Setting the Stage for More (Mysteries of Living 71 of 72)

We have now come just about full circle. People’s increased understanding of behaviorology makes them move to apply it to the widest range of humanity’s individual and group concerns, using the behaviorological technologies that we can derive from the principles and concepts of this natural science of behavior. How can we help this happen?

Basically, the next step involves you and me and other readers supporting, perhaps even agitating for (Dare I say “campaigning for”?) establishing more university behaviorology programs and departments. We all require these to meet growing needs so that soon an increasing proportion of our world population operates with an expanded, behaviorologically informed repertoire as a component of their general science education.

That would lead not only to more traditional natural science in the education of behaviorologists, but also to more behaviorology, and less superstition, in the education of the general population and traditional natural scientists.

Why is that important? Recall the value of the interdisciplinary approach to the engineering of solutions for global and local problems that we covered in earlier columns (under the label recombination of repertoires). This approach is not only valuable but necessary, because humanity is running out of time to solve these problems before their implications overwhelm us, forcing those of us who survive to experience their worst effects.

To design and implement such solutions effectively requires all the natural sciences to coordinate their efforts with large enough numbers of personnel to meet the challenge. And these sciences include not only the traditional ones focused on energy, matter, and life forms (the sciences surrounding physics, chemistry, and biology) but also the sciences focused on individual and group life functions (behaviorology and culturology).

Given the acknowledged, substantial behavior components of global problems and their solutions, humanity needs all of these natural sciences working together, with reasonable familiarity with each other, if the solutions are to occur in a timely fashion.

That familiarity supports and enhances the interdisciplinary field of green contingency engineering. The culture, or at least cultural survival, puts this interdisciplinary cooperation at the forefront of efforts to solve global problems.

Examples of concerns on which traditional natural scientists and behaviorologists work together, or even on which just behaviorologically informed traditional natural scientists work, include humanely reducing overpopulation (a necessary foundation for solving many global problems), establishing sustainable lifestyles, keeping the air and water clean, and preserving habitats and resources and species diversity, to name but a few.

In addition, go beyond the coverage of these columns. Their real value might be in their setting the stage for your repertoire in the behaviorology discipline, and its applications, to expand beyond these essentially beginner’s considerations. Delve deeper, to study and apply the full range of conceptual and practical details that grace the pages of behaviorological science journals and disciplinary books (as found, for example, at www.behaviorology.org). These resources also cover the extensions, implications, and interpretations of the science.

Even if people have only a minimal, educationally conditioned repertoire in behaviorology, they would still be more likely to produce, or consider as viable, solutions to global problems that at least intuitively, or better, through design, take behaviorological realities into account. And they would be better prepared to avoid scientific errors and misuses of this or any science.

That holds particularly for those whom we call scientists, because they can already apply a thoroughly conditioned repertoire in one or another traditional natural science. As a result, the behavior–related components of the solutions could develop more easily as reasonable behaviorological interventions with an increased likelihood of success, thereby supporting the physical, chemical, and biological solution components.

The alternative is to continue to stumble along with relatively little success, from attempting solutions that stem from only behaviorological natural science, or from only traditional natural sciences or, worse, from superstitious cultural lore.

A major benefit accrues even if solutions merely avoid the usual knee–jerk, coercive suggestions such as “Make pollution (or whatever) illegal and punishable” (since nature will punish plenty for failures anyway). Far more benefits accrue if solutions involve designing interventions that include new or enhanced reinforcing contingencies for behaviors consistent with improving environmental health.

These contingencies should involve the long–term best interests of most people, and would help generate and stabilize the behaviors required to maintain environmental health. Indeed, as many more people gain more extensive behaviorological repertoires, and begin to apply them to global problem solutions, so much more is possible and will, I think (and we all hope) happen.

And so, dear reader, we approach the end of these columns and this journey together, a journey ultimately related to concern for our planetary home. Our journey showed you something about behaviorology, the natural science of the contingencies for why human behavior happens, a natural science to help solve local problems, and global problems in a timely manner. Other journeys await.

Perhaps you are wondering why these columns only really introduced the value of behaviorology for solving global problems. Why do they really only point out the principles, concepts, methods, and practices of this natural science? Why did they never spell out exactly how to apply each principle or concept of behaviorology to solve all those problems?

The reasons are several; here are two of them: The topic of how, thoroughly, to apply behaviorology, to cover its share of the efforts to solve global problems, requires numerous research programs, and several summarizing books based on these research programs, by new behaviorologists from those new university departments and programs that we must all demand. As yet too few behaviorologists are available for this work. Perhaps you will become one of the new ones.

And, since thorough treatment of this topic extends well beyond my own expertise, and likely beyond the expertise of any single professional, it might best come from teams of authors, teams from all the basic natural sciences, including many new, doctoral–trained behaviorologists, working to solve these problems together. Possibly you will be a member of such a team.

After all, whenever contingencies have compelled behaviorologists to address particular past problems, successful interventions have followed. Problems, whose solutions need broader teams of behaviorologists and other natural scientists, should similarly see solution successes.

In any case our current global problems, with their behavior components, loom in our collective face. Contingencies must compel enough of us to participate in the implementation of solutions through educating more behaviorologists to increase understanding and applying behaviorology as well as other natural sciences. Then we can together prevent humanity, and life on this planet, from running out of time. After all, contingencies are what cause human behavior, not stars or selves.

The next, and last, column considers why it is last, since many important topics remain, and where to go next.