A Parable about Conditions for Understanding and Growth

In another solar system, light years from where we now are, there exists a fascinating social "experiment" of Mother Nature. In this other solar system, there exists a "binary planet system," in the sense that there exist two planets circling in the same orbit around that star. These two planets are identical in mineral composition, organic heritage, average temperature, climates, and development, culminating each in the development of a humanoid species, much like ours (and for purposes of this parable, virtually identical to humans on planet Earth). The two planets evolved at the same "cosmic time" with, era-by-era, stage-by-stage, identical biomass development occurring on each planet. Humans appeared on both planets simultaneously. Early human capabilities, achievements, intelligence, languages, and technologies were also virtually identical. In reality, these two planets could accurately be called "twin planets."

With one primary exception. This exception occurred a mere 30 years ago. But I am getting ahead of myself! There are two more very interesting – some say rather unusual – characteristics of this binary planet system.

It just so happens that, so far, the two planets are totally unaware of each other. Because the revolve around their common sum in the same orbit and in perfect tandem balance with each other, each planet is hidden visually from the other by the bright star between them. They each exist – on the human dimension – quite independently of each other.

The other unique thing is that these biologically identical planets both yield (with or without human assistance) one hundred (100) and only one hundred substances that humans are able or willing to ingest, by any means. "Only 100 things to ingest?" you might say.

Yes, but that is not the strangest thing about this binary planet system.

Just over 30 years ago, the human authorities on both planets saw fit to classify human-ingested substances. The reasons were multi-faceted, but basically the problem was that some of these ingestible substances were actually rather dangerous under certain circumstances – at least for some people. The problem was that some people were getting hurt and/or addicted or even killed by ingesting the wrong substance at the wrong time or for the wrong reason. The matter was made worse by the fact that, as has been said on our own planet, "One person's meat is another person's poison!" Not everybody reacted in exactly the same way to some of the substances. And different people had different medical needs. So you can imagine: All kinds of stories arose among humans about each of these 100 ingestible substances on both planets! Some of them seemed quite contradictory or at odds with other stories. There was so much confusion! And altogether too many people were needlessly getting hurt, or even sometimes killed. Something had to be done to address this confusion!

So something was done, on each planet, by the authorities. But the public health authorities on each planet did not do the same thing. This is where the story gets interesting –from a systems psychological, or human behavioral system – perspective!

On Planet A, all 100 substances are accurately classified according to a standardized set of relevant criteria applied to all 100 substances, and accurately labeled as such. It turns out that on Planet A, a total of 6 substances were prohibited for most purposes and a total of 16 substances, including the 6 prohibited, were prohibited ("Schedules A, B and C") for consumption by children, except, perhaps, by medical prescription. Nevertheless, all substances were legal to produce, market, distribute, sell and utilize by responsible adults under various (in some cases, very particular) circumstances.

In contrast, on Planet B, the authorities classified only 95 of the 100 substances. Of these 95 scheduled substances, one moderately safe and useful substance (#23) was (unbeknownst to some) inaccurately labeled as "#93 – a most dangerous, not usable, and therefore prohibited" substance. Production, possession, use, or sale of #93 (really a #23), like #'s 87 through 95, were all punishable by mandatory steep fines and/or imprisonment.

In addition, on Planet B, two of the five unclassified substances were, in actuality, rather dangerous. Even so, they were not even included in the classification system that was published and utilized by the public health authorities to vigorously regulate or prohibit production, commerce and/or ingestion of potentially dangerous substances.

Other than these differences, which were instituted a mere 30 years ago, these two planets are IDENTICAL.

My question for thoughtful students of human behavior (educated, perhaps, and experienced in conceptualizing human behavior from a variety of perspectives – intra-psychic, behavioral, interpersonal, medical, and cultural): How do you think these two parallel human cultures (Planet A and Planet B) would diverge in their continuing development of individual and collective human resources?

For example, would the two planets begin to differ in terms of human rights protections? Protection of each new generation of young people entering adulthood? Protection of medically needy people to unfettered access to medical input and appropriate medicine? Protection of responsible, constructive commerce (regulated or taxed, if appropriate) and "free market" dynamics versus development of an unregulated, "black market" economy? The personal and social costs and effectiveness of education, prevention-education, regulation, control and protection efforts by the authorities? Empowerment of all persons' personal health?

I welcome your input – in a brainstorming sense. Let's see what plausible ideas psychologists, sociologists, economists, criminal justice, health-care practitioners and other students of human behavior can come up with to describe how these two human systems might diverge. I welcome your considering this at both an individual and at a collective level of human behavioral and experiential analysis.

For those who do respond to this request (front- or back-channel), I thank you. For those who listen in on what responses are developed and shared, I thank you, too.

Most sincerely,

Norman Jentner, Ph.D.
Director of Public Health
The Ohio Patient Network
nrjentner@ohiopatient.net