Grayling’s Law

I am in the process of writing a book about the question whether it is possible to find universal common ground, in the face of globalism-generated problems of moral relativism and economic competition, on which humankind can deal with serious challenges confronting it in three domains. One, the most obvious, is climate change; the second is the more troubling aspects of technological development, especially involving AI, for example autonomous weapons systems; the third is the social, economic and political injustice endemic to many parts of the world. All of them require concerted international action. Achieving such action faces high barriers. 

The two highest barriers are as follows. The first is what, as coiner of it, I have elsewhere called “Grayling’s Law”:

Anything that CAN be done WILL be done if it brings advantage or profit to those who can do it 

This means that autonomous weapons systems, genetic engineering of foetuses, technologies that reduce civil liberties, will be developed, whether by public or private agencies who see utility and profit in doing so, or who dare not risk being left behind in the arms race of technological innovation. Such developments will happen despite every effort to prevent or outlaw them.

There is a corollary to Grayling’s Law, every bit as negative, which is: 

What CAN be done will NOT be done if it brings costs, economic or otherwise, to those who can stop it

Such as controlling anthropogenic climate change, eradicating tropical diseases in poor regions of the world, introducing systems of democracy and civil liberties that deny concentration of power in the hands of partisan economic or ideological interests.

In effect, this double-edged Law is a law of self-interest. Self-interest is rational when proportional to other concerns, and governed by principle; when it is short-term and knows that others might and almost certainly will be harmed by it, it has other names – in descending order of acceptability: self-interest, short-termism, selfishness, greed, callousness, crime.

The second root of the world’s difficulties is ideology: political, social, moral and religious ideologies, commitments to ways of thinking and acting that govern whole populations or influential groups within them, in ways that can be distorting and limiting, even dangerous. A prime example is a socially hegemonic faith outlook. Application of ideologies can result in gender inequalities, subjection of minority groups, political control by cliques, oligarchies and dictators; in the extreme they involve oppression and genocide. In China’s Xinjiang Province and occupied Tibet, in the experience of the Rohingya in Myanmar, these extremes are currently being enacted. The historical sources of division lie in conflicts of ideology as much, if not indeed more, as in competition for wealth and power. Typically, ideology and power-hunger exist in service to one another.

If there is to be a chance of finding ways to generate universal agreement on how the world’s various problems are to be confronted – at least managed, if not solved – the underlying question of values has to be addressed. This is the hard part, all the harder for being confronted by the massive challenge of what is implied in the two parts of Grayling’s Law and fundamental differences of ideology.

Some are of the view that relativism is an insuperable problem, and that — rather as with Isaiah Berlin’s pessimistic view that liberal values will always be in internal competition (as with the tension between liberty and equality) — we have to reconcile ourselves to the thought that the world is at best a fragile theatre of continual negotiation, a vertiginous effort to walk a high tightrope, with conflict – including violent conflict – a frequent inevitability among individuals, nations and cultures alike.

Really? I think of Homer’s description in the Iliad of the grief of Achilles for Patroclus, speaking to us, so feelingly and movingly across 3,000 years and a large cultural divide, of an instantly recognisable shared human experience. It prompts me to think that before we accept the pessimistic view just described, we should see whether we can do better, by seeking the commonalities on which a shared response to the world’s shared problems might be built. That will require breaking Grayling’s Law, and subordinating current ideological differences to a higher ideological unity acceptable to all. That is both the nature and the measure of the task; we are close to having the last ever opportunity to undertake it.

The first problem, global warming, is or by now should be familiar. It is possibly the most tractable problem faced by the world among those mentioned, because ways of reducing the rate of warming, mitigating its effects, and adapting to some of its consequences, are known and within reach – provided that humanity as a whole works together, and in such a way as to share the costs and burdens of doing so. The required action bears on production and consumption – which means: on economic activity; therefore, on economies. 

On the face of it, a straightforward reduction in production and consumption seems to imply a reduction in living standards and quality of life for all, but most markedly in the wealthier countries of the world. This is what has made the political parties who form governments in these countries reluctant to take the kind or at least the degree of action necessary. But the solutions do not have to necessitate a drop in living standards, and indeed had better not involve them, given that raising populations out of poverty itself implies increases in the production and consumption on which living standards turn. Therefore the means and methods of production, and what is consumed, have to be the targets of climate change action: wholesale use of clean renewable energy sources is a key target, sustainable development the imperative. The chief barrier to achieving the goal of keeping the rise in average global temperature to two degrees celsius is the negative corollary of Grayling’s Law: what can be done will not be done if it brings a cost to those who can stop it. Think of Trump’s reneging on the Paris climate agreement: a classic instance.

The second problem, technology, which in its beneficial aspects is a great boon to humanity – and most of its aspects are indeed beneficial – is a problem when it represents an actual or possible source of danger to individuals and society. This appears most acutely in the form of some potential uses of artificial intelligence – not least, but not exclusively, in autonomous weapon systems, already in active and advanced development, with hundreds of billions of dollars invested in it by the US, China, Russia, India, France and the UK. There is much misunderstanding about the kinds of risks that technology can pose; much of the anxiety about AI, for a chief example, is misplaced and based on instinctive reactions to what is merely unfamiliar. But the real risks are great, ranging from threats to individual privacy to the undermining of democratic institutions and government. Humanity-wide agreement is necessary to guard against misdirection and misuse in technological development, because without it the national imperative against falling behind in technological arms-races will be irresistible.

But there are other, currently less visible, technological developments that will raise acute ethical questions: for a prime example, medical technologies. Advances in neuroscience already offer the possibility of advanced “lie detector” capabilities, enhanced surgical and medical control of emotion, behaviour and memory, invasion of privacy by recording the content of neural circuit activation, and more. Advances in genetic engineering and stem cell research offer the possibility of modifying and enhancing human beings from womb to old age. Such enhancement will be more available to the rich than the poor; a Brave New World-type diversification in the human lineage would inevitably result. Conquering the deficits of ageing raises questions about very long-lived and healthy populations and their economic and social impact, the latter illustrated by such questions as – for just one example –  what social decisions will be required if women can continue to have babies when aged 80 or 100, and choose to do so: will having offspring have to be rationed?

The third problem, justice, on the face of it looks like a miscellany: homosexuality, and sexuality in general; gender inequality; faith and secularity; the lingering effects of historical wrongs such as genocides and slavery; law, rights and liberty; economic justice. But there are themes that connect all these disparate-seeming topics, and addressing them is crucial to global peace, because each of them is a familiar and frequent trigger for discord. Of the three problems, this seems at once the least urgent and most intractable, and perhaps for that reason it is relatively neglected in thinking about how to manage the world’s problems. But in fact it is the divisions and oppositions in this category that underlie the inability to reach a world-united front in dealing properly with the other problems. This is because in fostering the divisions between cultures and nations, they are the hidden engine of the reluctance to be left behind in the economic and military competitions that are those divisions’ surface expression, and therefore obstruct international cooperation of a kind that involves real sacrifices in economic terms. It is to this category of justice that efforts to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals belong; these goals are fundamentally about justice for all in humanity, and their achievement requires overcoming the sources of division at issue.

If there is to be a chance of finding ways to generate universal agreement on how the world’s various problems are to be confronted – at least managed, if not solved – the underlying question of values has to be addressed. This is the hard part, all the harder for being confronted by the massive challenge of what is implied in the two parts of Grayling’s Law and the fundamental ideological differences that separate cultures. I tackle this in the work-in-progress book; but it is a subject for everyone to tackle, because everyone has a stake in finding solutions.

A final thought: it is not impossible that the saddest sentiment expressible in any language, “it’s too late”, is already true. These words might be written in an aftermath already here but as yet unrecognised. One can think of many examples in history of irreversible change having happened before anyone understood that it had happened, let alone before the passing of opportunities to prevent or mitigate the change’s deleterious consequences, or guide them in more positive directions. Yet to act as if one thinks so is defeatist. One must strive to the last moment and the last ounce of strength, mindful of those who, all too probably, will inherit from us increased burdens with diminished resources because of what we and those who came before us have done. 

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.