{"id":1019,"date":"2011-07-23T12:57:33","date_gmt":"2011-07-23T12:57:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/?p=1019"},"modified":"2011-07-23T13:00:24","modified_gmt":"2011-07-23T13:00:24","slug":"letter-from-china-to-the-nobel-prize-committee-asking-for-the-establishment-of-a-prize-for-ecology-studies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/2011\/07\/23\/letter-from-china-to-the-nobel-prize-committee-asking-for-the-establishment-of-a-prize-for-ecology-studies\/","title":{"rendered":"Letter from China to the Nobel Prize Committee asking for the establishment of a Prize for Ecology Studies"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong>Professor Chen Minghao of Jiaotong University in Shanghai, asked me to translate this letter to the Nobel Prize Committee asking that a Nobel Prize for Ecology be established. At the time, I did not really understand what he was talking about and did the translation just on a whim of sorts, but now, many years later, Chen Minhao\u2019s thought seems most prescient. He passed away last year and I deeply regret I was not able to meet him again and tell him how much I learned from him.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>March, 1994<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cMaintaining the Well-being of Humanity is the Spirit of Alfred Nobel\u2019s Legacy\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

An open letter to the Nobel Prize Committee<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Minghao Chen<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are only five years left in this century. The aging twentieth century is passing into history while a new century slowly emerges in an aura of possibilities and hopes. Humanity as well has reached a historic turning point in its development; a new path awaits us beyond. We must turn away from our present path of single-mindedly pursuing material and technological progress and choose the way of harmonious coexistence with nature, and economic development closely coordinated with the needs of the environment.<\/p>\n

It has been 99 years since Alfred Nobel left this world. Since then, his visionary and self-critical legacy has been carried on through the Nobel Prizes for almost a century. From the first awards in 1901, the Nobel Prize has served as a beacon illuminating the glittering achievements of humanity in the sciences and humanities. So also it has captured the respect of all the world\u2019s citizens. The overwhelming question is, will the Nobel Prize be able to continue to hold its position of honor? Will it continue to accurately illuminate and record the future achievements of humanity? How will the Nobel Prize aid in the resolution of the most pressing issues standing before civilization today?<\/p>\n

As we enter a new age, the world is changing. As a result, the problems faced by various segments of human civilization are now different.\u00a0 Because the Nobel Prize is dedicated to maintaining the well-being of humanity, it must also be closely tied to the new concerns of our age, and speed their resolution.<\/p>\n

1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bacon, Descartes and Newton\u2019s outstanding achievements as the patriarchs of modern science pushed the world in to a new age of scientific and technological development that engendered the industrial revolution.\u00a0 Human civilization has reached a new level of complexity as a result. Their awesome contributions to science stand as shining landmarks on the path of civilization. But any brilliant light will also cause those objects it illuminates to cast enormous shadows.<\/p>\n

For the past few hundred years, the conception of nature defined by Bacon\u2019s evidential approach, the analytical method of Decartes, and the mechanistic world view derived from Newton\u2019s physics ushered in a flowering of reducitivism in the scientific world, and a concomitant tendency towards specialization in the natural sciences. This ever deepening tendency towards scientific specialization has become a well-established cultural norm. While this scientific specialization continues to reap without fail new scholarly achievements, it also fostered some unfortunate consequences. That is to say, different specializations, or different sciences have erected enormous insurmountable walls between each of their narrow intellectual discourses with the result that communication and coordination of efforts is stymied. Above all it is the division between the natural sciences and the social sciences that is difficult to bridge. This process continues to strengthen the extreme fragmentation and specialization in the institutions of all aspects of our society, and erodes the effectiveness that society as a whole should maintain.\u00a0 Each intellectual institution or field carries on as it considers proper in isolation from all other institutions. Responsible to none but themselves, these institutions resist each other in a manner that produces serious internal corrosion in the social fabric.<\/p>\n

The darkest shadow cast on this earth by the advent of reductivist thought is humanity\u2019s loss of a civilized sensibility. Man assumes he can take himself out of the natural world and stand above the earth like a splendid master of nature. As for his own actions in that natural world, he does whatever he pleases without a thought to the means. While this approach may bring material benefits in quick progression, it also leads man deeper and deeper into a ecological crisis on a unprecedented scale.<\/p>\n

The flowering of reductivism ushered in by Newton\u2019s mechanistic world view produced a set of intellectual schema that fragment our perception of reality. Such reductivism causes us reduce, pull apart and analyze the totality of our universe as discrete and isolated fundamental elements. This conceptual framework, despite the many material and scientific achievements it has produced, nevertheless pulls us apart from the natural world we inhabit and posits us as a being in opposition to that\u00a0 world. We must constantly plan how we will conquer, subdue, and transform that natural world. Civilization and science has developed in a most contorted form, a form that has forced humanity into an unprecedented ecological and environmental disaster. This situation reveals a colossal error that should strike terror in our hearts! Of all the myriad thorny dilemmas that face modern humanity, which one is not a result of the fragmentation in our perception of reality caused by reductivist thinking?<\/p>\n

Although the scientific theories of Bacon, Decartes and Newton continue to push forward the development of civilization and science on many fronts, the reductivism characterized by a fragmentation in our perception of reality has reached a dead end in academic world, and the world at large. An ecological approach characterized by an attempt to reestablish a concern for the totality of the natural world has recently emerged.<\/p>\n

Such an approach can actually restore our original vision of the world as an indivisible whole. We can free ourselves from the shackles of a reductivist thinking that has fragmented our view of the natural world for so long.\u00a0 Logic dictates that we must have a conception of humanity that is intimately connected with movements of the ecological system, the circulation of material, and the exchange of information. We must consider ourselves as part of a larger natural world. We must choose a road which leads to harmonious coexistence and coordinated development.<\/p>\n

Ecology is not merely a odd notion developed by quaint scholars during a stroll in the woods. Ecology emerged at a point when the relationship of humanity to the natural environment entered a profound crisis. It was born in the ever-increasing agony and writhing of human society. The rise of ecology symbolizes the deep wounds both humanity and the environment have suffered, and as such is imbued with sadness.<\/p>\n

Ecology takes man as its subject and the ecological system as its center. Using the resolution of the world\u2019s problems and the alleviation of humanity\u2019s struggle as its principle mission, this field of study consists of an investigation into man\u2019s relationship to his environment and into the principles of symbiotic coexistence.\u00a0 Ecology thus has a unique ability to serve both the present and the future of humanity. Ecology has one foot in the world today as a discipline that investigates and analyses contemporary issues. At the same time, as a discipline that constantly evaluates the decisions and actions of humanity today with an eye to their consequences, ecology has another foot in the future.<\/p>\n

In the 1970s, the ecology movement took off in the West and swept through the major advanced industrial countries, with ramifications for the entire world. After more than twenty years of promulgation, argument and dispute, the green tendrils of the ecology movement have not withered in the slightest, but rather have rooted ecology as a discipline in our society.<\/p>\n

The ideas associated with ecology have been absorbed and adapted by a panoply of academic disciplines that in turn have projected those ideas out through the international community to every country.\u00a0 The world community has received the principles of ecology.\u00a0 Even those who initially opposed this field of study passionately, later had no choice but to reevaluate their own opinions and attitudes, and change the tenor of their voices. Ecology has helped us to understand one truth: humanity will have a bright future only if it makes a general effort to achieve harmony with the ecological system for coexistence.<\/p>\n

Although ecology is not an established discipline, it is still a youthful science in the process of developing, nevertheless it has already has an enormous influence on our earth.\u00a0 As for the basic research in both the applied and theoretical\u00a0 fields, there are many issues still awaiting further development.\u00a0 These issues are inextricably linked to the well-being and development of humanity, the prosperity of our generation and the generations of our descendants, and the most fundamental long-term interests of the entirety of humanity.<\/p>\n

In order to properly realize\u00a0 the legacy established by Alfred Nobel a century ago, I propose that, in commemoration of the one-hundredth anniversary of his death, we establish a Nobel Prize for outstanding research in the field of Ecology. We will thus fully realize on a deeper and broader level the sincere desire to contribute to humanity Nobel expressed in his bequest.<\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

The rise of ecology and the spreading influence of the green movement all over the world, as well as the unprecedented green market emerging in Europe, best represented by the spirit manifested in the United Nations convention on the environment and development held in \u201cLiyuereneilu\u201d [?] in June, 1992, has presented a serious challenge to the long respected field of traditional economics.<\/p>\n

Whether it is Classical or Neo-Classical, Keynesian [spelling], Post-Keynesian economic theory,\u00a0 or socialist economic theory, or even including others schools previously honored with the Nobel Prize for economics, even though they may have very different characteristics, or even violent disagreements between them, they all nevertheless have one common feature: the absence of a conception of ecology. These schools of economics all lack a realistic consideration of economics as a part of a total social and ecological structure. Rather they insist on studying economic process in isolation. Traditional economists have the habit of employing such terms as investment, productivity, efficiency, production, and G.N.P.\u00a0 in order to elucidate their fundamental conceptions and theories,\u00a0 or meticulously pursuing a purity and beauty of a mathematical nature. Economists attempt to establish a classical science. They do not consider the fact that economic activity cannot take place outside of an ecological background. They do not wish to touch upon the environmental aspect of economic activity, or the ecological cost, or even the value of various natural resources. For this reason, their economic concepts and theories are insufficient to explain the totality of\u00a0 a limited, fundamentally inter-related world economy\u2019s reality.<\/p>\n

Economics actions cannot be alienated from the ecological system for a second. In the ecological system, amongst the various constituent elements, non-linear connectedness is all important. Very rarely are there any straight linear causes; for this reason, in an ecological system based on non-linear relationships, how can economic actions be seen in isolation. How can the linear expansion insisted on stubbornly by traditional economics be sustained?\u00a0 If we insist on maintaining linear expansion, how can we avoid destroying the ecological system and brewing a social crisis?<\/p>\n

Development is not the same as economic expansion. To pursue that sort of simplistic economic expansion in the interest of increasing the material prosperity of society will inevitably create a profound crisis for humanity. Thus the prize established for the economic approach that lead to this idea of economic expansion is not sufficient to embody, and in fact even goes against, Nobel\u2019s fundamental desire to encourage great contributions to humanity. For both the present and the far future,\u00a0 the most pressing issue is to encourage theoretical approaches encouraging the integration of both the environment and the economy. The acceptance and implementation of such approaches will be of ultimate benefit to the entire globe for generations. Only if we implement Nobel\u2019s legacy in regard to this essential problem can we say we have grasped the spirit of his bequeathal.<\/p>\n

For this reason, I propose on the hundredth anniversary of Nobel\u2019s death we should re-title the Nobel Prize for Economics as the Nobel Prize for the integrated development of the environment and the economy. This prize will recognize extraordinary contributions by ecologists, economists, developers of ecological technologies, social activists, politicians, and other individuals involved in popular organizations and social institutions.<\/p>\n

3)<\/p>\n

In the twentieth century, the human race has passed through the trauma of two world wars, and endured the incalculable suffering born from spiritual pains of continued regional warfare and thirty years of the arms race and cold war. The spirit of man is worn and the economy is oppressive. The twentieth century is the most deeply exhausting, most bloody; a century with the most profound lessons for us. And it is no accident that the rapid development of scientific technology is so closely linked to this story of human suffering. To state the facts clearly, the development of scientific technology is directly connected, not only to the expansion of material prosperity, but also to military technological advances and the concomitant suffering and killing, the polarization of rich and poor in the world, as well as the destruction and pollution of the environment.\u00a0 No self-respecting, responsible person can deny this important fact.<\/p>\n

For over ten years, the responsibility of the scientist to society has been debated in the international academic community, attracting more and more attention. But there remains a constant voice in public opinion that declares: \u201cscience is neutral and unbiased. Scientist are pure and blameless. The negative societal implications of scientific technology\u00a0 are the responsibility of policy makers outside the scientific community. The scientist cannot be charged.\u201d<\/p>\n

But what is most ironic is that even in spite of this prevailing attitude scientists constantly step forward to take responsibility for the serious negative social consequences of their research, even going as far as to kill themselves, or turn against their own countries. The fact that Nobel Prize winners are amongst their number is worthy of our consideration.<\/p>\n

In the realms of the natural sciences and the technological sciences, basic research consists of conducting appropriate experiments and analyzing as clearly and precisely as possible distinct phenomenon, as well as noting the results in appropriately mathematical language.\u00a0 From the point of view of logic, the notation of scientists maintains the proper conditional formulation: if a certain cause is presented, the physical world will in turn produce a certain result.\u00a0 Based on this understanding of this law-dictated relationship, one can create a desired cause through human control and interference and thereby induce the desired result.<\/p>\n

This natural relationship can be serviced for any purpose. The techniques employed in order to obtain scientific and technological data through experience and experimentation are established in order to precisely express the research process. Moreover, this process has no selectivity when it comes to humans employing it for a particular purpose.\u00a0 These scientific processes themselves have no sense of direction; they only follow their own laws, and do not exclude any possible usage that may be granted them by people. The spectacular success of scientific technology in the twentieth century comes from the high level of understanding and comprehension attributed to this predictability of this process by people. These achievements, depending on the individual\u2019s principles, can be either constructive contributions to the welfare of humanity or disasters.\u00a0 When science and technology develops in conjunction with a particular social purpose, it can no longer be considered \u201cneutral.\u201d Scientists who devote themselves to research while maintaining their social connectedness cannot be called simply \u201cneutral.\u201d No matter what the personal convictions of a scientist may be, the implementation of their scientific work will always have a particular bias. Science will always be linked to its application because the investment in science is linked to the benefits of practical application. The establishment of policy regarding scientific technology moves forward in accordance with the individual\u2019s orientation and influences the present and the future of humanity.<\/p>\n

The likes and dislikes of scientists in choosing a subject of research reveal most clearly their value system and sense of social responsibility.\u00a0\u00a0 Because the scientist is often the first individual who completely understands the possible implications of his research. The scientist is not a toy to be played with by anyone, and is not a pet to be husbanded, but is rather a rational, being with the powers of judgment and wisdom. The scientist has an unavoidable responsibility with regards to any unfavorable social consequences of his research. Anyone who shirks this responsibility, even if he cannot be counted as a criminal, he is certainly lacking in any sense of seriousness.<\/p>\n

The dramatic history of the twentieth century makes clear one thing: the enterprise of human science must greatly increase the quality of men and employ the spirit of civilization to fill the gap between reason and sensibility in order that science will continue to bring prosperity\u00a0 to, and improve the life of\u00a0 mankind.<\/p>\n

Therefore, I propose that you take the one hundredth anniversary of Nobel\u2019s death as an opportunity to include the scientist\u2019s social responsibility within the list of conditions for the Nobel Prize in science.<\/p>\n

Dear Sirs;<\/p>\n

Alfred [bonade] Nobel was a great pioneer who lived in the previous century, but his spirit moves ever towards the future. The bequest he made soon before leaving this world was the product of a life of spiritual and intellectual striving full of sorrow and trepidation for the state of the world. But his astounding achievement was in the end but the achievement of a man nineteenth century who was neither prescient nor omniscient. Although his legacy takes the welfare of humanity as its guiding tenet, the particulars of his stipulations cannot avoid the limitations of his age. If Nobel had lived through the carnage and suffering of the twentieth century, he surely would have modified his request. To be overly faithful to his bequest by limiting our understanding to the limitations of the nineteenth century intellectual world is less valuable than adhering strictly to the principle of prosperity for humanity embodied in his thought and positively applying it to the resolution of greatest problems facing mankind. Only this can be considered true faithfulness to the true spirit of Nobel\u00d5s bequest.<\/p>\n

The advancement of human culture and scientific endeavor requires the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize in turn must contribute to the advancement of human prosperity in the most fundamental sense.<\/p>\n

A new century is approaching. The project set forth by Nobel must follow humanity into a new realm in the next century.<\/p>\n

Please lend an ear to the respectful intent of a simple scholar.<\/p>\n

Minhao Chen<\/p>\n

March, 1994<\/p>\n

Shanghai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Professor Chen Minghao of Jiaotong University in Shanghai, asked me to translate this letter to the Nobel Prize Committee asking that a Nobel Prize for Ecology be established. At the time, I did not really understand what he was talking about and did the translation just on a whim of sorts, but now, many years … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9296425,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[184,60672653],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1019","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environment","category-today-in-china"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1019","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9296425"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1019"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1019\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1019"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1019"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1019"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}