Old Weblog Cleanup

I even found this funny old posting from high school. Reprinted With Permission From Author (ANDREW RUESS). Originally Presented 2000.259.0805 A Discussion of Scientific Responsibility In the work entitled Hazards of Science, Lewis Thomas poses the question of whether or not humanity should have access to some kinds of scientific knowledge, such as deoxyribonucleic acid recombination, cloning, and genetic modification. It is a question that allows mankind's hubris to frolic through the fields of possibilities. It is a question that causes intellectuals to become blue in the face during intense discussions. Above all, it is a question that forces the reevaluation of our belief systems and societal framework. Yet, this question is not of recent creation. True, the question that Thomas poses has only been brought into the light within the last decade, but the concept behind the idea has existed since the creation of any of mankind's Gods: 'God's domain is his own, and is not to be trespassed upon by any lesser mortals.' And that is where Mary Shelley comes in. In analysis, I believe that Shelley is na?ve on the consequences of the issues, but is right about bringing into the fold the issue of scientific responsibility. Mostly, how should it be used and regulated. While is it not readily apparent in the text, but more of an underlying theme, she generally displays thoughtful knowledge about any particular issue, and paints a scenario worthy of a thousand 'What If?'s. However, it is in the consequences of the issues that appear in the novel, such as that of a mortal man playing God, Shelley exerts some pessimistic tendencies. Her consequence for Victor, a mortal man, playing the role of God and Creator, is that of unfavorable light. He is destined to watch his creature, his creation, turn hostile and hateful towards its creator, single-handedly destroying Victor's life. "Oh, Frankenstein! generous and self-devoted being! What does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me? I, who irretrievably destroyed thee by destroying all thou lovedst. Alas! he is cold; he may not answer me." (226). Some might say that she scared off many younger scientists with grandiose plans for the future with this single issue, and its consequence. My only explanation as to why she forced Victor into such a destructive storyline is that she, like everyone else who hears of new technology and its applications, was afraid. She must have thought that it could have been used for evil. "When I found so astonishing a power placed within my hands, I hesitated a long time concerning the manner in which I should employ it" (47). However, this shall be addressed more so later. And it is the consequences of this issue that carry themselves throughout the book. From the moment that Victor's thirst for knowledge turned into a greed to become the creator of a species, it was almost an apparent fact that the move would have negative connotations. "No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs" (48). However, now knowing what I do about Shelley's life, it leads me to wonder if Frankenstein was just a social commentary on the world at the time of her life. Many of the events in the story are drawn off of, or bluntly based, upon the way life dealt her a crap sandwich. That could be one source of her pessimistic views upon the way new technology could be brought into our world. In light of Thomas' essay, one could argue that we cannot trespass upon God's territory if He does not exist. How could we possibly be obtaining information reserved for the Gods if they have been long since non-existent? One could also argue that we have crossed upon God's estate enough already that the line between mortal man and God has been blurred to the point of being forgotten. Five hundred years ago, having a steam locomotive would have been the work of the Almighty, a gift from the Lord above to his mortal men. The technology and abstracts behind it wouldn't have been understood, but instead feared, for at least a short while. If we, as a society, a culture, and a species, were to stop evolving intellectually and scientifically every time there was a naysayer or a possibility that an application of a new technology could hurt us more than help, we would all still be sitting around the black monolith as apes and monkeys. There is no reason to stop just because there is fear. Fear for something radically evolutionary or revolutionary can only mean that we already understand it to a point that we can treat it with respect. Fear is a good thing. For example, during the creation of the atom bomb, there was a fear among the researchers that the nuclear fission among the heavier atomic nuclei could cause an explosion which would exponentially grow in nature every nanosecond, to the point of breaking down the atomic structure of every atom and particle in the entire world in a few moments (fifteen minutes to three hours). At this particular point, caution was thrown to the solar winds, and we went ahead with the nuclear test, mostly consumed by the notion that we were on the right track. The test proved successful, and we went on to produce two bombs, one of uranium, one of plutonium, both which also worked according to our understanding. Had we not gone ahead with the test because of a fear, we might have lost World War Two, and our nation. Had we not gone on to create more of them for fear of them falling into enemy hands, we might have lost the Cold War (not that we really won). The fear that we had about them perhaps destroying the whole world was based upon scientific knowledge that we had gathered during our research. As Albert Einstein said, "I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Having fear of a new technology is better than having none at all, as we become aware of what the applications for the technology are, and it becomes easier for us to adapt to them. Continuing in this particular issue, had we not discovered the atomic fusion of the atom, we wouldn't have food-oriented microwaves, satellite communications, wireless data transfer, computers, and game consoles. Through our understanding of atomic fusion, we advanced our understanding of molecular and atomic relationships, which led to us being able to create electronics of immense capacity. And from our understanding of atomic fusion, we will one day harness the power of compact, controllable, and portal fission. With this fuel source, current day estimates from leading physicists predict that with a single reactor the size of a normal coal refinery, the United States could be powered for one-point-three years alone, off of one day's work from the fission plant! That would be the gift from above that we've been waiting for. We would be able to get rid of all our dirty coal plants, our unsafe nuclear plants, and our river damaging water dams. World power could be brought within our grasp, perhaps saving the Earth from our own self-serving cannibalism. However, the naysayer would comment that the power of fission could be reverse engineered by some nefarious genius in a plot to overthrown the world's empires and delve us into anarchy by creating a fission bomb capable of destroying a continent in one blast. So thus, we must completely stop advancing. Great Caesar's ghost, man! Some nefarious genius could also harness the immense power of the Plastic Spork to poke out your eyes! For all our quibbles and faults, as a species, we have been good at policing ourselves. We've had nuclear weapons for fifty-five years now, and we haven't had any stolen by eastern terrorists, we haven't had a nuclear attack of war committed by any country upon another, and we haven't lost a major metropolitan city in any nation to the bad guys with the bombs. With the exception of Russia's missing 'briefcase bombs', we have been good at keeping hold of our bombs. In closing, I'd only like to stress the importance of not turning back when we discover something new. There can be no bad technology, only the applications for them. And to be human is to endeavor to experience and wonder, so how could we possibly be human if we stop advancing? Xenophanes said, "I confess myself the greatest coward, for I dare not do an ill thing." I leave you now with another quote from Albert Einstein: "The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."