Development experts are making the observation that no matter how exciting future prospects of greater well-being promised by science and technology may be, present patterns of behaviour do not seem to be inspiring much confidence in the processes of achieving such prospects.
Development agencies such as the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Ottawa as well as world summits such as the Rio+20 last year are for example asking whether globalisation will be unifying humanity without the imposition of “universal uniformity” or will the bearer of prosperity be a mere expression of the interests of a privileged few?
It is clear today that bringing prosperity to all the peoples of the world through the much touted ideals of sustainable development will not be met solely by the application of technology and the expansion of current systems and organisations. What is needed is a radical departure from the materialistic philosophies that have created today’s concurrence of abject poverty and wealth that is irresponsible.
Organisations such as the IDRC are saying that reevaluating the field of development, its basic assumptions and its current strategies is a task that deserves immediate attention so that principles of oneness, of interconnectedness, and of justice are made to operationalise more and more. In the Malaysian context this is what major policies such as the Vision 2020 (and those that came after it) if properly understood and implemented aimed to achieve.
As it marches into its 56th birthday our nation surely is targetting a civilisational condition that is of a higher order and of a quality that is of global significance. Towards this end its founding fathers understood the needs for avoiding extreme materialism via the nurturing of the nation’s indigenous system of values and wisdom.
The history of civilisations indeed show that every civilisation manifests its values/foundational beliefs through a comprehensive range of its cultural activities. Couched in the worldview that feeds the soul and conscience of the civilisation in question, such values are also a description of how problems and needs of humans are dealt with, met or solved. Similarly, how a society is managed, what principles guide and regulate its political system/structures, social institutions are all part and parcel of the civilisation’s worldview.
The Chinese civilisation of the past for example was propelled by the Confuscian worldview which was later developed by Mencius and Hsun Tzu. This worldview gave prominence to the value of human relationships. One of its basic elements was/is “Jen” (humanity or perfect goodness) and “Tao” (harmony). Jen became the symbol and foundation for the refinement of character, respect for the older generation and parents (filial piety or “hsiau”). “Ti” (love between individuals who are related to one another) complements Jen. Jen also gave rise to Li a code of rituals and behaviour in the ancient Chinese culture and civilisation.
Rational happiness in the Chinese worldview is the result of Jen which is accrued not via mere material wealth but the practice of good values. According to Confuscuis a wise and noble man is one who is free from ill thought and suspicion, possesses good morals, is devoid of self-centredness and is brave because he is free from fear. Against this backdrop of values, it is not surprising perhaps that despite its significant achievements in science (compass, paper, farmaceuticals among others), Chinese science did not gave rise to weapons of mass destruction as the example of the gun powder shows.
Similarly in the Islamic civilisation, science was never devoid of ethics and values. To Ibn al-Haitham (Latin: Alhazen), an expert in physics, mathematics and theology and whose optics preceded Newton’s “discoveries” by several centuries for example, it is impossible to divorce science from ethics and religion. He sees ethics as a practical issue and not merely a matter of philosophical reasoning and deliberation. Every intention and choice made as well as action taken would be accounted for on the Day of Reckoning prior to the life of the hereafter.
In this context a Muslim can sense al-Haitham’sQuranic source of guidance “We know what suggestions his soul makes to him (as) We are nearer to man than his jugular vein. Behold two guardian angels are appointed to note his doings, one on the right and one on the left”. [al-Qaf: 16-17]
It is interesting to note too,that for this originator of the camera obscura(precursor of the modern day camera) a system of the ethics for science (and perhaps for other fields of endeavour too) should be based on three major fundamentals:
•1. The perfection of morals is impossible without knowledge and the quest for it.
•2. Truth, knowledge and awareness in a person relies on (a) clear understanding of the Quran and Hadith; (b) achieving the good through right and honourable practices/acts; (c) avoidance of evil thoughts and deeds.
•3. The principle purpose of perfecting one’s morals is to enjoy an infinite or sustainable life of joy and peace in heaven/in the next life which is everlasting. Such a value system was organically linked to all of al-Haitham’s scientific and non-scientific works.
The reason for highlighting the Chinese and Islamic examples is two-fold. First is to show how different sciences and modernities (literally “modern” is what is current is/the latest) does/can arise out of different value systems and worldviews. In the history of science the Chinese and Islamic civilisations were extremely rich in their scientific and technological content (The Prophet Muhammad SAW had asked Muslims to travel as far as China to seek knowledge). Nevertheless, neither science became disentangled from its ethical and final purpose/meaning of life dimensions.
It is this final/end purpose concept that ensured that these valid versions of science and technology did not give rise to unsustainable issues as we can see the case to be, today.
Such lessons from the history of science in various civilisations would be a good focus and raison d’etre for intercivilisational or even interreligious dialogues today. Such a trend is in fact growing especially beginning with the UN declaration of 2001 as the year of dialogue of civilisations globally.
Yet one of the issues that we constantly have to deal with today is widespread conflicts due purportedly to religious/cultural differences. Perhaps such a situation calls for a cultural literacy (CL) that is concerned with our capacity to learn about spiritual traditions/worldviews other than our own so that we could understand what could be seen to be commonalities for solving problems as well as the differences that set us apart. We need CL as a method to enlist the support and contributions of traditions other than ours in pursuit of the common good such as to fight off rampant capitalism that threatens the environment and the social fabric of society.
This CL should encourage us to have the right attitudes to begin with, to both the commonalities and differences as what is disconcerting is where even similarities are viewed negatively and differences are allowed to lead to disrespect and violence.
Technology interacts with society through a twin mechanism, i.e., society produces technology through innovation while technology exerts a feedback on society by modifying social behaviour. The critical question is, is the social behaviour enhanced by science and technology today leading us to a more humane world or could it be that science and technology alone cannot fulfil this aim unless its functioning and use is guided by values arising from worldviews and spirituality?