Neo‐Modern Ecology

If the 20th Century was the century of physics, the 21st Century is the century of cybernetics, biology and ecology. Technological advance has both crossed new frontiers and discovered old limits. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine broke new ground with his understanding that nature, including its human component, seeks to establish order out of chaos by “self‐organizing,” not only according to pre‐determined laws, but through random creative choices as well that are responsible for the endless novelty and potentiality of being. The technologically‐armed purposive role of humans in the Anthropocentric Age thus takes on a new significance: “What we do today depends on our image of the future rather than the future depending on what we do today” as Prigogine puts it. “The equations of the future are written in our actions as well as in nature. Time becomes construction.” Nowhere is this truer than in the new science of genomics, which touches the soul, and in the effort to preserve the ecological balance that has enabled humanity to flourish within the narrow band of earth's livable climate. In this section we bring together leading thinkers, scientists and technologists of our age to address these issues of mankind's fate.     

Democracy and Disagreement

Abstract. According to Popper's critical rationalism, the possibility of disagreement is at the heart of open societies. If this is assumed to be true, is it not illiberal to try to justify principles of justice, which can be regarded as the subject of an unending collective deliberation? I suggest that it is not, using an analogy with scientific progress. Moreover, I try to show that Rawls's achievement is misunderstood if one forgets that it is supposed to overcome the antinomy between “la liberté des Modemes” and “la liberté des Anciens.” In this respect, I insist on some unnoticed similarities between Rawls's and Popper's points of views. I conclude on the idea of the “neutrality” of the theory of justice, suggesting a link between Rawls's approach and the French republican tradition.     

MOBILIZING FRIENDS AND FOES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

A common justification for the use of trial-type procedures in administrative agency decisionmaking is the assertion that such procedures will help legitimize decisions or increase their acceptability. Writers who take this position often assume that members of affected interest groups have fixed attitudes toward decisionmaking procedures, that such attitudes are highly salient, and that perceptions of procedural acceptability will not be greatly influenced by the social setting. This article reports on the results of a survey administered to witnesses in federal agency rulemaking proceedings which indicate that procedural attitudes have low salience, are mobilizable rather than fixed, and are strongly influenced by the activities of intermediary organizations such as trade associations and public interest groups. These findings imply particular strategies for designing and implementing regulatory procedures.