GUEST EDITORIAL: TWENTY YEARS LATER, COMMENTARY ON SKINNER'S "WHY WE ARE NOT ACTING TO SAVE THE WORLD"

Behavior and Social Issues, Spring 2005 by Rumph, Robin, Ninness, Chris, McCuller, Glen, Ninness, Sharon K

Skinner's "Why We Are Not Acting to Save the World" was presented to the American Psychological Association in August, 1982. It was later published in a collection of papers "Upon Further Reflection" (1987). This article is important to behavior analysts because it asks us to move beyond our aspirations of helping people live better and more productive lives, to applying behavior analysis to the problems that imperil the very existence of the human species and the cultures that humankind have produced.

In the first paragraph of the article, Skinner outlines the perils from his perspective that were largely not being addressed in effective ways at the time he wrote the paper. He writes,

Most thoughtful people agree that the world is in serious trouble. A nuclear war could mean a nuclear winter that would destroy all living things; fossil fuels will not last forever, and many other critical resources are nearing exhaustion; the earth grows steadily less habitable: and all this is exacerbated by a burgeoning population that resists control. The timetable may not be clear, but the threat is real. That many people have begun to find a recital of these dangers tiresome is perhaps an even greater threat, (p. 1).

Skinner asks, "Why is more not being done?" It is undeniable that we have made great strides in science and technology that could be of use in solving our problems. Skinner suggests that our failure to act is not due to a lack of knowledge of what needs to be done: destroying nuclear weapons, reducing population, conserving resources and reducing pollution. Yet, effective action eludes us.

Shunning traditional explanations of lack of will or intelligence, Skinner not surprisingly suggests, "A better strategy is to look at our behavior and at the environmental conditions of which it is a function" (p. 2). In a literal sense, future events that have yet to happen cannot act directly on us and we cannot act directly on the future events. Our behavior is in the present and must necessarily affect current events which in turn may affect subsequent events.

Skinner points out that natural selection prepares an organism for the future, but it does so effectively only to the extent that the future resembles the selecting past. The ability of an organism to have its behavior altered through the processes of operant conditioning breaks through the limitations imposed by natural selection. In the case of many species, including human beings, this includes stimuli of social origin. At some point in the evolution of human beings, movements of the vocal musculature came under the control of social stimuli and language emerged. Skinner suggests that language is a product of cultural processes. Cultural processes involve the selection by consequences of a practice based on its effects on the survival of the group engaging in the practice.

Skinner points to the inherited susceptibilities to certain forms of reinforcement which have contributed to the success of the species in the selecting past as the cause of current problems for members of the species and for the species as a whole. For example, susceptibilities to sweet and salty substances are implicated in a number of illnesses such as sugar diabetes and hypertension. More damaging for the species are the susceptibilities to aggression reinforcers and sexual stimulation. At a time when humans were struggling to survive in a hostile physical environment resulting in short life spans, these susceptibilities had survival value. In a time when weapons of mass destruction are available, the susceptibility to aggression reinforcers threatens the very existence of the species. Likewise, in a time of historically long life spans and a less hostile physical environment, the susceptibility to sexual reinforcers has led to a rate of population growth that is beyond the earth s capacity to sustain. As the population grows, the quality of life decreases. We live in more crowded spaces with dirtier air, less pure water and with economic hardship as resources diminish.

Many warnings have been issued from the scientific community, but they have gone substantially unheeded, leaving us with the same threats, as well as new ones, as when Skinner penned this article. Why are warnings not heeded? Skinner suggests that knowing by the description of others is a weak technique of influence when compared to knowing by acquaintance. That is, the motivation to act based on a rule is not as great as the direct experience with the contingency that the rule describes. Warnings by their very nature are aversive. Skinner suggests that it is often easier just to ignore or forget the warnings than to take effective avoidance actions. In addition, many of the actions specified in the warning involve the forgoing of powerful positive reinforcers. In such cases, many individuals may rationalize to both minimize the aversiveness of the threat and to allow the individual to continue the strongly reinforced practice in good conscience.