Limits to Human Potential

Year:

1976

Originally published as a joint document of Mankind 2000 and Union of International Associations (Brussels, 1976). Selected "limits" published in Transnational Associations, 28, 1976, 10, pp 444-446; 29, 1977, 4, pp 147-151

Introduction

1. Limited tolerance of interaction

1.1 Limits to inter-organizational interaction
1.2 Limits to inter-disciplinary interaction
1.3 Limits to interaction between ideologies
1.4 Limits to interaction between information systems
1.5 Limits to interaction between classification systems
1.6 Limits to interaction between action programmes
1.7 Limits to resource sharing
1.8 Limits to interaction between modes of action
1.9 Limits to interaction between preferred perceptual modes
1.10 Limits to interaction between preferred modes of change
1 .11 Limits to interaction determined by levels of ability
1.12 Limits to inter-species interaction
1.13 Limits to interaction between disciplinary languages
1.14 Limits to interaction between languages
1.15 Limits to interaction from territoriality
1.16 Limits to recognition of interaction between problems
1.17 Limits to recognition of interaction between values
1.18 Limits to interrelating pre-logical personality biases
1.19 Limits to interaction between religions
1.20 Limits to interaction between tribes or ethnic groups
1.21 Limits to interaction between classes or castes
1.22 Limits to interaction between cultures
1.23 Limits to inter-personal trust
1.24 Limits to relationships between sexes
1.25 Limits to intra-familial relationships
1.26 Limits to inter- generation relationships

Positive features of limits and constraints

Conclusion

[Parts: Next | Last | All ] [Links: From-K | From-Kx ]

Introduction

The perceptions expressed in draft form in this document arose as a result of the preparation of the first edition of the Yearbook of World Problems and Human Potential (1976). That reference book is the first product of an ongoing process initiated in Brussels in 1972 by the Union of International Associations and Mankind 2000 [subsequently entitled Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, 4th ed. 1994-95].

The collection and processing of a considerable variety of information on every kind of world problem, and on the attempts at their solution, forced the editors to look at the nature of such problems in general and the psycho-social context within which solutions were advocated or attempted. Some reflections on these matters appear in the introduction to some sections of the Yearbook or in its Appendixes. It seemed useful however to try to clarify these perceptions to facilitate further discussion.

The point of this document is therefore to draw attention to a series of constraints or difficulties which seem to prevent mankind from responding successfully to the current crisis condition of the world. It is not the intention to focus on conventional, well-publicized difficulties or inequalities which many assume to be at the origin of the current unsatisfactory situation. Arguments of this type have been put forward on many occasions and from many points of view. Many are summarized in the Yearbook which describes some 2600 recognized world problems.

This document is concerned with highlighting those difficulties which prevent the successful achievement of the objectives of any remedial programme of social significance at this time. It is particularly concerned with those cases where there is consensus concerning the desirability of remedial action, specially where some coherent plan of action has been formulated, and where the usual problems of funding and other programme resources have been eliminated.

This document is also concerned with highlighting those difficulties which prevent the successful implementation of programmes designed to facilitate human development and for the full realization of human potential not as remedial action, but in an attempt to go beyond what has already been achieved.

Just as it is not the intention to focus on well-publicized difficulties, the focus is also restricted to the kinds of difficulty experienced even when the individuals and organizations concerned perceive themselves to be sincerely working in the interests of mankind as a whole, whether within their community or through transnational bodies. It is not concerned with difficulties deriving from corruption, deliberate misuse of structures, procedures and processes, or actions of other than benevolent intent, however limited the domain of application.

The question could be raised as to whether there is any benefit in identifying such difficulties, given that we all know that there are obstacles to significant change. Also, many of these difficulties have been described at great length in more suitable contexts. In answer, however, there does seem to be a case for attempting to portray within one framework the variety of interacting difficulties as they stand at the moment. There Is usually a tendency to bury such recognition in the postmortem on some programme which has failed - and, to avoid offence, such analysis is usually made informally or in documents whose circulation is highly restricted. By treating these difficulties as independent of any particular named context, they can be considered with less emotion and defensiveness. Hopefully by expressing them in this way, it will be possible to provoke a creative response which will show a way past the limits as defined.

Many would also claim that most of these problems would be eliminated if humanity organized itself within one ideological framework, under one governmental system, with one system of ethics or values, with one religion, within one legal framework, etc. Whilst any or all of these may emerge as an attempt to respond to the immediate crises, it is unclear just how long humanity would be satisfied with such frameworks. History would seem to indicate that the period of satisfaction becomes increasingly shorter. It is brought to an end by the re-emergence of one or more of the limits or constraints on social interaction which are noted in this document. These limits would seem to function to protect the psycho-social diversity of humanity - which may be of most importance for its long-term survival. At the same time, we are faced with the paradoxical situation that they also appear to prevent the degree of social interaction and organization which seems to be essential for any adequate response to the current crises.

The full realization of human potential is associated in some way with the development of diversity restrained or contained by some unifying framework. Debate and social experiment will continue to focus on the meaning to be attached to "diversity" and "unifying framework and the forms to which they can usefully give rise under different conditions.

---------

Few of the perceptions in this document are original. Some have been recorded many times. It may be useful to include references in a later version.

[Parts: Next | Last | All ] [Links: From-K | From-Kx ]

Kairos @ Laetus-in-Praesens.org

Navigation

Limits to Human Potential