The end of agency and the last man
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29015/cerem.921Keywords:
socio-engineering, geo-engineering, agency, climate change, systemic change, energyAbstract
Aim: In order to address the question whether a more sustainable society requires a change of purpose or a change of system, we must first resolve the issue of human agency. Is humanity free to choose its own destiny, or is humanity’s future determined by contingency of conditions and choices of the past?
Design / Research methods: On the basis of cumulated knowledge and carefully cited literature, we defend the thesis that human agency is at best a minor factor in the determination of the future even in the short term.
Conclusions / findings: We conclude that significant decrease of resources depletion and greenhouse gas production may sustain humanity in the middle to long term, but the proven lack of human agency allows only to predict the complete demise of humanity in the short term.
Originality / value of the article: We apply the method of dialogue to show historical points of focus with respect to the issue of human agency. This paper is of interest to those organizing projects of socio- and or geo-engineering, since it describes the likely limitations of agency in regards to social structure, and so implies that actions will always have unintended consequences, which will drive more actions.
References
Adorno T., Horkheimer M. (2002), Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.
Anderson C. (2008), The end of theory. The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete, “Wired Magazine”, vol. 16 no. 7.
Arutyunov V.S., Lisichkin, G.V. (2017), Energy resources of the 21st century: problems and forecasts. Can renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels?, “Russian Chemical Reviews”, vol. 86 no. 8.
Bar-Yosef O. (2002), The upper paleolithic revolution, “Annual Review of Anthropology”, vol. 31 no. 1, pp. 363-393.
Baehr P. (2001), The ‘iron cage’ and the ‘shell as hard as steel’. Parsons, Weber, and the Stahlhartes Gehäuse metaphor in the ‘Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism’, “History and Theory”, vol. 40 no. 2, pp. 153-169.
Beer S. (2002), What is cybernetics?, “Kybernetes”, vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 209-219.
Brown R.H. (1978), Dialectic and structure in Jean-Paul Sartre and Claude Levi-Strauss, “Dialectica”, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 165-184.
Brown R.H. (1977), A poetic for sociology. Toward a logic of discovery for the human sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Campbell C. (2009), Distinguishing the power of agency from agentic power. A note on Weber and the ‘black box’ of personal agency, “Sociological Theory”, vol. 27 no. 4, pp. 407-418.
Churchland P. (2006), Do we have free will?, “New Scientist”, vol. 192 no. 2578, pp. 42-45.
Collard D. (2006), Research on well-being. Some advice from Jeremy Bentham, “Philosophy of the Social Sciences”, vol. 36 no. 3, pp. 330-354.
Der Kiureghian A., Ditlevsen O. (2009), Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?, “Structural Safety”, vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 105-112.
Diez-Martín F., Sánchez Yustos P., Uribelarrea D. et al. (2016), The origin of the Acheulean. The 1.7 million-year-old site of FLK West, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania), “Scientific Reports”, vol. 5 art. 17839.
Durkheim E. (1997), The division of labour in society, trans. W.D. Halls, intro. L.A. Coser, Free Press, New York.
Feyerabend P. (1979), Dialogue on method, in: The structure and development of science, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 63-131.
Finkielkraut A. (1987), The defeat of the mind (La défaite de la pensée), Columbia University Press, New York.
Giddens A. (1984), The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Goffman E. (1980), The presentation of self in everyday life, Anchor Books, New York.
Golja C.M., Chew L.W., Dykema J.A., Keith D.W. (2021), Aerosol dynamics in the near field of the SCoPEx stratospheric balloon experiment, “Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres”, vol. 126 no. 4, e2020JD033438.
Gould S.J. (1994), The evolution of life on Earth, “Scientific American”, vol. 271 no. 4, pp. 84-91.
Gray J. (2007), Black mass. Apocalyptic religion and the death of utopia, Macmillan, New York.
Gross S. (2020), Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit?, Brookings Institute, www.brookings.edu/essay/why-are-fossil-fuels-so-hard-to-quit/ [29.08.2021].
Hudders L., Pandelaere M. (2012), The silver lining of materialism. The impact of luxury consumption on subjective well-being, “Journal of Happiness Studies”, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 411-437.
Jun T., Sethi R. (2021), Extreme weather events and military conflict over seven centuries in ancient Korea, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, vol. 118 no. 12, e2021976118.
Kaal B. (2021), The reality of technological worldviews. Time and space frames of reference in the world of self-driving cars, in: The pragmatics of adaptability, Silva N.D., Mey J.L. (eds.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 75-98.
Kampen J.K. (2017), The world in the post-truth era or how too much love of TINA will kill you, “The Central European Review of Economics and Management”, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 7-26.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. (2008), Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Latour B. (2017), Facing Gaia. Eight lectures on the new climatic regime, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Mele A.R. (2017), Aspects of agency. Decisions, abilities, explanations, and free will, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Micklin P. (2007), The Aral Sea disaster, “Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science”, vol. 35, pp. 47-72.
Morgan T.J. (2016), Testing the cognitive and cultural niche theories of human evolution, “Current Anthropology”, vol. 57 no. 3, pp. 370-377.
Morrell K. (2004), Socratic dialogue as a tool for teaching business ethics, “Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 53 no. 4, pp. 383-392.
Nagel E. (1960), Determinism in history, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research”, vol. 20 no. 3, pp. 291-317.
Pandelaere M. (2016), Materialism and well-being: the role of consumption, “Current Opinion in Psychology”, vol. 10, pp. 33-38.
Pennestri E., Cavacece M., Vita L. (2005), On the computation of degrees-of-freedom: a didactic perspective, in: International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 47438, pp. 1733-1741.
Pepper S.C. (1942), World hypotheses. A study in evidence, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Pereboom D. (2014), Free will, agency, and meaning in life, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pinker S. (2018), Enlightenment now. The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress, Penguin, New York.
Popper K.R. (1945), The open society and its enemies, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., New York.
Rutter M. (2002), Nature, nurture, and development. From evangelism through science toward policy and practice, “Child Development”, vol. 73 no. 1, pp. 1-21.
Shafer R.J. (1969), A guide to historical method, The Dorsey Press, Homewood IL.
Shapiro J. (2001), Mao’s war against nature. Politics and the environment in revolutionary China, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Skinner B.F. (1974), About behaviorism, Vintage Books, New York.
Skordoulis R., Dawson P. (2007), Reflective decisions. The use of Socratic dialogue in managing organizational change, “Management Decision”, vol. 45, pp. 991-1007.
Stryker S. (2008), From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond, “Annual Review of Sociology”, vol. 34 no. 1, pp. 15-31.
Swinyard W.R., Kau A.K., Phua H.Y. (2001), Happiness, materialism, and religious experience in the US and Singapore, “Journal of Happiness Studies”, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 13-32.
Tiezzi E.B.P., Pulselli R.M., Marchettini N., Tiezzi E. (2008), Dissipative structures in nature and human systems, in: Design & Nature IV: Comparing design in nature with science and engineering, Brebbia C.A. (ed.), WitPress, Boston, pp. 293-300.
Van Strien M. (2014), On the origins and foundations of Laplacian determinism, “Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A”, vol. 45, pp. 24-31.
York R. (2012), Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?, “Nature Climate Change”, vol. 2 no. 6, pp. 441-443.
Zaleski P. (2008), Tocqueville on civilian society. A romantic vision of the dichotomic structure of social reality, “Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte”, vol. 50, pp. 260-266.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The aim of CEREM is to make scientific work available in accordance with the principle of open access. The rules mentioned below are important, as they enable CEREM and its publisher, the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw, to distribute the scientific work to a wide public while complying with specific legal requirements, at the same time protecting the rights of the authors.
The author transfers to the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw, free of charge and without territorial limitations, with all proprietary copyrights to the said piece of work in the understanding of the act of 4th February 1994 on copyrights and derivative rights (Journal of Laws of 1994, no. 24, item 83, as amended) on an exclusivity basis, i.e. the rights to:
1. Make the piece of work in question available via the Digital Library established by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
2. Produce, record and reproduce in multiple copies the piece of work using any techniques whatsoever, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital processing, and particularly its reproduction by recording on CDs and similar data carriers,
3. Use fragments of the piece of work for promotional purposes in publications, promotional materials, the Internet and Intranet type networks managed by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
4. Store the piece of work into computer databases managed by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
5. Copy and reproduce the piece of work using photo-mechanic technologies other than those commonly known at the time of the signature hereof (photocopies, Xerox copies etc.),
6. Process the piece of work, transferring it into an electronic form, and distribute it on the Internet without limitations.
