The Future is Now: But Did It Come Too Late?
To coin a phrase, derived from my boyhood days on a family farm near Bucyrus, Ohio, I am going to"unload the wagon down to the bed" in this essay. So far as most, if not the vast majority of historians, are concerned, in terms of their published works, including textbooks, one would never realize that the various sciences, along with fossil fuels for energy, as amplified by technologies, have made the modern world, dating let us say (for the sake of argument) from the Industrial Revolution, beginning in England about 1750. When, may I ask, and what will it take, to bring such subjects into the mainstream of historical scholarship, not to mention into the classroom?
Apropos here is a research trip I made to the Academy of Natural Sciences Library in downtown Philadelphia last week, where I read a goodly portion of Alexander Winchell's A Plea for Science: An Address Delivered in Morrison Chapel, Kentucky University, Commencement Day, June 28, 1866 (Cincinnati: Gazette Steam Printing House, 1866) toward the first of which he remarked:"the more we consider the matter, the more obvious it becomes that we are indebted to a knowledge of scientific principles for all of those inventions and devices which characterize our modern civilization." As can be readily noted above, the speech was presented in 1866--some 135 years ago. When, though, will the vast majority of historians appreciate what should have been recognized long ago, to wit, Winchell's statement of the truth?
DOCTRINE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Instead, what historians (legions of them) have been offering their students, and the general public to a much lesser extent, and especially, I should add, since the civil rights unrest of the 1960's and the concomitant protests against the Vietnam War, are untold social histories, mainly on the trilogy of race, class, and gender. Can't we, as historians, begin to study other subjects or, is it chiseled in granite somewhere (could it be on Mount Sinai?) that the doctrine (as I would denominate it) of political correctness must dictate every study of history in this country? To answer that question, for myself at least, I can assure anyone, but with American historians particularly in mind, that we had all better begin (and soon) to address the concerns of a new trilogy--the sciences, energy uses, and burgeoning technologies worldwide. Such themes (when dealt with) all depend upon a knowledge and understanding of the several sciences, including (but not limited to) those of the earth, ecology, and physics. From such studies historians, or any other people for that matter, can begin to offer solutions (or at least perspectives) on such concerns, we all face, as global warming, the depletion of minerals worldwide (in particular the alarming rate at which the world's peoples are consuming the earth's finite supplies of oil), and the sundry threats (human-induced too, in large part) to ecosystems around the globe from technologies variously applied.
Now, I am telling my fellow historians, and anyone else who cares to listen as well, that people such as them had better start dealing with such matters in and out of the classroom. And, to do so they had better as well begin, as never before, to read from the literature of the sciences from evolutionary theory to modern physics. Then, incorporate what they have learned into a new synthesis in their histories, which must transcend national boundaries. For I will tell historians something else here--the problems or issues referred to above are global in nature and must as a consequence be dealt with on the macrocosmic level.
Without wishing to disparage the works of historians in recent decades on the study of race, class, and gender, which, however, do reflect, it seems to me, the lack of a wide-angle vision, imposed by the doctrine of political correctness, I would still maintain it is time to focus on other themes. To put the matter another way, let us quit"kicking" what has become a"dead horse," bury the corpse, and begin afresh in this the new millennium (what I would call"The New Age").
PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE HERE NOW
For, as suggested in my title, problems of the future (and the immediate future at that) are with us now! What, if anything, are historians going to do about this? Are they going to continue on their present course, much like ostriches supposedly do, with their heads in the sand, or instead begin to educate their students in terms of the sciences, energy uses, and the advances in technologies worldwide? If the latter is not done, and soon, it will soon (as well) be too late for us all. That is, too late to save planet earth from disaster in matters ranging from ecosystem degradations to inadequate energy supplies for world economies (based upon heavy industrialization).
What I am calling for--a reorientation in what historians research, publish, and teach--may very well be revolutionary, and, I know is foreign to their tastes and proclivities. What I hope fervently, however, is this. That Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was wrong, so far as my plea here is concerned. For, he observed:"The greater and more revolutionary an idea, the more does it encounter resistance at its inception."
At this point let me make something else crystal clear. In calling for a major shift in research (and even more in thinking) about American history, if not world history, I will not be put off by the objection that most historians have little or no training in the sciences. Neither did I, but I taught myself (using readily available books and periodicals) in sundry research libraries. I began with the study of petroleum geology, which I have mastered at least through about 1936. And, that was without course number one in geology, much less petroleum geology. Now, my mind is not that exceptional--what it takes is the willingness to apply one's self and learn from accordingly.
SUGGESTED READING
To help in this learning process, I am offering a listing of a few relevant books, all highly readable (by that I mean easily understood) and all written too, as I should emphasize, by authorities in their scientific specialties. There is then no excuse on the part of historians, or others in our society for that matter, if they are ignorant or mis-informed on scientific matters. Let's begin then to do our homework--is that not what we are prone to tell our students?
What follows is a good listing (but, I should add, one that reveals only the"tip of the iceberg"): Richard P. Brennan, Heisenberg"Probably" Slept Here: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Physicists of the 20th Century (1997); Niles Eldredge, The Miner's Canary: Unraveling the Mysteries of Extinction (1991); Jon Erickson, Plate Tectonics: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Earth, rev. ed. with a Forward by Ernest H. Muller (2001); Richard Fortey, Life: A Natural History of the First Billion Years of Life on Earth (1998); Robert M. Hazen and James Trefil, Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy (1991); Kenneth J. Hsu, Challenger at Sea: A Ship That Revolutionized Earth Sciences (1992); James H. McClellan III and Harold Dorn, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction (1999); J. D. MacDougall, A Short History of Planet Earth: Mountains, Mammals, Fire, and Ice (1996); David R. Oldroyd, Thinking About the Earth: A History of Ideas in Geology (1996); John Purcell, From Hand Ax to Laser: Man's Growing Mastery of Energy (1982); and Haraldur Sigurdsson, Melting the Earth: The History of Ideas on Volcanic Eruptions (1999).
Of the works cited above, the three by Hazen and Trefil, McClellan and Dorn, and MacDougall should be in any historian's library; I don't care what his or her interests are. Let me add so far as James Trefil is concerned--he is Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University, the very institution which recently became the sponsoring body for History News Network. He has also been a frequent commentator on National Public Radio (NPR).
In concluding my list of works pertinent for a study of the sciences, I want to offer three highly informative sources of information, all written by authorities, either in some scientific discipline or a historian of science. They are as follows: Gregory A. Good, ed., Sciences of the Earth: An Encyclopedia of Events, People, and Phenomena, 2 vols. (1998), in volume 2 of which appear three articles of mine on the"Mohole and Other Drilling Projects,""Petroleum in America," and"Petroleum Geology to 1920"; Neil Schlager, ed., Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, 7 vols, (2000-2001); and Ian Tattersall, Eric Delson, and John Van Couvering, eds., Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory (1988). The multi-volume works, edited by Good and Schlager, are truly outstanding with fine bibliographies, appended to virtually all, if not all, articles. Schlager's edited volumes (by the way, spanning the years from 2000 B. C. to the close of the twentieth century A. D.) also give numerous biographical sketches of especial value.
In addition, in volume one of Good's edited work, no historian should fail to consult"Resources for Research in the History of Geosciences"(pp. xxxiii-xl). This superlative listing, which includes references to Online Data Bases and/or Web Sites (pp. xxxviii-xxxix), concludes with Helge Kragh's An Introduction to the Historiography of Science (1987). Of special interest too, I would think, in this the era of multiculturalism, would be the listing (on p. xxxvii) of Helaine Selin's Science Across Cultures: An Annotated Bibliography of Books on Non-Western Science, Technology, and Medicine (1992). And, to make clear I am not opposed entirely either to gender studies, let me cite (also from p. xxxvii of Good) Mary Bailey Ogilvie's Women in Science: An Annotated Bibliography (1995).