Search

The article presents a speech by Eugene Rabinowitch, editor-in-chief of the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists," delivered at the 1972 annual meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He discusses the need to use newly acquired technological capacities for the survival and social evolution of mankind.

The article focuses on the transformation of resources in a modern metropolis in the U.S. It discusses the image of the downtown as an instrument for industrialization. However, alteration of resources should be considered in realizing such improvements in every city. Despite the sacrifices, the urge of realizing such development in metropolis area should continue to perform even when its environment is already populated with various cultural changes. In such, metropolis is being used as an option to menace resource scarcity and depletion. Nevertheless, the high demand of finding a solution in dealing the issue of critical resource has been discussed.

The article offers information about the social history of China. The author stresses that the country's adoption on social transformation among community and group took place in Europe during the industrial revolution. Social transformation includes the process of change in attitudes and beliefs of the people, where greatest demand in self-awareness and self-remolding among social groups are involved. The process of transformation has caused the country to concentrate on both philosophical and material scales of self-conscious planning. As completion on the change, the country conducted campaigns against illiteracy where about 90 percent of the population are affected. Furthermore, the transformation process of the society involves twofold process of change on both material and spiritual.

The article discusses the issue of forming an intellectual community within the society. According to the author, the experiences gained over the past centuries were no longer viable, which oftentimes became an obstacle in the search for sufficient and favorable answer under the new contexts of man's existence. In addition, man today has better ground for confidence than his predecessors since he is in every regard better provided with creativity and essentials of life. The author concludes that intellectual community is one of today's imperative tasks, wherein its object is the integration of all intellectual activities and humanistic civilization.

The article explores the role of science in the technologically determined transformation of the modern society. It is supposed that anything a scientist says and does not say affects public issues. His functions include critical analysis of old concepts, constant search for new and superior theories, and insistence that all these be based on evidence. Moreover, he is supposed to emphasize the applicability of scientific methods and attitudes to national and world problems. Modern social scientists have been caught by the desire to imitate experimental physics. However, the revolutionary impact of science is prompting one to conform to new circumstances of which people may have little appreciation.

The article presents a speech by H. J. Muller, a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, on the roots of science within human nature, delivered before the American Humanist Association and later at the University of Illinois. During his address, Muller cited the great series of scientific achievements led to the cultural evolution of human civilization.

This article focuses on the history of metalworking industries and unions in the United States. In 1904, blacksmiths held a charter from the American Federation of Labor and had jurisdiction over heavy-metal forging and welding work, except for that claimed by the Carriage and Wagon Workers. The cultural change from industrialization affected workers' ideas about their place in the social order and their relation to other workers, as well as their strategies for adjusting to new conditions. The International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers' reaction to new acetylene welding apparatus illustrates workers' shifting viewpoint and the change in American society in terms of it being a real system and a phenomenal system.

The article presents an author's personal view on the concept of science and technology and its important role in the civilization. According to the author, science is a systematic attempt to understand all reality that includes epitomizing the distinction between good and bad. The author stressed that because science attempt to understand everything to know, science therefore is generally good and any other view would be a view of ignorance. Technology, on the other hand, is the application of science. The author notes that separate from science, technology can either be considered good or bad.

The article offers information about the author's first hand impression on the social changes that the U.S. has undergone in 1966. The author holds that the country during the past generation has been evolving, by changing all laws of capitalism, exactly in a direction Marxist social scientists claim that it could not go. Furthermore, the author also believes that the government efforts on advancing the country's economy seem to be part of an increasing conscious effort that is furthered by insights and greater pressures from the interactions of science and society aimed at rationalizing the American society into a steadily evolving, creative, and innovating social system based on an enlarged complex of social values.

The article discusses the role of sociobiology in solving human problems in society. The author explains that there are two major ways that will improve the earthly status of man which are through deductions from the past experience and by scientific experimentation. He suggests that man can apply his scientific knowledge in dealing with his social welfare even if his religious and social conditions do not allow biological experimentation. Moreover, he recommended discovering the social life of animals with the hope of acquiring some inferences applicable to humans.

The article discusses the relation of philosophy to the evolution of civilization in the U.S. It is difficult to imagine any philosopher in the atomic age being taken seriously enough to cause him to be silenced by the powers. There is no age can afford to do without wisdom, but there are peculiarities of different ages which may emphasize the need of wisdom. Man is endowed with rational, moral, and spiritual potentialities which were he will use and apply. It would be sufficient for him to make it possible to live and get along with his fellows.

The article examines the different focal areas of culture with respect to the concept of adaptive systems, the concept of systems of ideas, the concept of sociocultural systems, and the concept of paradoxes and problems. The author also seeks to clarify the terminological, philosophical, and substantive issues that divide major theorists and the implications of these rethinkings for a number of classic anthropological questions. Finally, the author concludes that conceiving culture as an ideational subsystem within a vastly complex system, biological, social and symbolic, and grounding the abstract models in the concrete particularities of human social life makes a possible continuing dialectic that yields deepening understanding of culture.

This article aims to offer some critical comments on the thought underlying the theories developed in cultural evolutionism, cultural ecology, and cultural ethology, measuring it by the theoretical implications of the synthetical evolution theory that is generally applied in biology, and by the corresponding views in dialectical materialism. By these criteria, the paper shows that these three currents of thought are based on an incomplete concept of evolution. The cultural evolutionists maintain a sharp distinction between the biological and the cultural components of the human condition, and in practice they study only the evolutionary laws operating in the latter. The chief exponent of this approach is L. White, vide his statement that biological factors are of small importance as compared with the intellectual factors. A view in which culture is regarded as a category outside the biological framework cannot but restore the gap between the cultural human beings and the cultureless other organisms, a gap which seemed to have been bridged by evolution theory. This is the more regrettable as biologists are increasingly attempting to comprise both the biological and the cultural aspects of man in a single theoretical framework.