Robert Nadeau – författare

There is also a large and growing consensus in the scientific community that resolving the environmental crisis will require massive changes in our political and economic institutions and new standards for moral and ethical behavior. In this groundbreaking book, Robert Nadeau makes a convincing case that these remarkable developments could occur if sufficient numbers of environmentally concerned people participate in the new dialogue between the truths of science and religion. Those who enter this dialogue will discover that the most fundamental scientific truths in contemporary physics and biology are analogous to and fully compatible with the most profound spiritual truths in all of the great religious traditions of the world. They will learn that recent scientific research has revealed that all of the 7 billion people on this planet are members of one extended human family and closely resemble other members of this family in genetic, cognitive and behavioral terms. And they will also learn that this research has also shown that we have an evolved and innate capacity to experience the other as oneself on the precognitive level and to engage in spontaneous moral behavior in the absence of feedback from higher level cortical processes associated with making conscious moral decisions. During the course of this discussion, it should become clear that there are two reasons why the new dialogue between the truths or science and religion could greatly enhance the prospects of resolving the environmental crisis. The first is that this dialogue can serve as the basis for articulating and disseminating an environmental ethos with a profound spiritual dimension. And the second is that the widespread acceptance of ethos could result in the fairly rapid emergence of well organized and highly effective worldwide movement in religious environmentalism.

Virtually all large-scale damage to the global environment is caused by economic activities, and the vast majority of economic planners in both business and government coordinate these activities on the basis of guidelines and prescriptions from neoclassical economic theory. In this hard-hitting book, Robert Nadeau demonstrates that the claim that neoclassical economics is a science comparable to the physical sciences is totally bogus and that our failure to recognize and deal with this fact constitutes the greatest single barrier to the timely resolution of the crisis in the global environment. Neoclassical economic theory is premised on the belief that the "invisible hand"- Adam Smith's metaphor for forces associated with the operation of the "natural laws of economics"-regulates the workings of market economies. Nadeau reveals that Smith's understanding of these laws was predicated on assumptions from eighteenth-century metaphysics and that the creators of neoclassical economics incorporated this view of the "lawful" mechanisms of free-market systems into a mathematical formalism borrowed wholesale from mid-nineteenth-century physics.The strategy used by these economists, all of whom had been trained as engineers, was as simple as it was absurd-they substituted economic variables for the physical variables in the equations of this physics. Strangely enough, this claim was widely accepted and the fact that neoclassical economics originated in a bastardization of mid-nineteenth-century physics was soon forgotten. Nadeau makes a convincing case that the myth that neoclassical economic theory is a science has blinded us to the fact that there is absolutely no basis in this theory for accounting for the environmental impacts of economic activities or for positing viable economic solutions to environmental problems. The unfortunate result is that the manner in which we are now coordinating global economic activities is a program for ecological disaster, and we may soon arrive at the point where massive changes in the global environment will threaten the lives of billions of people. To avoid this prospect, Nadeau argues that we must develop and implement an environmentally responsible economic theory and describes how this can be accomplished.

During the 1960s, Margaret Mead's argument that gender identity is a product of learning in particular cultural contexts was incorporated into the sex/gender system in feminist theory. In this system, sex refers to physiological differences in the body and gender refers to learned sex-specific bodies to be viewed as separate and distinct from gender-neutral minds. In S/He Brain, Nadeau demonstrates that the sex/gender systemis not some arcane bit of academic jargon that has no impact on our daily lives. It is the greatest source of division and conflict in the politics of our sexual lives for a now obvious reason: the brains of men and women are not the same, and the differences have behavioral consequences. Further, he argues that an improved understanding of the relatinship between sex and gender could enlarge the bases for meaningful dialogue between men and women and lead to new standards for sexual equality that is more realistic and humane than the current standard.The individual most responsible for legitimating the modern distinction between sex and gender was the anthropologist Margaret Mead. According to the Mead doctrine, gender identity is almost entirely a product of learning in different cultural contexts, and sex, or biological reality, is not a determinant of this identity. The assumption that gender identity is learned in sexless, or gender-neutral, minds separate and distinct from sex-specific bodies legitimated the sex/gender system that has been foundational to feminist theory since the mid 1970s. In this system, sex refers to physiological differences in the domain of the body and gender to learned behavior in the domain of mind. Since this two-domain distinction obviated the connection between biological reality and gender identity, it allowed gender identity to be viewed as scripted or socially constructed by cultural narratives (stories, myths, legends, and the like) invented by men to control and oppress women.In ^IS/He Brain^R, Nadeau demonstrates that the sex/gender system is not in accord with biological reality for now obvious reasons—the brains of men and women are not the same, and the differences have behavioral consequences. Yet the intent of the book is to serve the cause of full sexual equality and not to escalate the gender war. Nadeau attempts to accomplish this by demonstrating that an improved understanding of the relationship between sex and gender can not only enlarge the bases for meaningful communication between men and women. It could also serve as the basis for a new and improved standard of sexual equality that eliminates the grossly unfair treatment of women sanctioned by the current standard.

This discussion resulted from a dialogue which began some seven years ago between a physicist who specializes in astrophysics, general relativity, and the foundations of quantum theory, and a student of cultural history who had done post-doctoral work in the history and philosophy of science. Both of us at that time were awaiting the results of some experiments being conducted under the direction of the physicist Alain Aspect at the University of Paris-South. ! The experiments were the last in a series designed to test some predictions based on a mathematical 2 theorem published in 1964 by John Bell. There was no expectation that the results of these experiments would provide the basis for developing new technologies. The questions which the experiments were designed to answer concerned the relation­ ship between physical reality and physical theory in the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics. Like most questions raised by physicists which lead to startling new insights, they were disarmingly simple and direct. Is quantum physics, asked Bell, a self-consistent theory whose predictions would hold in a new class of experiments, or would the results reveal that the apparent challenges of quantum physics to the understanding in classical physics of the relationship between physical theory and physical reality were merely illusory? Answering this question in actual experiments could also, suggested Bell, lead to another, quite dramatic, result.