Dear Phil,



          The problem, as I see it, is that individuals feel helpless before what they construe to be the juggernaut of history.  One individual powerless before the actions of 7.5 billion.  And all, or most, of the 7.5 billion feel like that too.  That is why I see universities doing their job properly - promoting rational discussion in the community of what our problems are, and what we need to do about them - as so important.  With universities functioning like that, cooperative action becomes more possible.  Electorates putting pressure on governments to act to deal with our serious problems becomes more possible.



          As long as nuclear weapons continue to be available for use, as they are at present, sooner or later they will be used, by accident, escalation, or out of desperation or lunacy.  Am I prepared with a multitude of others to put pressure on my government to do something about the situation, with every chance of success?  Yes!  Am I prepared to devote my life to trying to get others to take the issue seriously, with very little chance of success?  Probably not.  As I say in "From Knowledge to Wisdom", our problems are logistic.  We no longer live in hunting and gathering tribes of 250 people; we live in an interconnected world of 7.5 billion people.  Rational discussion about what to do in response to problems that leads to effective action has become very much more difficult.  Our only hope is to create relevant institutions to make it possible.  One such would be wisdom-inquiry.  Institutions of learning devoted to promoting rational discussion of what our problems are, and what we need to do about them.  A vital adjunct to democracy, which we lack.  And without it, democracy becomes dysfunctional.



                      Best wishes,



                          Nick Maxwell

Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom

Subject: The Gun In Our Mouth



Here’s an example which may help illustrate the theory that a rational approach to wisdom development may not be sufficient, or even appropriate. 



Consider the hypothetical man who walks around all day every day with a loaded gun in his mouth.  One false move can set off the gun at any time and end the man’s life. But he’s not really too interested in discussing that, consumed as he his by his many other interests.  Left to his own choices, he’d almost never if ever bring up the subject of the loaded gun in his mouth.



Sounds ridiculous, right?  Well, that’s modern civilization in a nutshell.  Everything built over the last 1,000 years can be erased in an hour, the loaded nuclear gun in our mouth.  Like the hypothetical man in the example, we show little interest in the imminent existential reality of our modern situation.  Yes, there’s some talk about it, but look at our actions….



We just had a very heated Presidential election here in the U.S.  Nuclear weapons were barely mentioned at best.  Leading politicians on all sides show almost no interest in raising the subject of our culture's impending demise, nor do voters.



The overwhelming vast majority of scientific funding and research is aimed at a million other topics.   The same for the academic community.  Yes, it’s true, those most highly trained in the processes of reason also show little real interest in the loaded gun in our mouth.  Sure, such highly educated thought leaders may SAY they are interested, but that’s just a self delusional cover story.  Follow the money to see the real story.



Religious leaders have little to contribute to such a moral conversation about the loaded gun, distracted as they are by their internal doctrinal disputes and hot button social issues like abortion and homosexuality etc.  Apparently, what kind of sex we have is a more pressing issue than the instant extermination of millions.  



Almost our entire society, from the top to the bottom, shows little real interest in the loaded gun in our mouth.  Everything we cherish could be gone in the blink of an eye, just one bad day is all it takes, and yet everything else seems more important to us.  



Conclusion:  Like the hypothetical man in the example, we are, as a culture, literally insane.



A rational approach to wisdom development would seem to assume that those developing such an approach are sane, and the broad public they would aim their solutions at are also sane.  That is, we seem to be assuming that reason is common language which can be used to conduct such a conservation.  



Is that true?