Lest one think that these are strange or revolutionary ideas, consider what we are presently attempting to do about substance abuse (socially defined as a problem) in the USA. At the institutional level we enact laws (norms) which prescribe penalties (aversive stimuli) for trade, use and possession of certain drugs; we charge the police (a social institution) and the courts (another institution) with the task of enforcing the laws. We take the misery of addicts into compassionate consideration (a value) and provide money and service (social resources) for rehabilitation. We also invest considerable sums in publicity campaigns designed to discourage substance abuse (education, and value reinforcement). A variety of agencies routinely take actions intended to render drugs unavailable to those who wish to use them (thereby limiting rights to freedom of choice) and, thus, force many users into criminal activities (unintentional feedback of dysfunctional behaviour control). Many of us are unsympathetic when addicts become victims of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (an attitude) and give little thought to their deaths (prejudice). Educational programmes in schools (another institution) seek to create fear of drug use (an attitude) as a means of discouraging our children from using drugs (mind control and value manipulation or reinforcement). At the individual level we seek to encourage children to pursue healthy habits (value inculcation through socialization) and point out the dangers of drug use (social definition of a particular behaviour as being undesirable), and we give approval (a social resource) when they follow our wishes (positive reinforcement) or after kicking the drug habit (negative reinforcement); we punish them if they persist in drug use (aversive stimulus) in the hope that they can be forced to mend their ways (value). All of this constitutes social engineering on a grand scale, and few of us find it totally objectionable. The distinction between this and the social engineering process that is being suggested for extraterrestrial civilization is one of organization and foresight. What we are doing on Earth is a reactionary response to social problems; we do not do anything about deviance until it becomes defined as a social problem. In addition, it is almost totally unorganized, consisting of uncoordinated, hit-or-miss, attempts to ‘put out a fire'. A far more enlightened approach requires deliberate and rational social planning to preclude development of many of the sociocultural patterns which we know to be problematic on Earth and to assure that impact is minimal for those patterns that cannot be prevented. The long-range future of extraterrestrial civilization is at stake. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman, Saul J. & Benjamin (1981) Bound For The Stars (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc). Bell, Larry (1981) Designing a village in space, The Futurist, 14, 5, pp. 36-41, 44-46. Ben-Yehuda, Nachman (1983) Deviance and human communities in outer space, Space Journal, 1, 1, pp. 90-125. Bluth, B.J. & McNeal, S.R. (Ed.) (1981) Update On Space: Vol. I (Granada Hills, CA, National Behavior Systems). Bova, Ben (1981) The High Road (Boston, Houghton-Mifflin Co). Butler, George V. (1981) Working In Space (New York, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics). Cheston, S.C.M. & Chafer S.B. (1984) Social Sciences and Space Exploration (Washington, DC, National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Clarke, Arthur C. (1970) The Promise of Space (New York, Pyramid Books).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==