The foremost aim of social engineering, legitimately understood and practiced, is to bring our societies into closer accord with principles of natural law, or that set of principles for organizing our societies that can be logically extrapolated from a more complete and accurate understanding of human nature. The contemporary social engineering project is not legitimate to the extent that it fails to account for important aspects of human nature, and to the extent that it is based on ideals that have not been extrapolated from a more complete and accurate understanding of human nature. These ideals continue to play a large part in forming the world views of those who define themselves as either liberals, progressives or humanists, including most social scientists and contemporary social engineers.

The vast majority of social scientists, and sociologists in particular, describe themselves alternatively as liberals, progressives, or humanists. Because there is a considerable overlap in the values associated with the belief systems of liberalism, progressivism and humanism, these labels can be applied somewhat interchangeably. Social scientists have acquired values associated with these belief systems as a result of early socialization, professional socialization, and as a result of somewhat unique cognitive abilities and temperamental tendencies. But, along with other groups which have unique cognitive and temperamental characteristics which make them more well suited for certain professions, social scientists have characteristics that are not representative of human beings more generally. And, whenever such an unrepresentative group attempts to extrapolate an understanding of human nature more generally from its own nature, it will necessarily end up with a distorted picture of it.

Because social scientists have such "polarized" and unrepresentative views, they are not in the best position to speak for humanity, and they are not best qualified to recommend one form of social organization over another. The understanding of human nature that is now being revealed by the behavioral sciences, and the principles of social organization that can be logically extrapolated from this understanding are much better suited for such purposes. Due to their stronger empirical orientation, and due to the fact that they were never as firmly under the spell of liberal-progressive humanism to begin with, the behavioral sciences have been much more free from the influence of ideology. As a result, they have been revealing a more complete understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions.

The picture of human nature that is coming into view as a result of advances in the behavioral sciences lies in sharp contrast to the more "sentimental and Pollyanish" view of human nature that continues to be a dominant influence on the world views of most social scientists and contemporary social engineers. This new picture of human nature poses a fundamental challenge to the liberal-progressive humanistic view of the world, even as it also challenges aspects of the conservative world view. Specifically, the behavioral sciences are revealing a view of human nature that is more diverse, complex and eclectic than either liberals or conservatives ever imagined. The values that can be logically extrapolated from this new understanding of human nature do not neatly aggregate closer to one or the other ideological pole. Hence, the new understanding of human nature does not exclusively support values or ideals that are more closely associated with either the ideological left or the ideological right. Accordingly, when attempts are made to extrapolate values from this new understanding of human nature as a primary basis for organizing human societies, it will point us in the direction of a more ideologically eclectic set of values.

The new picture of human nature that is being revealed by the behavioral sciences is based on the principles of evolution. Evolution endowed man with capacities and tendencies which are adaptive and functional. It was adaptive and functional for man to have a broad range of cognitive abilities and temperaments in order to allow him to adapt to the broad range of conditions and challenges he would face in his natural environment. And, because the range of conditions and challenges that he was likely to encounter in the natural world was so extreme, man needed to evolve capacities and tendencies that were highly divergent, and, in some cases, virtual polar opposites. So, man essentially evolved a dual nature that is defined by two polar sets of cognitive capacities and temperamental tendencies.

The process of evolution endowed man with two cognitive and temperamental "poles" to better enable him to meet the broad range of challenges to his survival that he was likely to encounter in the natural world. These poles would only tend to conflict with one another in those circumstances where there was considerable ambiguity about which set of capacities or tendencies would be the most appropriate response to a given situation or set of circumstances. Otherwise, either set of cognitive capacities or temperamental tendencies would tend to be activated at a time, in response to the demands of a particular situation. And, more typically, both sets of capacities and tendencies would tend to remain relatively inert and "deactivated." That is to say, in response to the conditions and circumstances that they were likely to find themselves in most of the time, most people would tend to hold certain tendencies associated with both poles in reserve and in their "energy conserving" and "neutral" positions.

Over the normal course of their lives, most people are able to switch back and forth between capacities and tendencies associated with the poles with relative freedom, so that neither pole completely dominates their thinking or the formation of their world views. Normally, people can freely switch back and forth between the poles, so that only one set of cognitive capacities and temperamental tendencies tend to be activated at a time, However, there are circumstances where tendencies or capacities that are more closely associated with one pole can remain in a more or less permanent state of activation. In such cases, one or the other pole can become a predominant influence on one's thinking. There are a number of reasons why this can occur.

First, some people will just be more naturally predisposed to form or adopt more polarized views or values because they have some unusual or unrepresentative cognitive capacities or temperamental tendencies. That is to say, some people will just be more naturally inclined to think in relatively polar terms. This tendency is known as "global affect." Alternatively, some people become more likely to think in more polarized terms as a consequence of their specialized training, or as a result of the way they have been socialized. That is to say, if people have had heavy exposure to a body of knowledge (such as social science literature) which is ideologically slanted or polarized, it can cause their overall perspective or world view to be slanted or polarized as well. But, more commonly, people adopt perspectives which are more "affectively neutral," as opposed to perspectives which are more sharply polarized along ideological lines.

For most people, one or the other pole does not completely predominate in their thinking, and they are able to make intermittent use of capacities and tendencies that are more closely associated with both poles. Most people naturally tend to think in more balanced, combinatorial, and "synthetic" terms when they have not been socialized to think in more polar terms. As a consequence, most people tend to see the world more in shades of gray, rather than in more polarized black and white terms. Most people think this way most of the time because this is the way of thinking is most appropriate for the kinds of situations that most people find themselves in most of the time. As a result, most people do not generally resort to more polarized modes of thinking, and they do not exclusively adopt values that are more closely associated with one of the poles, unless they have some unusual temperamental inclinations, or unless they have some "unusual incentives" or motivations. However, some individuals will become more likely to form or adopt views and values that are more polarized, or more closely associated with one or the other cognitive or temperamental poles, either due to some unusual cognitive or temperamental predispositions that they have been born with, or due to some unique socialization experiences or some unique requirements of their career fields.

Professionals in different fields tend to be adopt different ideological biases. For instance, economics and business professors tend to have ideological views which, in most instances, are slanted more towards the ideological right. Their "knowledge" which may be completely legitimate, tends to ignore information from other fields which might be designed to address priorities other than "maximizing profits." Although the study of economics attempts to address such concerns in its more comprehensive form, such concerns properly fall outside the scope of economics, more strictly understood. Conversely, social scientists (and sociologists in particular) tend to have ideological views that are slanted to the ideological left. Depending on the particular bias that has become most characteristic of their profession, and of the literature that people are required to master to enter a particular profession, people will often experience a psychological compulsion to adopt either a more liberal or a more conservative outlook. That is to say, when they are faced with a situation where they are required to master a body of literature that is ideologically biased, it helps them to process this information more efficiently if they adopt this bias themselves.

For instance, people will be more likely to adopt a more polarized way of thinking as a "heuristic" device to allow them to more efficiently process large quantities of information that are already skewed in favor of one of the ideological poles. That is, they will be compelled to adopt this outlook, if they don't have it already, because the body of information that they are required to master in order to get professional credentials already tends to be biased in favor of one of the ideological poles. And, by adopting either a more liberal or a more conservative framework (whichever framework is most consistent with the bias in the literature that they are required to master) they can use this framework as a heuristic device to reduce their information requirements. That is, they can use this ideological framework to shut out all the information that conflicts with the literature that they need to master in order to get their credentials.

When people are faced with a situation where they must master a body of literature that is already ideologically biased, it helps them to adopt (or to become extremely sympathetic to) the ideology that has biased the literature. By adopting this ideology, it helps people to process information that is already biased in favor of one ideological pole, and it also helps them to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would tend to result if they happened to hold values that conflicted with this ideology.

Because most people (including a majority of social scientists) are cognitive misers, they will simply find it more cognitively economical to adopt a more liberal outlook (if they don't have this outlook already) as a heuristic device to make it easier for them to process literature that is slanted to the left. And, because it would tend to generate an excessive amount of cognitive dissonance if they continuously found fault with the information that they were required to master in order to get their credentials, most of them simply take the easy way out by adopting the ideological perspective that most closely coincides with the bias in social science literature.

The literature associated with a field of study can acquire an ideological bias for a number of reasons. Again, competing information which may come from neighboring fields tends to get shut out. As a result of this ongoing exclusionary process, a field tends to assume a certain ideological coloration, particularly if it rests on largely subjective grounds to begin with. In addition, because a certain type of person (a person with certain cognitive and temperamental qualities that are unrepresentative of the general population) is more likely to seek entry to a particular field, and because a certain kind of person is more likely to become over represented within a field, this will tend to bias the outlook associated with the field even further. These forces combine to produce a kind of "group think" within a field that leads to a bias in outlook and thinking. As a result of such dynamics, a large amount of social science literature (especially in the field of sociology) has already become skewed to the left of the ideological spectrum. Hence, social scientists end up holding world views that are much more likely to be "ideologically polarized" than the world views of the average human being. This polarized way of seeing the world has certain costs, especially when a more objective and balanced mode of thinking is required.

When one of the main cognitive or temperamental poles (either the left or the right) is allowed to predominate in our thinking, or when we rely more exclusively on capacities or tendencies that are more closely associated with one either one or the other pole of human cognitive, temperamental essence, we will not be able to benefit completely from the full range of cognitive capacities and temperamental tendencies that we have been endowed by the process of evolution. Human interests are more likely to be optimized when values associated with both poles have been combined in a complementary and mutually reinforcing ideological matrix, or in a synthetic form, as this is the form that most nearly represents the complete cognitive and behavioral repertoire that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution. Only by relying on the full repertoire of traits that man has been endowed with by the process of evolution will man be best equipped to deal with the full range of challenges to his survival that he is likely to encounter at some point, at the aggregate or the species level. That is to say, when attempting to identify a primary set of values to use as our main reference point for designing human societies, it will generally be a better strategy to extrapolate our values from the full range of capacities and tendencies that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution, rather than just one part of it. And, when values that are more exclusively associated with only one pole are used as a basis for a form of social organization (a society) that form of social organization will tend to be unstable, and less well adapted to face the full range of challenges that are more likely to be encountered at the societal or the species level over the longer term.

The challenges that we had to face over the course of our evolution demanded a broad range of capacities and tendencies as an adaptive response. We evolved bi-polar capacities and tendencies to make us better adapted to respond to a broad range of environmental challenges. These are the kinds of challenges that we are most likely to face at the societal, aggregate or the species level, over the longer term. In order to be best equipped to respond to such challenges, we will need to rely on a system of values that has been extrapolated from the full range of capacities and tendencies that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution. Or, we will need to rely on a system of values that is a "synthesis" of values that are more closely associated with both poles of human nature. By contrast, polar ideologies, or ideologies that are mainly based on values that are more closely associated with only one pole, are less likely to serve human interests more generally. Such ideologies (like liberalism and conservatism) are mainly designed to help groups in society that have competing interests secure some temporary advantage, often at the expense of other groups in society, and often at the expense of the public interest overall. In other words, such ideologies will not be most likely to advance the public interest over the longer term. Determining what is most likely to be in the interest of the species and over the longer term  requires synthesis. That is, it require us to rely on values that are more closely associated with both poles of human cognitive and temperamental essence.

Most people today adopt a political ideology, or they show a preference for an ideological label, because they believe that the ideology which the label represents will serve their own immediate interests. And, they typically have a much less well developed understanding of what would most likely be in the public interest over the longer term. That is, they adopt a more ideologically polarized way of thinking in hopes of securing some special and transient advantages from the political system. But, when one is attempting to form a more comprehensive understanding of what would most likely serve human interests at the societal level, or even when one is attempting to form a better picture of what would most likely be in one's own interests over the longer term, such polarized modes of thinking reveal serious limitations.

When attempting to determine the system of values that would be most likely to maximize human interests at the aggregate or the "species" level, a "synthesis" of values, or a combination of values that have been drawn from both poles is required. And, when attempts are made to model a form of social organization on values that are more closely associated with one pole to the total exclusion of values that are more closely associated with the other pole, it is a virtual certainty that the resultant social form will not be maximally stable, robust or in accord with human interests over the longer term. It is a virtual certainty that such a polarized system of values will not best equip us to face the broad range of challenges that we are likely to encounter at the species level, over the longer term. Such forms of social organization are unstable precisely because they do not reflect a more comprehensive understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, and have not been extrapolated from the full range of capacities and tendencies that we have been endowed with over the course of our evolution.

In an effort to maximize our own survivability and in an effort to advance human interests more generally, we don't want to end up with a form of social organization that has been based more completely on values that have been extrapolated from one pole or the other. Yet, this is exactly the kind of mistake that both liberals and conservatives have been making.. And, they make this mistake primarily because they do not have a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of human nature to work with.

The values and ideals of liberal-progressive humanist social engineers are much more closely associated with one pole of bi-polar human temperamental essence. They arrive at these values mainly on the basis of "affect" or on the basis of what they "feel" is right, rather than on the basis of reason, logic and deduction. Or, to the extent that they use reason, logic or deduction in the process by which they arrive at their values, the knowledge base that they begin with is not adequate for the purpose. For instance, they may extrapolate certain values based upon their understanding of human nature and their belief that human beings are "tabula resa."  But, once again, the behavioral sciences are revealing that this is an incorrect understanding of human nature. Essentially, because they do not begin with an accurate understanding of human nature, they are unable to extrapolate a system of values that would be most consistent with human nature, and with human interests more generally.

Not having an accurate understanding of human to work with, Liberal-progressive-humanists, including many social scientists, tend to rely mainly on what they "feel" is right as a guide to the values and ideals which they adopt. They never seem to consider the possibility that what they merely "feel" is right could actually be at odds with what is right, or with what is most functional at an aggregate level, or at the level of human interests more generally. They never seem to question if what is most natural for "them" to think, feel and believe would be most natural for human beings more generally. And they never seem to consider the possibility that their own cognitive and temperamental propensities (which serve as the primary basis for their feelings) might not be representative of human beings more generally, or might not be the best reference point for extrapolating a set of principles to apply to human society more generally.

As it turns out, in most cases, what people merely "feel" is right is often not a very good indicator of what is right as a matter of fact. For, determining what is right (what is most functional) often requires extensive knowledge. And, in the degree that people reference their feelings, without considering this knowledge (in this case, knowledge of human nature from the behavioral sciences), they will be more likely to reach the wrong moral conclusions, and they will be more likely to adopt the wrong beliefs. That is, in the degree that people rely primarily on their feelings, or their proximal moral sense, to arrive at their core values and beliefs, they are more likely to make mistakes. While the proximal moral sense can have certain uses, in other cases, it can be misleading. Sometimes, the "distal moral sense," or that which is informed more by reason and knowledge (such as knowledge of human nature) is more likely to lead us to the right moral conclusions.

The fact that social scientists continue to defend their liberal-progressive-humanist ideals in the face of evidence from the behavioral sciences that poses a challenge to these ideals is not the result of some malevolent intent to subvert truth on their part. Rather, most social scientists are simply unaware of how the more recent findings in the behavioral sciences pose a challenge to their ideals. And even if they have knowledge that would threaten their ideals, most of them continue to believe that if our society was just based on their ideals, that everyone would be better off. They are attempting to advance and defend the contemporary social engineering project in the genuine and self-righteous belief that they are doing something good for society and something good for humanity. But, much like Marx before them, social scientists (mainly sociologists, anthropologists, and, to a lesser extent, some political scientists) are still working with a picture of human nature that is inaccurate and incomplete. As a result, their ideas of what a good society should look like are at odds with human nature and broader human interests at important points.

Social Engineering, Legitimately Understood and Practiced
To be legitimate, any social engineering project that we could possibly hope to justify or support would need to be based on a more accurate and complete understanding of human nature than that which prevails in the social sciences today, and which serves as the basis for the contemporary social engineering project. To be legitimate, any alternative social engineering project would need to based on principles and values that have been extrapolated from the view of human nature that is now emerging from the behavioral sciences. That is, to be legitimate, any social engineering project would need to be based on an eclectic set of values, or a set of values which have been extrapolated from an understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, rather than being based on some "artificial" set of ideals about human nature, or ideals about human nature as some might want it to exist.

The view of human nature that is now emerging from the behavioral sciences (as opposed to the more inaccurate view that still prevails to a large extent in the social sciences) is that man has a bi-polar essence. That is, it reflects the fact that man has a dual nature, composed of two potentially opposing sets of cognitive capacities and temperamental tendencies or "poles."  Man evolved these poles to make him better able to survive across the broad range of extremes that he would face in the natural world. And, various human values are more or less closely associated with one or the other of these poles. By contrast, the view of human nature, as well as many of the values which are held in common by those who describe themselves as liberal-progressives and humanists, tends to be much more closely associated with one cognitive and temperamental pole than the other. In other words, their values tend to be "ideologically polarized, unbalanced and lopsided."

Again, legitimately understood and practiced , the term "social engineering" refers to attempts to bring human institutions and societies into closer accord with predominating or the "more representative" elements of human nature. It refers to attempts to bring our societies into closer conformity with principles of natural law, or principles that can be logically extrapolated from the more accurate and comprehensive picture of human nature that is emerging in the behavioral science. By extension, as I have used the term "social engineering" in connection with this work, it refers to "a deliberate attempt to bring our society into closer accord with a rational system of  natural law, or a system of natural law that is based on principles that have been extrapolated from the new understanding of human nature that is emerging from the behavioral sciences."  At a more formal level, social engineering can be defined as "a deliberate attempt to change the core beliefs of a society (including the values, attitudes and beliefs which form the basis for the social structure of society) to make them more functional and conducive to human survivability.

Because they hold what is essentially a tabula resa view of human nature, it opens the door for liberal-progressive-humanist social engineers to insert their own unrepresentative ideals, which are more closely associated with the ideological left. But, in order to reflect the totality of man's cognitive and temperamental essence, and the full range of cognitive and temperamental tendencies that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution in order to maximize our survivability, a social engineering project would have to be based on values that are more ideologically eclectic and synthetic. That  is to say, because the process of evolution has endowed man with two cognitive and temperamental poles to enhance his survivability in response to a broad range of challenges, then we should be relying on values and ideals associated with "both" poles of temperamental essence as the main reference points for modeling our societies. In terms that some may be more familiar with, we can think of the basic tendencies that define the bounds of  human nature at the aggregate level (the normally occurring range of human cognitive capacities and temperamental tendencies) in terms of the Oriental concept of the "yin and the yang." In our contemporary political context, these tendencies have manifested themselves in the form of two opposing ideologies (i.e. liberalism and conservatism). By contrast, synthesis represents the "more completely human" reconciliation and integration of important elements of  these opposing poles in a way that will be most likely to serve human interests at the aggregate level over the longer term.

Social scientists never seem to consider the possibility that the cognitive and temperamental tendencies which led them to have an unusual interest in the social sciences to begin with might not be representative of humanity more generally. And, in fact, one of the main arguments that I have tried to make in this work is that what our liberal-progressive humanist social engineers "feel" is right is neither maximally in accord with important elements of human nature, nor is it representative of the prevailing cognitive and temperamental predispositions or the interests of humanity over the longer term. The fact that the contemporary social engineering project has become dominated by people whose values and ideals aggregate much closer to the left of the ideological continuum demands that we should be extremely skeptical of it. It also demands that we propose an alternative to the contemporary social engineering project (and that is one of the main purposes of this work.) But, it is important to note that this alternative social engineering project should not be based on values or principles that are more exclusively associated with the ideological right. For the ideological right is no more legitimate as an "exclusive" basis for social engineering than the ideological left. To be legitimate, an alternative social engineering project cannot be based exclusively on values that have been extrapolated from either pole. Rather, it must be based on values that have been extrapolated from both poles of human cognitive and temperamental essence.

Even as the contemporary social engineering project is being conducted from a standpoint that is much closer to the ideological left, in order to be legitimate, any alternative social engineering project cannot be based exclusively on values or ideals that are more closely associated with the opposite pole, or the ideological right. Rather, in order to be most defensible from the standpoint of natural law, and in order to completely reflect the knowledge of human nature that is now coming into sharper focus as a result of advances that are being made in the behavioral sciences, any alternative social engineering project would have to be conducted from a more ideologically eclectic and synthetic standpoint. That is, it would have to be based on a system of values that have been extrapolated from the full range of normally occurring cognitive abilities and temperaments.

Standing alone, the pole of human cognitive and temperamental essence that is more exclusively associated with principles on the ideological right is no more legitimate as a basis for our values and beliefs than the ideological left.  Both poles represent essential aspects of human nature. Both poles have something that we need to learn from, because they both reflect adaptations to circumstances and challenges that we encountered over the course of our evolution, and which we may encounter again in some form. Both point us in the direction of principles that we need to reference in order to design societies that will prove to be maximally stable, robust and conducive to human survivability over the longer term. The founders would seem to have had a much better grasp of such basic principles than contemporary ideologues on either the left or the right (i.e. liberals and conservatives). And, this is one of the main reasons why the Constitution was a synthetic document "for its time." and given the  limited knowledge base (especially the limited knowledge of human nature) that the founders had to work with.

Social Engineering as a Legitimate Enterprise
Social scientists never seem to consider the possibility that the cognitive and temperamental propensities which led them to gravitate towards, or to have an unusual interest in the social sciences to begin with might not be representative of humanity more generally. And, one of the main arguments that I have attempted to advance in this work is that what our liberal-progressive humanist social engineers feel is right is neither maximally in accord with important elements of human nature, nor does it reflect what will most likely be in human interests over the longer term.  These limitations, along with the fact that the contemporary social engineering project has come to be dominated by people whose values and ideals aggregate much closer to the left of the ideological continuum demand that we should be extremely skeptical of it. It also demands that we propose an alternative to the contemporary social engineering project (and that is in fact one of the main purposes of this work.) But, it is important to note that this alternative social engineering project should not be based exclusively on principles that are more closely associated with the ideological right. For, standing alone, the ideological right (the pole of human cognitive and temperamental essence which is more closely associated with principles on the ideological right) is no more legitimate as a basis for our values and beliefs than the ideological left.

Both ideological poles have things that we need to learn from. And, in order to be most defensible and legitimate from the standpoint of natural law, and from the standpoint of human interests at the aggregate level, the main principles, values and ideals that we use as a basis for organizing human societies, must be extrapolated from the normal range of temperaments and capacities that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution. That is to say, to be legitimate, any social engineering project must be based on principles, values and ideals that are ideologically eclectic, and synthetic, and which are based on a comprehensive understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions.

To base a social form on a set of values or ideals that have not been extrapolated from a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, or to base it on values or ideals that are more exclusively associated with either one pole or the other would be a betrayal of our evolutionary legacy, and it would be a mistake. Yet, both liberals and conservatives would have us make this mistake. And to the extent that contemporary social engineers take their lead from values and ideals that are more closely associated with only one pole, they would have us make this mistake as well. Again, in the process of forming or adopting their values and ideals, liberal-progressives primarily reference what they "feel" is right. They apparently never consider if what they merely "feel" is right coincides with what would be best or most functional at an aggregate level, or at the level of human interests more generally. They never seem to ask if the values and ideals that they extrapolate from their sentiments, are consistent with what reason and knowledge would suggest, or are consistent with human nature at the aggregate level. And, they never seem to consider the possibility that their own temperamental tendencies (which serve as the primary basis of their feelings) might not be representative of human beings more generally, or could be misleading them. Along with conservatives, they fail some of the most basic tests of being self-critical.

Being equipped with an understanding of the full repertoire of capacities and tendencies that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution, or having a better understanding of these capacities and tendencies in the context of their evolutionary origins and functions, reason suggests that we should extrapolate our values and ideals from the full range of tendencies that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution, because these tendencies have proven functional and conducive to our survivability over the course of our evolution. And even though most people are already naturally more predisposed to have balance and symmetry in their world views, and are less likely to opt for highly polarized belief systems, some will inevitably succumb to cultural influences that tend towards this result. Consequently, to stand the best chance of forming or adopting a system of values, attitudes and beliefs that will prove to be optimally rational and functional, people (especially people in societies that have highly polarized political cultures, like our own) will need to make a conscious effort to prevent tendencies that are more closely associated with either one or the other pole from dominating their thinking or the process by which they form their world views.

In the degree that a society is constructed in accordance with principles, values and ideals that have been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, that society will tend to be stable and robust. Conversely, in the degree that a society is based on values or ideals or principles of social engineering which ignore these tendencies, or which fail to acknowledge their existence in the first place, it will tend to be unstable. Furthermore, in the degree that a society is based on principles values or ideals that are in conflict with important elements of human nature, or that have not been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature, that society will not be maximally conducive to human survivability. That is to say, in order to maximize our survivability, we need to factor in and rely on all aspects of our evolutionary legacy. Contemporary social engineers would attempt to come between us and our evolutionary legacy, or they would attempt to deny us this legacy altogether.

Even as we are compelled by reason, logic and the desire to serve human interests more generally to challenge and eventually begin to dismantle the contemporary social engineering project, we don't want to fall into the same trap as social scientists. That is, we don't want to categorically reject or completely dismiss their point of view, even though they have categorically rejected and refused to consider our point of view. Even as we must object to the way they approach their study of society, and to their social engineering project overall, we must be also be willing to concede that the pole which they represent more or less exclusively does contain elements that we must be concerned with and that we must pay attention to. And we must be willing to acknowledge that there may be some situations or some set of challenges for which responses and tendencies that are more closely associated with their favored pole of cognitive and temperamental essence will be more appropriate.

Even as we must reject the contemporary social engineering project overall, we must be willing to concede that environmental influences do play an important role in human development and that correspondingly, socialization does have the power to overwrite, override and suppress certain innate tendencies. And we must be willing to concede the further point that, because socialization does have this ability, it can enables us to realize certain "artificial ideals, or certain ideals that may be at odds with or in conflict with certain elements of human nature. We must be willing to concede as well that to some extent,  people can be socialized in such a way that mask or suppress elements of their nature, or that they can be socialized to do many things that they might not be most naturally inclined to do. Yet, social scientists must also concede that in the degree that a societal form is not consistent with certain main elements of human nature, that it will tend to be unstable, and that it will experience constant pressure to revert to a form that is more natural and more consistent with those elements of human nature to which it is opposed. They must concede that in the degree a society is constructed on the basis of artificial ideals that society will be less stable, robust and conducive to human survivability over the longer term.

Again, we must agree that people can be socialized in such a way that they can be made to conform with artificial ideals or ideals that go against the grain of dominant and most representative human tendencies. They can be induced to behave in ways that are at odds with important elements of human nature. They can be socialized to become soldiers and go into battle, despite their natural fear of death, and their natural desire to survive. They can be socialized to engage in sexual abstinence, despite the natural tendency to want to have sex. They can be socialized to do any number of things that, more strictly speaking, they are not more naturally inclined to do. Yet, we must ask why would anyone ever want to construct social arrangements that are clearly at odds with important elements of human nature? Unless it can be justified on the basis of some purpose that is critical to the survival of the species, such attempts must be rejected.

The process of evolution has provided us with a guide to the optimal social arrangements in our own nature. It has provided us with a guide to what is most likely to prove conducive to our interests as a species. And we ignore this guide at our peril. Unless some artificial institutional arrangement is clearly meant to serve some purpose which are vital to the survival of the species (such as the suppression or diversion of the reproductive drive when we are under threat from overpopulation) we must ask why would anyone ever make such attempts. In order to maximize the stability and robustness of human societies, they must be designed to conform as much as possible to the main elements of human nature. This is the main goal of social engineering. legitimately understood and practiced.

Because the conventional wisdom has not been extrapolated from a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, it does not allow us to benefit from the full repertoire of tendencies that we have been endowed with by the process of evolution and it will not best equip us to meet the kinds of challenges to our survival that we are most likely to face at the aggregate or the species level over the longer term. Although, one might mistakenly conclude that because liberalism is more closely associated with one pole while conservatism is more closely associated with the other, that, together, they would enable us to meet these challenges. But, in these "monolithic" forms, neither of these polar ideologies will best equip us to meet the full range of challenges that we are most likely to face at the aggregate or species level over the longer term. For this purpose an ideology which is based on an eclectic and synthetic set of values, or values that are more closely associated with both poles, is required. The conventional wisdom only provides us with two opposing sets of values in their "unsynthesized forms."

Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of supporting a system of values that is not legitimate from the standpoint of what the behavioral sciences have been revealing about human nature, or from the standpoint of natural law principles which can be logically extrapolated from this knowledge. And even though the main justifications for the contemporary social engineering are more closely associated with the ideological left, the ideological right is just as much involved in helping to establish the bounds of the conventional wisdom and in helping to maintain its ideological hegemony. Because neither liberals nor conservatives hold a set of values that has been extrapolated from a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, they are either unable to identify, or are reluctant to support, courses of action that would be most likely to serve human interests over the longer term.  To the extent that liberals and conservatives both help to define the bounds of "acceptable courses of action" to deal with many of the most serious social, economic and political problems that humanity now faces, they are both limiting our options.  Neither group is willing to confront the most serious problems now facing humanity by the most direct and effective means, because, when viewed from within the conceptual framework of the conventional wisdom, such means fall outside the range of acceptable courses of action.

For instance, the conventional wisdom tends to blind people to such major systemic threats as overpopulation and resource depletion. It does not allow people to fully come to terms with these threats because coming to terms with these threats would require measures that the defenders of the conventional wisdom find unacceptable. It would require them to abandon or betray some of their ideological principles, particularly those principles that are related to their understanding of the proper extent of personal freedoms. Neither liberals nor conservatives appear willing to accept that, at some point, our ideas about the proper limits of personal freedoms must begin to change. Either the people will get ahead of the curve and they will begin to voluntarily consent to a "reinterpretation" of certain freedoms that they have traditionally enjoyed (such as the freedom to have an unlimited number of offspring), or, emerging scarcities of the resources that we depend on to maintain our standard of living will begin to enforce its own restriction of their freedoms. In the former case, great human suffering can be avoided. In the latter case, great human suffering will be much more likely to occur.

Presumably, in the environment of relative scarcity that we are now entering, only very few people would "want" to have more than three children, simply because most could not afford to support a larger number of children than this. So, in effect, when there has been a sharp increase in the cost of the key resources that people need to maintain their standard of living, people would not be giving up any freedom at all, if they consented to have fewer children. Rather, there would simply be a shift in what people wanted (if you don't want to do something, then a prohibition against being able to do it is not generally interpreted as a restriction of your freedom). That is to say, if people continue to exercise an unrestrained level of reproductive freedom, at some point in the near future, scarcities and rising costs of the resources that they need to support larger families will compel people to "voluntarily" have smaller families, provided that they are not being subsidized by irresponsible government policies, such as those which give people incentives to have larger families.

Eventually, in a world of growing scarcity, scarcity itself will begin to regulate the population. It will begin to compel people to exercise reproductive restraint. (Malthus would appear to have some say in matters after all.) But, regulating population growth by means of "scarcity" will typically result in much hardship and suffering that could otherwise be avoided if people would simply use a little foresight and restraint. Yet, such forward thinking would seem to lie outside the bounds of what is acceptable within the framework of the conventional wisdom. Operating from within their more restrictive frameworks of thought and action, neither liberals nor conservatives are able to tackle the related problems of population and resource depletion by the most direct and effective means. And, as long as policy makers try to deal with the related problems of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental issues within the framework of the conventional wisdom, they will not be likely to propose the most direct and effective solutions to these problems. They continue to approach these problems from the standpoint of outmoded paradigms when a revolutionary paradigm shift is required.

It is not possible to address the closely related problems of overpopulation, the depletion of vital resources or environmental problems by the most direct and effective means within either a liberal or a conservative framework. These ideologies restrict the choices that are open to us, and they restrict our ability to place these problems in their proper context as well. Both of these ideologies fail to acknowledge that, if current population and development trends continue, there will be a collapse in the resource base on which our standard of living has become so dependent. Essentially, and for somewhat different reasons, neither liberals nor conservatives are willing to acknowledge that the current pattern of economic growth is unsustainable. Neither group is willing to acknowledge that, at some point, we must either begin to experience a dramatic decline in our standard of living, or we will have to limit our numbers. Neither liberals nor conservatives are willing to ask one fundamental question:  Is it better to have more people who enjoy a lower standard of living, or is it better to have fewer people who can enjoy a higher standard of living? For as long as people continue to view the world through the lenses of the conventional wisdom, they are not likely to ask such questions.

Neither liberals nor conservatives appear willing to acknowledge that without dramatic changes, our standard of living and our overall level of civilization will begin to decline, despite continued advances in technology. There is a point where the depletion of key resources that are vital to our standard of living will overtake the contributions to productivity that are now being made by technological innovations. Once this point has been reached, the slope of decline in our standard of living could be steep, and the extended social, economic and political consequences could be severe. These consequences will be largely unanticipated by those who have fully bought into the conventional wisdom (i.e. liberals and conservatives). Again, policy makers continue to approach these issues from the standpoint of their outmoded ideological paradigms when a revolutionary paradigm shift is required.

On our current course, and at some point, circumstances will arise that will force people to reconsider their ideas about the proper extent of personal freedoms. For instance, when individuals exercise their freedom to have as many children as they want, then, at some point, in a world of finite resources, they will have to give up their freedom to enjoy a high standard of living. At many places in the Third World, and even in many developed countries like the United States, standards of living will fall, if populations continues to increase. When one is faced with a choice between the freedom to have as many children as one wants, versus the freedom from material deprivation, freedom from material deprivation should prevail. Hierarchically, freedom from deprivation is the greater freedom. Up to this point, the public has remained convinced that it can continue to enjoy both freedoms indefinitely, and that the exercise of one freedom does not involve a tradeoff where the other freedom is concerned. Neither liberals nor conservatives have done their part to convince the public that population control is necessary, because operating within the limits of their own conceptual framework, they don't see the necessity for such measures themselves. But, at some point, conditions of scarcity in an overcrowded world must make people more receptive to such "radical" proposals as the need to limit population so that all of us will stand a better chance of being able to preserve our standard of living in a world of finite resources.

As most people have come to understand it, freedom means a virtually unlimited ability to do what they want. Actually, this understanding of personal freedom is a gross distortion of what the founders originally intended. The founders never meant freedom to be understood in such terms. The founders never meant freedom to be understood as "being able to do whatever you want to do." Rather, they had a much more reasonable, and a much less hedonistic understanding of freedom. The founders understood freedom more in terms of being "free from" despotic rule, rather than in terms of "free to" do whatever you want. Within this more limited understanding of freedom they would tend to place communitarian concerns or concerns for what would be in the best interest of the community over the longer term ahead of what individuals might want for themselves over the shorter term. The kinds of communitarian measures that have been proposed throughout this work would have come closer to what the founders would have been willing to consent to than the more permissive and hedonistic understanding of personal freedom which prevails today. That is, the founders would have been more likely to prefer expedients designed to achieve a greater community purpose over giving free reign to individual wants over the shorter term.

If people continue to exercise an unrestrained level of reproductive freedom, at some point in the near future, the resulting scarcities will begin to impose limits on what they will want for themselves. That is to say, the resulting population pressures and scarcities will begin to compel people to exercise greater reproductive restraint, provided that government does not continue to subsidize their artificially high rate of reproduction, or provided that government begins to withdraw the incentives it currently gives people to behave in a reproductively irresponsible manner. In the absence of government intervention, scarcity itself will begin to achieve aims that are similar to those that would be better achieved by personal restraints on reproductive freedoms. But, scarcity generally achieves these aims at the expense of considerable hardship and suffering.

Eventually, the failure to exercise reproductive restraint itself begins to make choices for people which the people may not have been willing to make themselves. In a world of limited resources, scarcity itself will begin to regulate the population. But, the people will not like its methods. Its primary methods are mass starvation and war. It would be better if people would independently conclude that over the longer term, everyone would stand a better chance of avoiding scarcity and suffering in the future merely by exercising some modest level of reproductive restraint today. But, under the influence of the prevailing ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, neither the people, nor the majority of their representatives appear to be very likely to think in such farsighted terms. For, their field of vision is being limited by the conventional wisdom.

According to the conventional wisdom, there is no immediate need for us to be concerned about such things as unregulated population growth and resource depletion. According to the conventional wisdom, such things are self-equlibrating. Liberals and conservatives have both bought into the idea that when resources become too expensive, people will "voluntarily" exercise reproductive restraint without necessitating any "intrusive" measures by government, or without any compulsory measures from the state. And, in fact, when the government is not actually subsidizing the higher reproductive rates of the lower classes at taxpayer expense, or when it is not actually encouraging them to have more children than they can afford to support, then, to a certain degree, there is a general tendency for reproduction to be self-equlibirating. But, when government intervenes, even for what appear to be humanitarian purposes, these equilibrating mechanisms are defeated.

Most people will stop having families under circumstances when they cannot really afford to have families, unless the government is handing them other people's money (money that has been extorted from the upper and middle classes) in order to encourage them to have children. That is to say, under normal circumstances, or under circumstances in which free market forces are not being distorted by government intervention, scarcity begins to impose hardships on people. Scarcity of the resources they people need to maintain their standard of living normally begins to force people to "voluntarily" exercise some level of responsibility and some level of reproductive restraint. People will be much more likely to exercise this responsibility and restraint when they are not being subsidized by the government. Due to the limitations of the paradigms that they are working with, neither liberals nor conservative seem capable of fully understanding such things.

Neither liberals nor conservatives have been willing to approach the related problems of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental degradation in the most direct and effective manner because such a direct line of attack on these problems would require measures that they regard as unacceptable within their ideological framework. It would specifically require measures that violate some of their notions about personal freedoms. Effectively, the conventional wisdom places the individual's concerns with being able to do what they want over the shorter term ahead of the suffering that doing what they want is likely to cause over the longer term. If people were more aware of the longer term costs that will come from the unrestricted exercise of their reproductive freedoms today, they would be much more willing to consent to some restriction of these freedoms in order to avoid future suffering. But, the conventional wisdom will not allow people to think in such terms.

Liberals and conservatives continue to win public office mainly because they are able to appeal to "what people want for themselves over the shorter term," and not because they are able to set forth a more comprehensive vision of "what would most likely be in the public interest over the longer term." And, considering the ideological constraints under which they are operating (i.e. the bounds of the conventional wisdom) they would certainly not dare to propose that limits on population growth are necessary, or that such measures are the best way to tackle the related problems of resource depletion and environmental damage. They would not propose such things because, even though they may recognize that continuing population growth is the main source of some of our most serious problems, and even though they may recognize that population control would be the most direct and effective long term solution to these problems, they know that, within their limited frame of reference (the conventional wisdom) most people are not able to recognize such things. Most people would perceive such measures to be an unacceptable sacrifice of their personal freedoms. Therefore, as long as the conventional wisdom prevails, such measures are likely to be be too politically unpopular to be viable. Neither liberals nor conservatives will be likely to make the point that on our current course, individuals will be forced to give up one of the most important freedoms of all, namely, the freedom to enjoy a high standard of living and a high quality of life.

Along with a majority of liberals and conservatives, most people more generally continue to believe that benefits (particularly economic growth) continue to follow from population increases. From the more parochial standpoint of business and commercial interests, a continual increase in the population would seem to be a good thing. It would seem to be a good thing because it means expanding consumer markets for the goods and services which they provide. From the people's standpoint, an expanding population would also seem to be a good thing, because the people believe that expanding populations mean more job opportunities for them. But, this logic is flawed. For, at any point in time, the number of jobs available will be a function of existing populations, rather than future ones. All that population growth does is to increase the total number of people who need and want jobs. It does not increase the percentage of people who will have jobs at a given point in time.

Again, neither liberals nor conservatives appear willing to tackle the related problems of vital resource depletion, and environmental damage by the most direct and effective means (by population control and by taking away the government incentives that lead to differential fertility, which is the main source of population growth), because these means lie beyond what is permitted by the conventional wisdom. In fact, there are a number of ways to achieve population control without intruding unnecessarily on what individuals want for themselves and without infringing their rights. An effective population control program does not demand that we limit everyone's ability to have children. Rather, it only requires that we give the lower class incentives to have fewer children while we give the upper and middle classes incentives to have more children. The concept of childbirth quotas could effectively achieve both aims (see Chapter Eleven). Yet, when seen through the lenses of the conventional wisdom, such proposals seem "radical."

Because the lower class is the class that has the highest fertility rate, it is the class that is contributing the most to the problem of overpopulation in both the developed nations and especially in the undeveloped nations. And, because the lower class is also the least well developed from a normative standpoint, it also represents the largest normative threat to our civilization. To the extent that differential fertility can be arrested, we can simultaneously address both a primary material threat (resource depletion) and a primary normative threat to our civilization. In the degree that the lower class (those with the least functional normative characteristics) can be prevented from becoming a larger proportion of the population, or in the degree that members of this class can be induced to adopt more functional normative characteristics, we can begin to minimize the normative threat which they pose to our civilization. But, normative and ideological threats to our civilization are not restricted to the lower classes. Rather, these threats just take a different form as they manifest themselves in the upper and middle classes.

For instance, the upper and the middle classes are more likely to be affected by the limitations of the conventional wisdom, simply because they know more about the abstract concepts (ideological principles of liberalism and conservatism) on which the conventional wisdom rests. So, in some ways, and despite their higher levels of education, the upper and the middle classes will be more susceptible to the limitations of these entrenched world views, simply because they tend to be more knowledgeable of these world views. Consequently, because they are more likely to be under the spell of these world views, the upper and the middle classes are also the ones who are most likely to remain captives to liberalism and conservatism long after these ideologies have outlived their usefulness and have begun to pose an actual threat to our society.

The Failure of the Contemporary Social Engineering Project Will Present a Rare Opportunity
Along with many other developed nations, such as Canada, Australia, and most Western European countries, the United States has fallen firmly under the control of contemporary social engineers. Effectively, this means that the better part of Western Civilization has come to rest on principles that have not been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature. In the degree that a society does not rest on principles that have been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature, it will be at odds with natural law. In the degree that a society is not based on principles that are consistent with natural law, it will tend to become increasingly unstable over time. Consequently, the contemporary social engineering project must inevitably fail at some point. This failure will present a rare opportunity for those of us who want to "re-engineer" our society in order to make it conform more closely with natural law.

Because of their mutual inability to deal with a variety of serious threats to our civilization within the limits of their own conceptual frameworks, both liberalism and conservatism must inevitably be discredited.
Once these twin anchors of the conventional wisdom have failed, then the "radical" alternative social engineering project that has been outlined in this book will be the only plan of action that will be capable of commanding respectability, mainly due to its ability to distance itself from the conventional wisdom. Once this point has been reached, being perceived as a "radical" departure from the conventional wisdom is likely to be more of an asset than a liability.

Systemic dysfunctions that have their origins in the inherent flaws of the contemporary social engineering project have already begun to manifest themselves. As dysfunctions from this suboptimal mode of social organization begin to mount, they will eventually reach a point where they will "cascade" or where they will begin to compound on another. Once this stage has been reached, the social system that has been build at odds with natural law at critical points will be in danger of a potentially catastrophic collapse. Even though this collapse will likely result in a substantial loss of life and property, it is something that those of us who would legitimately practice social engineering (which mainly includes Synthesists and Xenophytes) should be prepared for. Such events will present us with a rare opportunity to shape the future and to bring our civilization into accord with those elements of human nature and natural law to which the current order is opposed.

Considering the dangers that are associated with a social order that does not rest firmly on foundations that are consistent with natural law, and wanting to eliminate these dangers as much as possible, the next question becomes: How do we end the contemporary social engineering project peacefully, and how do we replace it with one which is legitimate?  How do we begin to bring our society into closer accord with natural law, or how do we begin to steer it in a direction that is based on principles which can be extrapolated from the understanding of human nature as it is now being revealed through the behavioral sciences? The answers to these questions are in two parts. The first part relates to a shorter term strategy, and the second part involves a more long term strategy.

Having received the unconditional support of virtually all liberals, and even some who call themselves conservatives, the contemporary social engineering project has amassed considerable momentum. In order to operate in an environment where the contemporary social engineering project still has virtual ideological hegemony, and over the shorter term, synthesists will need to adopt a more defensive strategy, and they will need to maintain a low profile. This more defensive strategy will be necessary in order to avoid attempts by contemporary social engineers to depict all who would challenge them as "radicals." However, at the point where the conventional wisdom begins to break down, being perceived as "radical" will become more of an asset than a liability. Even having to work within the constraints of a more defensive strategy over the shorter term, there is much that can be done to organize and prepare ourselves, in order to be able to take advantage of circumstances once they swing in our favor.

The second part of a strategy to overturn the contemporary social engineering project will require actually going on the offensive. That is, we will need a strategy that will allow us to begin to challenge the contemporary social engineering project on more or less equal terms. This strategy will only be possible once the contemporary social engineering project is in a substantially weakened condition, and once it has begun to succumb to reactionary forces. This weakened condition will be the result of both systemic dysfunctions arising from the inherent flaws in the contemporary social engineering project, and it will be caused by a series of exogenous events.

Knowing that the contemporary social engineering project is substantially at odds with natural law at critical points, we can expect that societies that have been made to conform more closely to the requirements of this project will begin to exhibit extreme systemic dysfunctions at some point. These dysfunctions will become even more likely when these societies are subjected to stresses from exogenous events. That is, these dysfunctions will be even more likely when systems of social organization that contemporary social engineers have helped to build are being subjected to external stresses, such as those that will be created by the depletion of certain resources that are critical to the maintenance of our standard of living. Hence, as a part of our longer term strategy, we will simply need to have patience and we will simply need to wait for the opportunity that the God of nature and natural law will inevitably send our way. We will simply  have to wait for the dysfunctions that will arise from the inherent flaws of the contemporary social engineering project to manifest themselves more fully, and we simply need to allow the contemporary social engineering project to begin to fail of its own accord. The main danger of a longer term strategy that requires patience is that it can lead to complacency. However, being constantly reminded of the powerful influence which contemporary social engineers continue to exert over our lives, and being morally outraged by this abuse of power, should be enough to keep us from becoming complacent.

Considering how powerful and entrenched they have become, by occupying key positions in academia, the press, the entertainment industry and in government itself, there is little doubt that contemporary social engineers will be able to continue to affect the course of society over the shorter term. In some sense, this will be a good thing. For, having been able to completely dominate the ideological means of production, they will also force the flaws that are inherent to their world views to reveal themselves more quickly and dramatically. And, once their world views begins to unravel, things could quickly spiral out of control for contemporary social engineers. This will give us a rare opportunity. A series of exogenous events will help us to bring about the demise of the contemporary social engineering project.

A Convergence of Exogenous Events Will Set the Stage
The contemporary social engineering project will be at its most vulnerable stage when it is forced to contend with a series of exogenous events that cannot be dealt with effectively within the framework of the conventional wisdom. The events that are most likely to cause insurmountable problems for the contemporary social engineering project are the related problems of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental degradation, including problems that may have their origins in human induced climate change. These problems can be expected to have a number of far reaching and dramatic effects on society. These include a significant loss of the productivity of land that is currently under cultivation, as well as dramatic increases in the cost of food, energy, and consumer goods more generally. As a result of these events, we can expect a number of secondary events, including a precipitous decline in the standard of living in the developed nations (nations that have become dependent on inexpensive fossil fuels to sustain their growth and their standard of living), as well as mass starvation in those developing nations that have failed to make aggressive attempts to control their population growth. In turn, these events will give rise to an unprecedented level of social and political unrest around the world.

When they are viewed through the somewhat fatalistic lenses of the conventional wisdom, such problems would seem unavoidable and beyond our control. They would just seem to be inescapable facts of life that we must accept in a spirit of quiet resignation. In fact, if our hands were not being tied by the conventional wisdom, we could address these problems by the most direct and effective means, before they lead to widespread human suffering and loss of life. But, to some extent, the conventional wisdom must be allowed to run its course. The force of reasonable arguments are often not sufficient to persuade people to relinquish their world views. It will likely take an entire series of catastrophic events to change their minds.

On our current trajectory, the related problems of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental degradation will come to a head in such a way that they will generate a cascading sequence of severe societal dysfunctions. In other words, due to the constraints imposed by their own limited conceptual framework (the conventional wisdom), neither liberals nor conservatives will be able to deal with the related problems of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental degradation by the most direct and effective means (population control). And, because they continue to operate within the constraints imposed by the conventional wisdom, the key defenders of the conventional wisdom (which include many policy makers around the world) are unwittingly paving the way for a potentially catastrophic collapse of human civilization. Again, these consequences will include mass starvation in the Third World, dramatic increases in the cost of living, mainly due to increases in the cost of food and energy (which are not even reflected in the government's own inflation figures), in both developing nations and in the industrialized nations, a corresponding and closely related decrease in economic activity, and a significant increase in unemployment. These are all problems that could have been addressed long ago, if policy makers did not have to operate within the constraints imposed by the conventional wisdom.

At some point, and most likely in the first half of this century, the failure to address the related problems of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental damage by the most direct and effective means (means which are considered unacceptable by the standards of the conventional wisdom) will provide the principal catalysts for a global catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. This failure can be expected to result in a loss of life and property that can easily exceed that which occurred in WW II. .Not only is such a catastrophe probably unavoidable (as long as our options remain limited by the constraints imposed by the conventional wisdom), but, it may actually be necessary to fully discredit liberals and conservatives, and to overturn the contemporary social engineering project.

When seen through the lenses of the conventional wisdom (think of one lens as being liberal, while the other is conservative), rejecting the world views of both liberals and conservatives seems like a radical idea. Because liberalism and conservatism have come to define the boundaries of the conventional wisdom, any alternative system of beliefs which would challenge these belief systems must be "radical" almost by definition. Yet, there are critical turning points in human history when the "conventional wisdom" begins to break down. There are critical turning points in human history when serious challenges to human survivability may arise that cannot be adequately resolved within the framework of the conventional wisdom. At such times, there is a need to adopt a "radical" new plan of action because such plans are the only ones that are able to transcend the limitations of prevailing world views. And, as I have reiterated throughout this work, we are now facing such a critical turning point in human history. We are entering an environment where the challenges we are facing as a species are of such a magnitude that they cannot be addressed within the conceptual framework of the conventional wisdom.

Again, a number of global problems are threatening to totally disrupt human society and to reduce the level of civilization that we have been able to achieve up to this point.  These include unregulated population growth, the resultant depletion of certain natural resources that are vital to the maintenance of our standard of living, as well as the related problems of environmental damage and climate change.  In a cascading series of events, these problems will trigger other problems, such as chronic inflation, unemployment, as well as social and political unrest. Together, these problems will converge to create the "perfect storm," socially, economically and politically, probably in the half of this century. Potentially, these forces can lead to the catastrophic collapse of human societies around the world, if not to a catastrophic collapse of human society more generally. The conventional ideologies of liberalism and conservatism have already demonstrated their inability to deal with these problems effectively. Once it has been totally discredited by its inability to effectively deal with these problems, the conventional wisdom (which is bounded by the contemporary ideologies of liberalism and conservatism), will no longer be a cogent ideological or political force, and it will have come to symbolize failure. In this new environment, only a "radical" ideology (one which can be easily distinguished from the conventional wisdom) will stand any chance. And, once this point has been reached, being seen as "radical" or  "revolutionary" will have become more of an asset than a liability.

Even as the combined effects of overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental degradation begin to place societies around the world under great stress, this stress will be magnified in those societies that have not been organized in accordance with natural law. Because multiracial/multicultural societies do not rest firmly on natural law foundations, they are the ones that are the least stable to begin with, and they are the ones that will be the least able to withstand pressures from exogenous events. These societies include the premier muticultural/multiracial  societies of the West, and the United States in particular. Specifically, countries like the United States, which have large and growing ethnic and racial populations, will be the ones which are at greatest risk of severe disruption once the pressures related to the increasing scarcity of key resources begin to make themselves felt.

Overturning the Contemporary Social Engineering Project: Key Elements of Praxis
The picture of human nature that is now being revealed by the behavioral sciences tends to support a set of values and ideals that is more ideologically diverse and eclectic than those of either liberals or conservatives. Because most social scientists identify themselves as liberal-progressive-humanists, the social sciences have fallen firmly under the orbit of the ideological left. Because most social scientists acquired their values and ideals through a process that involved both their primary and their professional socialization, they will not be likely to relinquish these values and ideals, no matter how strong the evidence is that would tend to disconfirm them. As a result, the social scientist's view of the world is likely to remain skewed to the ideological left, at least until such time as an effective purge of these "sciences" can be conducted. Hence, a longer term strategy to end the contemporary social engineering project must include a plan to marginalize these hardened ideologues and to contain their influence.

One of the main sources of strength for the contemporary social engineering project can be found in the liberal academics who densely populate the social sciences. Currently, the social sciences are dominated by academics who are strongly committed to the liberal-progressive humanist ideals which serve as the basis for the contemporary social engineering project. Hence, to a considerable extent, the social sciences can be thought of as the brain trust behind the contemporary social engineering project. As part of a longer term strategy to completely overturn the contemporary social engineering project, aggressive measures will need to be taken to marginalize and contain those who are ultimately most responsible for this project in the first place, namely, liberal academics in the social sciences.

Again, exogenous events, combined with the dysfunctions that will inevitably arise from attempts to create a social order that is at odds with certain basic human tendencies will do much of the work for us. But, even once the contemporary social engineering project has been discredited and overturned by such forces, we will still need to contend with the legions of academics who would stubbornly attempt to resurrect it from the ashes. Hence, any longer term strategy to defeat the contemporary social engineering project must contain a plan to purge the social sciences of the ideological bias that has come to define them. There are a number of ways to conduct this purge. First, tenured professors, and indeed, all professors in the social sciences can simply be compelled to take an early retirement. Secondly, we can create conditions that will make it easier for a more ideologically diverse cohort to begin to move up from the ranks. And third, by rationalizing the process by which social scientists are credentialed, or by making this process more objective, their ideological hegemony over the social sciences can be utterly broken (see Chapter Twelve).

Because the social sciences are unique among the sciences in that they are already heavily politicized and heavily ideologically constituted, and because they are being publicly supported, this means that the general public has the right to demand their ideological reconstitution in a way that would be more likely to reflect its own views, interests and ideological preferences. In effect, the general public has the right to demand a complete ideological purge of the social sciences from top to bottom. Although less intrusive means are available for this purpose, the most intrusive means should still be an option.

Once again, liberal academics in the social sciences have been among the most devoted architects and the most active supporters of the contemporary social engineering project. In fact, we can think of them as "the brains" behind the operation. And, if we are to be successful in our attempts to overturn and dismantle the contemporary social engineering project, it will be necessary to contain their influence. One of the strategies to accomplish this containment is by way of "infiltration and displacement."

Gradual infiltration and displacement of the leftist ideologues in the social sciences is one of the least intrusive ways to bring about the ideological transformation of the social sciences. This infiltration will become possible once more objective means are used to credential social scientists. Currently, academics in the social sciences use their control over the credentialization process to regulate the ideological composition of their fields. That is, because the process by which social scientists are currently credentialed is so subjective, it allows them to exclude anyone who might disagree with their ideological views. Once the process by which social scientists receive their credentials has been totally rationalized, once the more subjective criteria have been removed, social scientists will no longer be able to exclude people from their professions on ideological grounds. This will make their infiltration by a more ideologically diverse cohort considerably easier.

By infiltrating the social sciences, and by populating them with scholars who have more ideologically open and eclectic outlooks, we can begin to dismantle the contemporary social engineering project from the inside out. Once the social sciences have been densely populated with people who hold more ideologically eclectic and open views, then, effectively, an ideological purge of the social sciences can be conducted from top to bottom, as a further step towards dismantling the contemporary social engineering project.

The key objective of an ideological purge of the social sciences would be to simply oust those academics who would put up the most energetic defense of the contemporary social engineering project, or those who would attempt to resurrect it once it is dead and buried. Because most of these academics easily qualify as ideologues of the political left, the purge would be designed to insure that a more "ideologically diverse and representative" cohort takes their place. That is, the purge would be designed to replace ideologues of the left with people who are more aware of and receptive to the new and more realistic view of human nature that has been emerging in the behavioral sciences.

Once the social sciences have been purged of the pervasive ideological bias that has come to define them, and that still has them firmly in its grip, we can begin to conduct social engineering legitimately, and in a way that will prove most conducive to the interests of the species over the longer term. That is, we can conduct social engineering from the standpoint of a better understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions. Once an ideological purge of the social sciences is well under way, and once we have begun to dismantle the contemporary social engineering project, then, armed with a better understanding of human nature than contemporary social engineers had to work with, we will be in a much better position to deal with such fundamental social problems as social inequality and poverty. And, no longer being hamstrung by the limitations of the conventional wisdom, we will be able to approach these problems by the most direct and effective means.

For instance, where the ideal of "social" equality is concerned, there is no natural law principle which says that we cannot have it. But, how we attempt to bring it about is critical. For, there is also no rule of nature which says that we must all be born with equally valuable and desirable traits. Accordingly, we are not all automatically entitled to social equality. Rather, the right to be evaluated as "an equal" by other members of society is something that we must "earn" individually.

Under prevailing normative influences, there are important qualitative differences between human beings which serve as the legitimate basis for social inequality. And, it is totally natural to differentially evaluate others, and to assign them to different places in the social hierarchy, based upon the degree to which they possess certain attributes, and principally, their values. Given that values are the main criteria that we use to size people up for the purpose of assigning them a social status, the process of social ranking will inevitably result in the social stratification of our societies, or in their division into social classes, for at least as long as these societies have large numbers of people who continue to hold suboptimal values.

Again, assigning people a social rank is the result of a natural tendency to evaluate others and to assign them a place in a social hierarchy. But even as it is a natural tendency to evaluate others and to assign them a social rank based on these evaluations, it is also a natural tendency to evaluate others as equals in the degree that we recognize that they share certain values. That is to say, we tend to evaluate others as our social equals, or we tend to assign them a place in the social hierarchy that is roughly equivalent to the place in the social hierarchy that we occupy, in the degree that we believe that they share our fundamental values, attitudes and beliefs. Herein lies the greatest potential for social equality. But, this potential is not likely to be realized in those societies that have not been organized in accordance with natural law. That is to say, this potential is not likely to be realized in those societies that have not been organized according to principles and values that can be logically extrapolated from the more accurate understanding of human nature that has been coming into view as a result of advances in the behavioral sciences. According to this new understanding of human nature, there is nothing that should stop us from differentially evaluating people as long as their values are differential functional. And, in fact, according to this understanding of human nature, we "should" differentially evaluate people according to the differential functionality of their values.

Contemporary social engineers would never consider making such arguments because it violates some of their most deeply held ideals. To begin with, it violates their ideal that all people are equal, and equally deserving of respect, simply because they are people; and that all cultures and their associated value systems are also equally deserving of respect. Such beliefs are basically an extension of their belief in moral and cultural relativism, and the belief that we should not judge other cultures or individuals according to our own standards, even though our own standards may be based, at least in part, on criteria that have universal validity. Contemporary social engineers also believe that any attempt to say that one culture or its associated value system is better or more functional than any other is just a result of some observer bias. They would never want to place themselves in the position of saying that some elements of our own (Western) culture could be better than elements of other cultures in absolute terms (even if this claim is true) because this might make them look ethnocentric. And, they want to avoid the appearance of being ethnocentric at all costs. And yet, in the degree that different values and values systems are either more or less conducive to the achievement of certain universally valued goals, or goals which are valued in all cultures, they can be qualitatively ranked. And, in the degree that different people hold values that are differentially functional, then they too can be assigned a rank. And, in the degree that certain values will tend to be more typical of people of a certain race, ethnicity or nationality, then, accordingly, different races, ethnicities and nationalities can also be assigned a qualitative rank.

Again, contemporary social engineers (and sociologists in particular) would never consider such lines of reasoning, because it would violate their ideals. Such a line of reasoning would conflict directly with their humanistic values and with the assumptions that it carries along with it, namely, that all peoples and all races and ethnicities are equal in terms of their innate abilities and capacities, and that their value systems are all functionally equivalent. In fact, as we have seen, not only can value systems be qualitatively ranked according to their functionality, but there can be considerable disparities in the functionality of value systems. Accordingly, there can be vast disparities in the normatively based worth of different peoples, even if there is a substantive and practical level of equality between them at a more purely racial-biological level.

A Revolution in Values and Ideologies Must Come First
From the standpoint of social engineering legitimately understood, our principal aim should be to identify the system of values and beliefs that would be most functional and most conducive to human survivability as a basis for constructing human societies, or those values and beliefs that would be most likely to serve human interests at a societal level and over the longer term. And, evolution has already provided us with a general guide for how to do this in human nature. Contained in human nature is a blueprint for what has proven to be most conducive to our survivability at an aggregate level over the course of our evolution. That is, the process of evolution has endowed us with capacities and tendencies that have allowed us to overcome a wide range of challenges, and that have been most conducive to our survivability over a broad range of conditions. And, those capacities and tendencies which have collectively best equipped us to deal with challenges over the course of our evolution also provide us with a blueprint for how to optimally construct our societies. That is, they provide us with a basis from which to extrapolate an optimal system of values, or a system of values that would best equip us to deal with the kinds of challenges that we are likely to face at the aggregate or species level over the longer term. A system of values that has been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature (an understanding of the main capacities and tendencies that comprise human nature in the context of their evolutionary origins and functions ) will be more likely to prove conducive to our survivability. Such a system of values will tend to be a composite or a synthesis of values that are more closely associate with both poles.

Findings in the behavioral sciences suggest that an optimal system of values, or a system of values that would prove to be most conducive to our survivability, can be extrapolated directly from human nature.
But, because there tends to be a relationship between the underlying material conditions of our existence and our values, then, even in the light of what is now being revealed by the behavioral sciences, most people will still not be likely to adopt this optimal system of values until they are compelled to adopt it by emerging realities. The emerging realities that are most likely to have the greatest potential to bring about dramatic changes in people's values are related to the resources we need to maintain our standard of living. That is to say, when conditions of living become more harsh and austere, as they inevitably will on our current course, people will become more likely to form and adopt a more austere system of values to reflect these conditions.

In attempting to identify the main principles, values and ideals that should serve as the basis for organizing human societies, the process of evolution has already done most of the work for us. All that we need to do to arrive at a system of values that will be most consistent with human interests at the aggregate level is to correctly interpret the message that is contained in our evolutionary legacy.  From this point, it becomes a relatively simple exercise to extrapolate "optimal principles, values and ideals" for organizing human societies. That is to say, if we have a better understanding of human nature to work with, if we have a better understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, it will point us in the general direction of what we need to know in order to organize our societies so that they are most in accord with natural law.

Toward a National Ideology
The essentials of a national ideology have already been explicated earlier in this work (see Chapter Five). The values which are at the core of this ideology have been extrapolated from the understanding of human nature that is now coming into view as a result of advances being made in the behavioral sciences. From one standpoint, particularly a standpoint that is more closely associated with the conventional wisdom, adopting such a national ideology would seem to require people to give up some of their personal liberties. Yet, in virtually all cases, freedoms almost always involve some kind of tradeoffs. The defenders of the conventional wisdom don't like to emphasize this point. Especially those who seek public office like to make people believe that they can have everything they want. The would like all of us to believe that certain freedoms are absolutes, and that nothing is lost by taking these freedoms to their furthest extremes. In fact, a great deal can be lost by pushing the envelope of certain freedoms too far. In fact, "all" can be lost by pushing certain freedoms too far. And, the illusion that our current freedoms do not entail certain costs, needs to be dispelled.

As a people, we are now in the process of giving up a number of our most important freedoms. Most importantly, by our failure to regulate our population growth and our consumption of resources, we are in the process of giving up our freedom to enjoy a high standard of living and a high quality of life. That is, by our failure to place reasonable limits on our reproductive freedoms, we are in the process of giving up one of our most fundamental and highly cherished freedoms of all, namely, the freedom to enjoy a high standard of living. People often fail to see their freedoms in terms of such tradeoffs because, just like many of their policy makers on both the political left and the political right, they are being blinded by the conventional wisdom. According to the conventional wisdom, the exercise of one freedom does not entail the loss of the other. But, once again, there are almost always tradeoffs where freedoms are concerned.

As most people in our society have come to understand it, having "liberty" or freedom is a gross distortion of what the founders intended. As most people have come to understand it, liberty means being able to do what you want, with a near total disregard for how your actions will be likely to affect the public interest or society over the longer term. The founders would have never given their consent to such an understanding of liberty. And, it is only be means of a more explicit national ideology that we will be able to overturn this erroneous understanding of freedom, and return to a more restrictive and functional understanding of freedom, or one which coincides more closely with the requirements of natural law.

The essence of freedom under a system of natural law is being able to act in ways that will be in your own self interest, or in ways that will tend to maximize your survivability. Because the conventional wisdom tends to limit our options, it does not give us the freedom to protect our interests by the most direct and effective means. And, similarly, it does not give us freedom from the bad consequences that must inevitably follow from a social engineering project that is based on suboptimal values, or values that have not been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature. One of the main purposes of a national ideology will be to make an explicit statement of values that have been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature. This will also be an important step towards dismantling the contemporary social engineering project.

As one of its most important political elements, the national ideology will need to be based upon the principle of ideological synthesis. And in fact, simply in order to run for public office, candidates would be expected to swear an oath to uphold and defend the ideological synthesis and the synthetic system of values which the national ideology represents. By committing themselves to this national ideology, or to the basic system of values that can be logically extrapolated from the new understanding of human nature that is coming into view in the behavioral sciences, the people will discover that the freedoms which they gain will be greater than those which they will give up. Specifically, by adopting an ideology that is based on principles of natural law, the people will succeed in placing their society on more stable foundations. From this they will immediately gain an enhanced level of security and survivability. Secondly, without the limitations of liberal and conservative ideologies to restrain them, they will be free to consider the much broader range of options than falls outside the framework of the conventional wisdom. Third, by being able to address the threats to their natural resource base by the most direct and effective means, they can potentially regain their right, as well as the right of future generations, to enjoy a high standard of living well into the future. Fourth, they will gain freedom from the manifold dysfunctions that must inevitably arise from the suboptimal ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. Fifth, they will gain the potential to achieve a high level of social equality. Sixth, they will gain greater economic security. Seventh, they will gain a rational political system that is organized strictly along meritocratic lines, as opposed to one that is organized along lines of suboptimal ideologies (liberalism and conservatism). Eighth, and most importantly, the people will be freed from the tyranny of the contemporary social engineering project that they have been forced to accept by an out of touch and unrepresentative class of intellectual elites. In sum, by adopting a national ideology that is consistent with principles of natural law, the people will gain a new lease on life for their republic.

A "Synthetic" National Ideology is the Key to Restoring Our International Competitiveness
A national ideology in the form of an explicit and revolutionary system of values is ultimately what will be required to restore our international competitiveness, our national preeminence, and even just to retain our basic viability as a nation. This ideology will need to be "synthetic" or it will need to draw its basic values from both sides of the political and ideological spectrum. But, this ideological synthesis is not born of an attempt to compromise. Rather, it is born of an attempt to face inescapable realities. As one of its core features, this ideology must concede a major argument that has become more closely associated with the ideological left, namely, that some degree of government intervention in the economy is necessary to provide a relatively high level of employment. Consequently, some redistribution of productive capital is necessary for this purpose. This is an inevitable feature of an advanced industrial society, simply because such a society will  have a surplus population, or a number of productively capable people that is substantially greater than that which is actually needed to produce the goods and provide the services for which there is the greatest natural demand.

Due to fundamental economic changes since the time of the founding, conservatives must be willing to acknowledge that some measures that they will tend to see as "socialist" will be necessary in a modern economy, just as they were necessary during the Great Depression. Because most people are no longer able to make a living in either industry or agriculture means that most people are now further away from the means of production, and are more exposed to the vagaries of the economic system than they have been at any time since our nation's founding. Necessarily, more people have become more dependent on government as a source of employment in this environment. A government which is relatively large by historical standards is therefore destined to be a lasting feature of life in a modern industrial society. Even so, there is much that can be done to contain its future growth and to insure that its bite of the national income does not become significantly larger.

At the same time as a synthetic national ideology must make a major concession to the ideological left, it must be willing to acknowledge and accept a major argument that has become more closely associated with the ideological right. Specifically, even as a core tenet of the national ideology is designed to extend a helping hand to its citizens to insure a higher level of employment than could be provided by the private sector alone, it must continue to condemn the more excessive lengths to which socialism has been taken in some European countries. It must acknowledge that when socialist measures are taken too far, they will result in an excessive rate of taxation, and they will thereby destroy the incentives that individuals have to produce the capital that government must have to operate.

Changes in the Concept of Freedom
One of the most revolutionary changes that will brought on by the collapse of the contemporary social engineering project is a transition in our understanding of the proper scope and extent of personal freedom. Such a transition in the way people understand their freedoms often accompanies revolutions, and it occurred at the time of the American Revolution as well. For instance, during the American Revolution, those who wanted to remain loyal to the British Crown were suppressed, or worse. Effectively, their freedoms were abridged, even as other "revolutionary freedoms" were advanced, and even as freedoms that would ultimately prove to be more substantive were established in their place. Similarly, a new understanding of the proper scope and extent of personal freedom will tend to emerge in the wake of the collapse of the contemporary social engineering project. This new understanding of  freedom will be designed to serve priorities other than simply attempting to give everyone what they want and trying to make them happy over the shorter term. Rather, it will designed more to reduce aggregate human suffering over the longer term, principally by controlling the rate of reproduction and by taking whatever measures are deemed necessary to preserve our level of civilization, including controlling the normative environment. Ultimately, these are more important freedoms than any of the freedoms which they might conflict with. Again, the concept of freedom that has come to define a large part of the conventional wisdom, is flawed

In the contemporary United States, most people have come to understand freedom in terms of being able to "do whatever they want." The founders never intended freedom to be understood in such terms. The founders primarily understood freedom in terms of freedom from tyranny and oppression, and in terms of the ability to pursue a livelihood, unhindered by the state. The idea that freedom should include doing what you want with little or no regard for the consequences that doing what you want has for society is a modern concept, and it is one which the founder would have rejected. People have formed this misunderstanding of freedom mainly under the influence of the Zeitgeist and the popular culture. Most people today fail to consider the possibility that freedom, as they understand it, can be taken too far. Freedom has gone "too far" when it has reached the point where it begins to have dysfunctions for society which will come back to impose costs on individuals in the future. Similarly, most people don't like to consider the possibility that their own freedoms could have bad consequences for society down the road, or that they could set forces in motion that could actually reduce the viability of our civilization over the longer term. We have come to think of freedom as a progressive concept, or as a concept which that should only go forward, and which should never go in reverse. We have come to think of the concept of personal freedom as something that is constantly expanding and unfolding. History suggests that, to the contrary, the most functional level of freedom falls within a range, and that when individual freedoms are pushed beyond this range, it will generate dysfunctions. In turn, these dysfunctions will force a return back into the functional range.

The "degree of freedom" that people experience also appears tied to the life cycle of nations. Over the course of a nation's life cycle, and at least in the case of liberal democracies like our own, individual freedoms will tend to expand to the point where they begin to generate dysfunctions, against which human sensibilities will begin to rebel. This in turn tends to set in motion dynamics which attempts to restrain individual freedoms where they have reached an excess. To prevent violent swings either one way or another, it would benefit a people to clearly establish an acceptable equilibrium between their concerns for control and security on the one hand, and their concern for being able to do what they want on the other. In other words, it will be advantageous for a society to adopt an ideology which already reflects a synthesis of the extremes to begin with, and which already sets out to balance the competing concerns of stability and progressivity. Freedom, creativity and progress mean nothing without stability, security, and some sense of predictability. Relatedly, the people's notions of the proper extent of freedom can easily be wrong when the people continue to rely on dysfunctional ideologies like liberalism and conservatism to give them a sense of moral direction, or to serve as guides in their political decision making.

The democratic ideal that the people are always right and that they will always make political choices that will be in the public interest is one of the great myths of our liberal democratic form of government. The idea that the people will always make decisions that will be in the public interest makes for good democratic rhetoric, but it doesn't square with the facts. Especially in their current normative and ideological state, the people will be prone to make serious mistakes in judgment. This is the result of a moral-functional failure on their part. It is specifically a result of deficiencies in their ideologies. There is only one set of conditions under which the people will tend to exercise their freedom in a democracy in a way that will tend to maximize their survivability, and that will be likely to yield the greatest long term benefits, and that is when an optimally functional belief system or system of values is already working to both guide and constrain their decision making process. In other words, the people need an optimally  functional ideology to give them a firm sense of direction in their lives and to help them form a more accurate picture of the public interest over the longer. Such an ideology establishes rational criteria and sets boundaries for their decision making. And, it helps to insure that the people will exercise their political freedoms in the most functional way.

If the people voluntarily adopt a normative system which imposes a certain level of restraint on their behavior, then this is merely the exercise of their own free will. That is to say, if people voluntarily adopt a belief system which is relatively more constraining or which demands more of them than a  "liberal" democracy, then, even as this belief system may have an authoritarian aspect, we should still call it a democracy. In the past, such an overarching normative influence on our society came from established religion, namely, the Christian religion. But, now that Christianity has lost a large part of its moral authority due to the rise of moral skepticism, relativism and the secular-rational view of the world, a new source of moral authority is needed. In effect, a more normatively constraining system is needed to once again provide direction for our civilization (see chapters Five and Fifteen.)

If people are without an ideology to provide a source of direction and to assist them in making their moral and political decisions, then they will be prone to make potentially costly mistakes which could pose a serious threat to themselves or their republic. In a condition of "freedom" the people need a set of functional norms to give them direction and to constrain their behavior, or they will be prone to make serious errors in judgment that will have the potential to adversely affect the public interest over the longer term. In short, the people must have a functional ideology as a  guiding influence in their lives, even in a state of freedom. If the norms of the people are not well adapted to the challenges they must face, they will tend to make wrong decisions when attempting to deal with these problems. Neither liberalism nor conservatism contain moral frameworks which are adequate to deal with many of the challenges which now confront our civilization. To the extent that the people continue to rely on these outmoded moral frameworks for dealing with their problems, they will make potentially costly mistakes, and their prospects for both happiness and freedom will be diminished accordingly.

A Political Revolution Must Follow
In order to completely dismantle the contemporary social engineering project, a political revolution will be required at some point. A political revolution will be required to upend the contemporary social engineering project because this project is being supported by a political regime that is legitimated by the philosophies that have come to define the bounds of the conventional wisdom (i.e. liberalism and conservatism). Specifically, being able to completely overturn the contemporary social engineering will require an alternative political movement that is capable of challenging the Democratic and Republican parties, and bringing their political duopoly to an end.

Candidates who are openly committed to challenging the contemporary social engineering project are already beginning to emerge. The main problem is that most of them have not attempted to accomplish any substantive form of ideological synthesis, and most of them would only attempt to substitute one part of the conventional wisdom (liberalism) with another (conservatism). Again, liberalism and conservatism are merely two sides of the conventional wisdom. To bring about any real revolution in this country, to bring about any substantive and lasting change, will require a completely different approach. To liberate ourselves from the constraints of the conventional wisdom will require a fundamental change in both the type of person who is most likely to be active in politics and a change in the type of person who is most likely to get elected to political office. In the place of good natured, smiley-faced "politicians" who mainly want to win popularity contests, we will need to substitute a class of case hardened ideologues. But, it is important to note that these ideologues will need to be "synthesists" as opposed to either liberals or conservatives.

Under the ideological hegemony of the conventional wisdom, most of those who seek public office are either partisans of the left or of the right. To bring about any true revolution in this country, to completely liberate ourselves from the contemporary social engineering project, as well as to avoid its opposite, we will need to elect massive waves of synthesists to public office. That is, we will need to elect people who have been sworn to uphold a "synthetic national ideology which is based on  values that have been extrapolated from the understanding of human nature that is coming into view as a result of advances being made in the behavioral sciences, and which is consistent with natural law."

More on the Concept of Ideological Synthesis
Synthesis is based on the belief that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the truth, and the idea that, depending on the issue, the best arguments (those that are most likely to be in the public interest over the longer term) can be more closely associated with either the political left or the political right. Those who rely on the concept of synthesis to form their own political beliefs, or to determine public policies, are known as "synthesists."  Synthesists come from all walks of life and from all parts of the world. Their numbers are growing, along with the realization that neither liberal nor conservative ideologies are adequate to deal with a variety of serious problems that humanity now faces, or will likely face in the near future. The belief systems of liberalism and conservatism represent an outmoded way of viewing social, economic and political phenomena.

As a way of interpreting social, economic, and political realities, synthesists employ an approach that is initially just as skeptical of liberal views as it is of conservative views. Liberals believe that truths about human beings consistently favor policies which aggregate near the left of the ideological continuum. Conservatives believe that truths about human beings consistently favor policies which aggregate near the right of the ideological continuum. By contrast, synthesists believe that truths about human societies favor policies which are distributed throughout the ideological spectrum. Synthesists also believe that human societies in general, and the vast majority of social, economic, and political issues, are too complex to be understood by reference to either liberal or conservative principles alone. An understanding of society which is most likely to be maximally conducive to the survivability of the species is based upon a more eclectic and comprehensive understanding of human beings and their behaviors.

Synthesis is the means for escaping the outmoded ideological paradigms of  liberalism and conservatism.  The ideologies of liberalism and conservatism are increasingly showing signs of wear. They are showing signs of having run their historical course. The limitations of both belief systems are destined to become more apparent over time. Something must eventually take their place. Synthesis is the most likely alternative. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the number of people who rely on the idea of synthesis is growing. This includes both those who openly proclaim their support for the idea of ideological synthesis, or those who openly identify with the synthesis movement, and it includes the growing  number of "closet synthesists," who, for one reason or another, want to pass themselves off as either centrists or moderates. It also includes people who are simply more even handed in their approach to issues, those who hold more eclectic world views, and those who want to distance themselves from the ideological extremes. Eventually, a mass exodus from liberal and conservative ideologies can be expected. The synthesis movement will be the most logical beneficiary of this exodus.

Waves of Synthesists
Currently, the people who are most active in the political process in the United States tend to be strongly committed to one of the prevailing political ideologies (i.e. either liberalism or conservatism). That is to say, most of those who now participate in politics became politically active because they were strongly committed to the ideology (or its label), which they believed most closely reflected their more immediate short term interests. But, in the future, it will be necessary to isolate and marginalize both of these ideological forces. Again, when a society that has not been organized closely in accord with natural law is placed under enough pressure from from exogenous events, and when the primary blame for its problems can be placed squarely where it belongs, i.e. with liberals and conservatives, then, under these conditions, the conventional wisdom will tend to loose all credibility, as will its principal defenders (i.e. liberals and conservatives). Under these conditions, having any association with the conventional wisdom will become more of a liability than an asset. This liability will extend to both individuals (liberals and conservatives) as well as to the major parties with which the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism have become virtually synonymous. In the ideological and power vacuum that is left in the wake of the conventional wisdom's collapse, both the major parties and their most loyal followers will be thrown into dissaray. These conditions will present a rare opportunity for "synthesists" to seize the initiative.

For synthesists to be in the best position to seize the initiative, they will need to be united, well organized and strategically positioned to be able to quickly move into positions of power once events begin to swing in their favor. Synthesists will essentially need to have a functional shadow government already in place and ready to occupy key positions of power, as things begin to unravel and go terribly wrong for the defenders of the conventional wisdom. And, because the process by which they will be assigned to positions within this shadow government will be highly rationalized and merit based, we should expect that those who hold positions within the shadow government will be generally well qualified for the actual positions in government which they are "shadowing." Hence, it should be relatively easy for them to make the transition into these positions, once they are given the opportunity.

As an additional requirement for the success of synthesis movement in American society, which is the premiere society from the standpoint of the contemporary social engineering project, there will need to be an alternative mass movement. This mass movement will need to involve millions of Americans who have been apolitical in the past. These formerly politically disinterested and inactive Americans will likely constitute a majority of the first wave of recruits to the synthesis movement. They are likely be among the first wave simply because they are not likely to have formed strong ideological loyalties to either the political left or the political right. And, not having these polarized ideologies to cloud their judgment, they will be more likely to assign blame for a variety of serious problems where it actually belongs, i.e. with liberals and conservatives.

Again, a series of exogenous events will likely play an important role in forming early allegiances to the synthesis movement. At least initially, liberals and conservatives will attempt to respond to these events by hardening their ideological lines of defense. But, under these conditions, the more that they attempt to harden their ideological lines of defense, the more brittle these lines of defense will become. Because their own ideological framework will not allow them to respond to these events by the most direct and effective means, the means which they choose will tend to be ineffective over the longer term, or they will tend to generate additional problems. And, when it becomes clear to the average disinterested (ideologically neutral, ambivalent, or independent) observer that neither side has the best solutions to the most pressing problems, and when the pressures generated by exogenous events becomes sufficient, the system that has been built around the conventional wisdom will be in mortal danger.

At first, many of the "new" participants in the political process will not even need to be completely aware of all the ideological and philosophical fine points which the synthesis movement represents. Rather, much like a majority of those who currently identify themselves as either liberals or conservatives, they will only need to identify themselves with the synthesis movement at the "label level." That is, they will only need to recognize that the ideological label of "synthesis" or the synthesis movement, is more likely to be in their interests than either the liberal or the conservative movements. Once they have begun to define themselves as "synthesists" they will have placed themselves in the position of being hostile to both major elements of the conventional wisdom. That is, they will have placed themselves in the position where they occupy a political and ideological standpoint that is opposed to liberals and conservative alike. And, once they begin to understand that the outmoded ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. have been the source of many of their problems, they will also be in a better position to see the contemporary social engineering project for what it is, namely, a monumental effort to subvert and deny important aspects of human nature. Being able to reach such conclusions will help to solidify the commitments of the first wave of recruits to the nascent synthesis movement.

Even as the main initial source of support for the synthesis movement will likely come from those who do not profess to have any ideological allegiances at all, and who are basically politically disinterested, the second wave of support for the synthesis movement is likely to come in the form of mass defections of those who currently identify themselves with either the political left or the political right. Among those who identify with either the political left or the political right, these "weak identifiers" will be likely be among the first to abandon their commitments to their preferred ideological labels, simply because their commitments to these labels never went much deeper than a commitment to the labels themselves.

The third wave of support for the synthesis movement is likely to come from those who identify more strongly with either the political left or the political right. Admittedly, getting these people on board will be more difficult. But, if events unfold as they are likely to, the task will become much easier. Once again, exogenous events are likely to intervene in such a way that, at some point, it will give a decisive advantage to synthesists.

The worse that the condition of the economic base of our society becomes, the more that the fabric of the contemporary social engineering project will begin to fray and to wear thin. And the more obvious it will be that the liberal-progressive humanist ideals on which the contemporary social engineering project rested were fundamentally at odds with important aspects of human nature. At this point, there will be a great opportunity to overturn and begin to dismantle the contemporary social engineering project, as well as the ideals on which it has been based.

In response to the discrepancies that they witness between the rhetoric and ideals of the contemporary social engineering project on the one hand, and emerging realities on the other, more and more people will become disillusioned with their government, the leading parties (i.e. the Republican and Democrats), and with the political process more generally. Once people become more aware of how the ideals and rhetoric associated with the contemporary social engineering project are at odds with social realities and with human nature, they will begin to experience cognitive dissonance. They can attempt to resolve this dissonance in one of two ways. They can ignore or attempt to deny the realities which they witness. Or, what is more likely, they can alter their beliefs. They can attempt to bring their beliefs into closer accord with the emerging realities that they witness around them. That is to say, they can change their ideals and values so that they more closely reflect emergent realities.

If They Were Alive Today, Marx and the Founders Would be Drinking Buddies
As it becomes increasingly apparent to most people them that neither Democrats nor Republics are able to adequately deal with emergent realities, they will become more receptive to "radical" solutions.
Such conclusions sound like they could have come straight from Karl Marx's work on ideology. And, at least when it comes to the analysis of ideology, Karl Marx was no slouch. What is happening (or what will happen) in our society today closely correlates with Marx's understanding of the nature of ideologies and the forces that are at work in bringing about ideological changes in a society. In particular, Marx's work on the dialectical relationship between the condition of the economic base (the material conditions of society) and the ideological ideological superstructure of society is relevant to what is likely to unfold in American society over the next few decades. Specifically, because a substantial deterioration in our economic conditions can be reasonably anticipated over the next few years, it should provide the catalysts for some rather dramatic ideological changes.

A continuing decline in the natural resource base on which our consumer societies have grown dependent will force a retrenchment of some of the values that have tended to support the contemporary social engineering project. That is to say, changing conditions in the material "base" of our society will lead to corresponding changes in the ideological superstructure. As their standards of living decline, and as their living conditions become more difficult, people will be compelled to adopt a system of values that is more austere, functional and consistent with human nature. The mass adoption of this alternative system of values will put an end to the conventional wisdom and the contemporary social engineering project. It will also will firmly establish synthesists in the place of liberals and conservatives. And, in some ways, it will return us to some important principles that would seem to have been lost since the time of our nation's founding.

In some very important ways, the founders would have qualified as synthesists. To begin with, in drafting the Constitution, the founders were able to hammer out a synthetic compromise between principles and values that had their origins in potentially conflicting elements of human nature. And, it was only later in our nation's history that substantive divisions over these elements would begin to emerge and to establish the beginnings of the ideologies that we know today as liberalism and conservatism. Hence, if they were alive today, and if they had our knowledge of human nature to work with, the principal founders (Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Jeffferson and James Wilson in particular) would probably want to sign on to the alternative social engineering project which has been described in detail in this text. Marx would also probably want in on the project.

If the founders were alive today, being the shrewd and pragmatic men that they were, they would probably side with us. After all, they were the original synthesists. Although the seeds that would eventually give rise to liberal and conservative factions may have been planted at the time of the founding, there were no liberal or conservative divisions in our government, as we understand them today. Most of all, the founders wanted to prevent these kinds of factions from arising. And, they would have never consented to the kind of adversarial and acrimonious political process that we have today. They would have never consented to dividing our society into two hostile camps, mainly along ideological lines. Rather, if they were confronted with such factions, they would quietly reflect on their causes, and they would attempt to bring about some kind of lasting reconciliation between the warring factions. If necessary, in order to best serve the public interest, they would invoke a "paradigm shift" that would be capable of neutralizing these factions. And, this is the mission that Synthesists must now undertake.

A Rising Tide of Popular Resentment Will Play a Critical Role
Because it is directly at odds with important elements of human nature, the contemporary social engineering project must eventually fail at some point. Once enough people have become aware of how the contemporary social engineering project has been adversely affecting their lives, a more popularly based uprising against it can be anticipated. At this point, it will be up to synthesists to ride this tide of popular resentment, and convert its energy to support the alternative social engineering project which has been outlined in this book. Once the tide of popular resentment against contemporary social engineers becomes high enough, it will give us the green light to go on the offensive, and to challenge them on their own terms. And, once they have the support of a majority of the people, it will be relatively easy for synthesists to challenge supporters of the contemporary social engineering project in both academia and in corporate America.

To some extent, contemporary social engineers have been able to ally themselves with corporate America. Conversely, to some extent corporate America has bought into the contemporary social engineering project, mainly due to the liberal indoctrination which many corporate executives receive at elite colleges and universities. Corporate executives also have a common cause with contemporary social engineers on at least two other points. First, they have become convinced that the contemporary social engineering project offers the best chance to preserve an inherently unstable social order (i.e. a multiracial and multicultural society). Secondly, they have come to believe that the contemporary social engineering project offers them the best chance to maximize their profits over the shorter term. Along with the vast majority of social scientists and contemporary social engineers, most corporate executives never considered the possibility that by bringing society into closer accord with principles of natural law to begin with, they would stand a better chance of being able to maximize their profits over the longer term

Commercial and business interests which might have otherwise been more conservative share a common cause with contemporary social engineers at other points as well. Particularly when it comes to their ideas about the relationship between population growth and economic growth. Almost uniformly, and for somewhat different reasons, both liberals and conservatives are opposed to the idea that population control is necessary to preserve our natural resource base and to secure a high standard of living for future generations. Conservatives are opposed to the idea of population control because, in their view, it would represent a highly intrusive statist measure that does not show sufficient respect for individual rights. They are also opposed to this idea because they believe that constantly expanding populations and the expanding consumer markets which they would seem to inevitably lead to are necessary to sustain economic growth. Liberals are opposed to the idea of population control for similar reasons. These arguments are false.

Personal freedoms can only be justified up to the point where their exercise does not adversely impact the public interest. And, some very convincing signs are beginning to emerge that the unrestrained exercise of reproductive freedoms has already reached this point. That is, there are clear signs that, at least globally, our population has reached a point where it will adversely impact everyone's standard of living and quality of life.

The commercial argument that we need continuing population growth to fuel economic growth is also false. Economic growth does not depend exclusively on population growth. It is also a function of rising standards of living among existing population as well as technological advances. In addition, the number of jobs available will tend to be a function of existing populations, not future ones. Expanding populations will simply put greater pressure on the environment and on the resources that you need to maintain or improve or maintain standard of livings  Hence, both of the leading arguments against regulating population growth ultimately fail some important tests of rationality.

Revolutions Become necessary at Critical Points in History
Revolutions become necessary mainly when human civilizations depart substantially from principles of natural law. Historically, our understanding of natural law has been very limited, and it has been based mainly on what individuals were able to deduce about human nature from personal observations and experience. While personal observations and experience have some reliability, and can go some distance towards informing our understanding of human nature, they are not completely adequate for this purpose. As a result of advances that have been made in the behavioral sciences over recent decades, we now have a much better understanding of human nature, in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions. This better understanding of human nature is pointing us in the direction of those values, principles and ideals that will ultimately prove to be the most natural and stable basis for human societies.

For anyone who has a more accurate understanding of human nature to work with, it is relatively simple matter to extrapolate certain fundamental principles to serve as the basis for organizing human societies. When it is understood in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, human nature logically points to, and helps to legitimate, a belief system that is "synthetic" rather than one which is polarized.  The reasons for having an ideology which is more integratively complex and synthetic than the polar ideologies of liberalism and conservatism should be obvious. At various points, liberals simply have the better arguments on their side. Conversely, at other points, conservatives have the better arguments on their side. Accomplishing "ideological synthesis" involves bringing the best of both polar ideologies together to form a stable ideological matrix. As it turns out, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum that they have been drawn from, or have become more closely associated with, the facts and the truth about man and human society tend to be mutually supporting and reinforcing. Hence, combining these elements to form a stable ideological matrix is not as difficult as it might first appear. But, when seen through the lenses of the conventional wisdom, such attempts must inevitably seem radical and revolutionary. Yet, at certain critical turning points in human history, revolutions become necessary.

There are times when the dominant paradigms for dealing with many of a society's most pressing problems simply become outmoded, or they simply stop working. We are now entering such a period. The ideologies that have come to define the bounds of the conventional wisdom (liberalism and conservatism) will not equip us to deal with many of the most serious challenges that we now face, and they are limiting our options. To stand the best chance of maintaining our standard of living, our place on the world stage, and our very way of life, we need a belief system (a national ideology) that is based on values that can be logically extrapolated from a better understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions. Necessarily, this belief system will be more comprehensive and synthetic, and will give us much more freedom of movement, than either liberalism or conservatism. Because it is based on the more accurate understanding of human nature that is now coming into view as a result of advances in the behavioral sciences, this belief system has the sanction of natural law. It is the synthesist's primary mission to insure that our social, economic, political, legal and theological institutions conform closely to principles of natural law, in order to maximize human survivability. These are also the most important aims of social engineering, legitimately understood.
 

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN