Previous | Next
310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356 of 763
outlining, were almost treasonable, for a social psychologist. I could see, as these ideas
were developing, that they could be viewed as a betrayal of my own career, my role, my
activities as a social psychologist who was seeking to understand relationship between man
and his social environment. And in effect, what I was saying was that we didn't have time
for that direction any more.
And by the way, I anticipated that my colleagues were going to be a little disturbed. I
didn't realize, how disturbed -- particularly my colleagues in
social psychology, you know.
But I had to pursue the thought to what seemed to me to be the logical conclusion:
namely, that if we didn't have time, there are only two directions in which we could go.
One would be to let nature take its course-- accept the inevitable defeat that would come
from this discrepancy, disequilibrium, which would mean extinction, I think, of the human
species -- which my wife says, “Well, it's not the first time a species has
become extinct, if it didn't have the capacity to survive.”
But to me, there's another direction, and that is, to accelerate the process, the
evolutionary process toward a functional morality, and the only way I saw that you could
do that was, --given limited time -- was, by manipulation of the organism-- which, by the
way, is not at all unprecedented.
And that's another thing I just couldn't understand, that though man has been
manipulating his organism by drugs, medicines of various sorts, spirits, from the
beginning, as far as we know, what I was arguing for was that we do this in a very
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help