many of the difficult and time-consuming things that they did and mastered, we are indebted to them for the many things that they did not do. Whether this was the result of deliberate decisions or not, they certainly did not cause as much harm to this planet in the many prehistoric centuries than what we and our closer ancestors caused since the industrial revolution.

Sadly, no one knows exactly how long our species existed on this planet. One rough estimate that is commonly accepted is that the ‘modern humans’ go back at least 300,000 years. If we assume this to be close to the truth, we are forced to concede (despite several origin myths that millions of people believe today) that the vast majority of our time on our planet involved hunting, gathering, scavenging, fishing, etc. –in other words, a pre-agricultural way of living.

We are often warned of the dangers of not knowing enough about our past, and are exhorted to ‘learn from history’. Those of us who accept that most of our past is ‘prehistoric’ (i.e. before the advent of writing) have no choice but to admit that, as important as it may be to know our past, it will always be beyond our powers to shed light on some of the most important ‘unwritten chapters’ of our past. That said, it is safe to assert that, for one thing, our prehistoric ancestors did not pledge their loyalties to any nation-state or empire.

Recently, people in many parts of the world are threatened by a novel virus; and many political figures and scientists are arguing for the need to have national policies, science-based decision-making, and collective compliance with guidelines that are enforced nationally. While I agree with some of the sentiment behind such arguments, I hazard a guess here that there never was a scientific theory that proved the need for nation-states. Undeniably, at present, most human beings are born to one of close to two hundred ‘states’, and most of them live and die ‘under the original flag’. It is possible that most grown-ups are not actively challenging this fact. As one self-appointed moral agent and a political philosopher, I suggest that their apparent ‘satisfaction’ with this fact does not, and cannot, cancel the dissatisfaction of those who see it as a fait accompli, or even as a crime against humanity.

Before going deeper into my opposition to the nation-state system, I want to make it clear that I was born and raised in Turkey, a relatively new ‘republic’ that has a strong tradition of ‘statism’ (or étatisme), and an official ideology of a form of nationalism. I agree with many foreign observers that most adults in Turkey appear to embrace some kind of multi-ethnic nationalism. Militarism is also more generally embraced in Turkey than in most other countries. After being force-fed official versions of history until my teenage years, I was able to dig deeper through my college years and beyond, and I ended up adopting a historical perspective that incorporates some of the recent ‘wisdom’ that is gained through archaeological, anthropological, and primatological research. I was also privileged to travel widely in Turkey; and I learned about several civilizations that ruled different parts of present-day Turkey in different periods. I feel confident to assert, along with many other scientists, that agriculture, urbanization, nationalism, and industrialization are neither essential nor indispensable for human beings.

Since 1980, I have been thinking and writing about some global issues, and trying to offer proposals based on what I call the ‘science of problem solving’. From the beginning, I argue that nation-states (operating in interstatal anarchy) are often serious obstacles to proper problem solving. Also, sometimes they are too small to solve problems that are global in nature, even when there is political readiness to address such problems. On the other hand, national organizations are sometimes too blunt and unwieldy to deal with problems that are small-scale. I conclude that, in order to be effective and just, competent and able-bodied grown-ups throughout the world must establish supranational organizations to address global issues; and they must make room for nongovernmental organizations, intentional communities, and ad hoc groups to address small-scale problems.

I lived in the U.S. since 1988. It has been painful for me to witness successive U.S. administrations miss many opportunities to help create a climate of collaboration after the end of the Cold War. I have no doubt that what was painful for me was far more painful for some of the people who fought in World War II, and believed that their fallen brothers and sisters were sacrificing to build a more peaceful, less exploitative world. While millions of people throughout the world were disappointed and saddened by the policies of the U.S. and other belligerent countries, millions of men, women, and children were killed, maimed, dispossessed, or otherwise victimized in conflicts and terrorist acts since the end of the Cold War.

It is obvious to me and countless other grown-ups that we have failed to prepare for the present pandemic. We may speak of underpreparedness in view of what we understand to be possible, financially feasible, etc., at a given time. Here, we must admit that some people may be so afraid of legal culpability, or even of self-blame, that they may ‘cook the books’, and declare that what was possible for them to do sometime in the past was indeed impossible to do, or that it would involve too much sacrifice in terms of some other values that they hold dear, or that it would mean neglecting other priorities. This kind of deception and distortion of facts has to be fought against for reasons of personal morality as well as public good.

I suggest that, when we try to assess what is possible for us, we should not limit ourselves to what is legally possible on a national or local level. Nor should we ask ourselves if our existing budgets will suffice to achieve our goals. We should try to imagine what people of learning, dedication, and good-will can achieve by working synergistically, in a network of global collaboration. In order to do so, we must be aware of the many ways in which nation-states are condemned to operate in a system of anarchy where antagonistic behavior is not only allowed, but also rewarded.

As power elites make decisions that are claimed to be in the interest of their respective nation-states, they also maintain a system of rewards and punishment for the officials and servants of the state, as well as many of their adult citizens. Sometimes, even indirectly, they are able to cause distortions of values for the general populace. As a result, many people find that what they recognize to be a ‘righteous path’, a morally justified or sanctioned act appears to be too risky. It may be illegal; it may involve risking death or serious punishment, harm to one’s family and friends; it may involve financial ruin, dispossession, loss of one’s job, etc.

Afraid of such possibilities, many people may end up choosing to obey orders that are likely to cause harm to their fellow citizens, citizens of other countries, or even countless future generations. Unfortunately, this is not just a warning about what might happen hypothetically. Much of our recorded past demonstrates an acceleration in such harmful acts. Also undeniable is widespread obedience on the part of people who are aware of the harm they are causing.

Some of us recognize that our species is, at present, the greatest threat to biodiversity on this planet. That said, the kind of stewardship that some members of our species is capable of cannot be provided by any other species. As many life scientists have long been aware of, in no other time in history have human beings known as much about our planet, while, at the same time, being forced to witness human-made and long-lasting destruction to our planet. Whether armed with sufficient knowledge or not, many moral agents are prepared to challenge their parents, neighbors, and conationals in the interest of other species and future generations.

I, for one, accept the ‘theory’ that no nation-state is destined to exist for millennia. I also accept that some of the things that we are doing today is causing extinction, and other forms of lasting harm. Our knowledge about our corner of the universe offers us sobering scenarios about the destruction of our planet. Even so, I believe that we have to make sure that what we do today does not jeopardize biodiversity or future generations. If such a cosmic destruction comes and ‘brings down the curtain’ for our species, at least the stage should be clean up to that point. Clearly, few of us today are living in such a way to ensure such sustainability and cleanliness. Those of us who feel a stronger sense of responsibility to other living beings, future generations, and natural resources may have no choice but to disobey existing political systems that we find ourselves in. In doing so, we must also demonstrate a readiness to obey and enforce rules based on ever-expanding scientific understanding, precautionary principles, and a diversity of moral systems.

By Seyn Laproyen
October 2020
[Offered free of copyright.]

Seyn Laproyen

One short and informative fact about me is that I choose to distance myself from any form of identity politics. I am prepared to work with people from many different backgrounds, and I hope to form lasting friendships with people from different parts of the world. Seyn Laproyen and his fraternal twin brother were born in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, in 1962. Starting from his early childhood, Seyn experienced some manifestations of conflict between 'the West' and the 'Eastern Bloc', as well as conflicts between secularists vs. pious Muslims; male and female proponents of patriarchy vs. male and female proponents of feminism; advocates of rapid industrialization vs. Greens; top-down Westernizers vs. traditionalists; etc. His grandparents on both sides were from Northeastern Turkey --from a small, mountainous town where most people are subsistence farmers. Seyn spent a few summers living among hard-working farmers, and experienced fast-growing flora in a region that receives much rain. He also witnessed and participated in 'vertical transhumance' (modest farmers moving from their modest valley homes to their more modest plateau homes, taking their few cows with them). Seyn learned English in the Navy High School of Turkey, a military school in a 'monastery setting' on an island in Istanbul. Some of the instructors there were trained in the U.S. Seyn first heard of some war crimes committed by Turkish soldiers in Cyprus (in 1974) during his Navy High School years. He also had close contact with criminally-minded boys and men enjoying the protection of their uniforms. Again in Navy High School, Seyn learned about amorality of state politics (Machiavellian view of history and Realpolitik). Seyn managed to get himself expelled from the Navy High School after revealing his opposition to Turkey's 'state ideology'. Seyn developed an interest in philosophy in his Freshman year in high school. He studied sociology in Middle East Technical University. After years of pious dedication to Islam, Seyn gave up on Islam in early 1980. In the fall of 1980, he received a series of inspirations that convinced him that he had important contributions to political philosophy and ethics. He obtained a leave of absence in 1982 for the purpose of writing a manuscript of what remains his unfinished magnum opus: "On the Threshold of ..." Part of Seyn's 1980 inspirations has to do with the realization that nation-states distort and betray values that are irreducibly human, and that lasting solutions to some global problems necessitate supranational institutions. Seyn proposes general and complete disarmament and decades-long programs of deescalation and conflict resolution. He understands the immediacy and primacy of the need for nuclear disarmament. With a mostly-complete version of his first manuscript, Seyn traveled to Paris and London on a short visa in the summer of 1983, and made some contact with anti-nuclear groups, including Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and European Nuclear Disarmament. Upon the expiration of his visa, Seyn returned to Turkey, and decided to finish his undergraduate studies, so as to be able to obtain a scholarship. Seyn received a scholarship from the U.S. in 1987, and came to Columbus, OH, in 1988 for a master's program in philosophy. Not being satisfied with the 'canned' program offered at Ohio State University, Seyn came to New York in April 1989. Since then, he volunteered at anti-war and anti-nuclear organizations, as well as some other nonprofits. He also worked as a computer consultant to sustain himself. Coming into political maturity in some of the worst years of the Cold War, Seyn's 32 years in the U.S. has been a series of disappointments concerning the failures of successive American administrations to help create a better international climate following the 'end of the Cold War'. While being well-informed about some epidemics and pandemics of the past, and while being aware of how ill-prepared humankind is for likely threats from our perennial enemies (bacteria, viruses, vectors of diseases, etc.), Seyn never imagined that the U.S. could be Number 1 in the number of lives lost to a contagious disease...