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. (See the wanted poster at the end of this column, and show it to those people who are in positions to help.)
Many major businesses offer jobs, under various names, for “sustainability staff and managers.” Holders of a four–year bachelor’s degree in sustainability, one that includes a major in the natural science of behaviorology along with basic familiarity with all the other foundation natural sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology) would make exceptionally capable staff.
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?
We can share and apply more than morals about what we have discovered regarding human nature and human behavior. We may finally be arriving at some scientifically, as well as emotionally, satisfactory and difference–making answers across science disciplines working to solve human problems.
Unbalanced educational playing fields present additional obstacles to solving global problems. Consider the resources lost when educational programs remain disrespectful of science. Societies that allow such programs also automatically allow wasted research funds to investigate what is not really there, while mis–training legions of students to replace the professionals expended on the crusade.
While discussion of robotics could occur from any of our available perspectives—agential, environmental, or robotic (as described over several recent columns)—the discussion of robotics here derives from our standard, scientific environmental perspective. This avoids any terminological confusion that could stem from trying to deal with both robotics and the robotic perspective at the same time.
Several commentators (such as Lee McIntyre in his MIT–published 2006 book, Dark Ages—The Case for a Science of Human Behavior) have put forth calls for the development of a natural science of human behavior (like behaviorology). The difference between natural science and social science is relevant to understanding the place of those calls.
The question concerns life’s meaning. What is the meaning of life? This column also attempts answers which, though different, also may not seem satisfactory, at least to some people.
That abstract status of morals, as verbal stimuli, somewhat divorces them from the contingencies that generate them. This can lead to problems just as rules that no longer reflect the contingencies that they describe—because the contingencies have changed—can lead to problems.
Welcome to more columns scientifically exploring some of the mysteries of life and living, especially the behavior–related mysteries. Welcome to “more” columns, because this new set of columns follows an earlier set that was titled simply “Exploring Mysteries of Living.”
