A convenient falsehood?

Jeremy Rifkin's “Algeny” from 1983 is a confusing book, written from a Green and somewhat new agey perspective. The author is currently a strong proponent of a hydrogen economy and something he dubs The Third Industrial Revolution. He is also a long-time activist against genetic engineering. Rifkin's book was written in cooperation with one Nicanor Perlas. A Filipino social activist of that name exists, and I wouldn't be surprised if it’s the same person. Interestingly, Perlas has ties to Anthroposophy. “Algeny” was endorsed by Senator Mark Hatfield, a dissident Republican and outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. Another endorsement came from Al Gore! Given the anti-scientific tenor of the book, these political endorsements strike me as potentially controversial.

Rifkin believes that humanity is about to enter a new period in its development. The industrial society will be replaced by a society based on advanced computer technology, information and – above all – bioengineering. Rifkin actually believes that bioengineering can solve the world's energy, resource and environmental problems. Bacteria can be modified to “suck up” precious metals from the ground, plants and animals can be engineered to withstand tough environmental conditions and thereby boost food production, and sugar cane can replace oil (genetically engineered sugar cane, that is). Rifkin's opposition to this development seems to be purely moral or spiritual. He believes that we should sacrifice our security for the sake of the cosmos, which is our creator. Therefore, we owe the cosmos to leave it as it is, etc etc. Needless to say, this doesn't strike me as a very good pitch when meeting politicians in Washington!

A large portion of “Algeny” is devoted to attacking Darwin's theory of evolution, which the author believes is simply a collection of metaphors derived from Adam Smith, Malthus and 19th century British capitalism and imperialism. His concrete arguments often mimic those of creationism (“there are no transitional forms”), and he even references Duane Gish's creationist classic “Evolution? The Fossils Say NO!”. To be honest, Rifkin comes across as completely scientifically illiterate. Thus, he attacks Darwin's notions of a “division of labour” in nature, whereby organisms living in the same environment rather than competing for the same niche, tend to diversify into different niches. “Division of labour” comes from Adam Smith. He also attacks Darwin's idea that organisms might solve overpopulation by emigrating. Sounds like British imperialism! Really? Does Rifkin *seriously deny* that these phenomena empirically exist in nature? Somehow I doubt it, but if so, Darwin's theory isn't just a metaphor (although it might contain a lot of metaphors, a somewhat different proposition – Rifkin is right that not even Darwinists deny that Darwin was a child of his times).

Rifkin believes that Darwin's metaphors, appropriate for an industrial society, will now give way to a set of new metaphors based on process, information and “fields” (presumably morphogenetic fields). The new science of cybernetics is critiqued. If an organism isn't a relatively stable product of its genes, but a temporary manifestation of certain patterns of “information”, society might draw the conclusion that genetic engineering on a truly massive scale is simply “natural”. We are simply manipulating what Nature is already doing. For what is genetic engineering if not the creation and infusion of new information? If organisms are more Lamarckian than Darwinist, why not attempt to change the organism by manipulating its environment, or indeed manipulate the organism itself? Humans will be next, and Rifkin points out that there is a resemblance between the idea of an organism constantly processing new “information” to survive, and the demands made on humans in a post-modern information society. And if organisms are held together by “fields”, doesn't this imply a kind of intelligent design, something humans can mimic by letting advanced computer programs create and control new organisms?

I don't deny that the metaphors would change in this way. Of course they would. Rifkin is at his most prescient when pointing out that even postmodernism, which is seemingly nihilistic and relativist, can be used as a metaphor for manipulating man and nature. If there are no truths, if everything is perspective, humans can become the creators of entirely new truths. If the cosmos is really just an assemblage of perspectives, humans can become omnipotent by creating their own cosmos in their likeness. (This insight is inspired by Nietzsche, of course.)

The problem with Rifkin is that he, despite protestations to the contrary, ends up in relativist position from which he can't tell us which metaphor, if any, is true! Thus, he says that the “cosmos wails”, that “we owe everything to the cosmos”, we are “accountable”, have “responsibility”, etc. These are, by the author's own logic, also metaphors. They are the metaphors of a Palaeolithic or Neolithic society, or perhaps of the wilder strands of the Green movement. Why should we bother with them, if they express nothing objective? Rifkin reminds us that we are mortal, and can never achieve immortality, but since we can achieve security on a bioengineered Earth during our extensive lifetimes, why not choose that instead? Note that Rifkin believes that bioengineering might actually work!

In sum, why should we believe that “Algeny” contains inconvenient truths, rather than simply another convenient falsehood?