THE FEAR OF SCIENCE PLINIO PRIORESCHI, Nebraska 68 178, USA.
Dept. of Physiology-Pharmacology,
INTRODUCTION Throughout the ages, beginning with the punishment of Adam and Eve, man has expressed his fear of the dire consequences of the acquisition of knowledge. Prometheus was tortured and chained to the rock, Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt, Dante’s Ulysses was drowned in sight of the mountain .of the Purgatory and even the Sorcerers’ Apprentice paid the price of his audacity. Although it has always been admitted that knowledge in itself is good (God, for example, is omniscient), it has also been recognized that knowledge can be dangerous and often associated with evil (the Devil is also omniscient). It was known that usually the Gods felt the necessity of punishing man when he learned some of their secrets and that man tended to use the acquired knowledge for evil purposes. Examples of the results of such wickedness were black magic and witchcraft. Witches were usually unsophisticated evil beings while sorcerers were often scholars with a penchant for the evil use of occult knowledge (Faust being one of the best known members of the class). Sorcerers were also the forerunners of the mad scientist, a more recent figure mercifully confined, for the most part, to the literature of the youngsters. Although nowadays we may not be as interested as we used to be in the elimination of witches and sorcerers, it would be unwise and, perhaps presumptuous on our part to think that our atavic mistrust of knowledge (occult or otherwise) would by now have completely disappeared. In fact, the signs of its existence are quite evident. THE THREE EVILS A few decades ago when physicists built the first atomic bomb, for the first time in history, humanity acquired the capacity of self-destruction. Recently the genetic code was deciphered and the foundations were laid for the eventual manipulation of the genetic material and the creation of Frankenstein-like monsters. A few years ago man started to realize that, because of his activities, the environment was deteriorating and the
Creighton
University
School of Medicine, Omaha,
possibility of irreversible damage was identified. With such discoveries modern science has begotten three evils capable of arousing in the soul of man terrorizing nightmares based on the fear of self-annihilation, the fear of physical degeneration and the fear of irreversible poisoning of the external milieu. It would appear that these fears are largely unjustified. Although our recent recognition of the dangers of pollution was fairly sudden, obviously the phenomenon itself is of a progressive and gradual nature. This and the gradual, ever-increasing intensity of its deleterious consequences are particularly suited to elicit an objective assessment of the damage produced by their continuation and the advantages of their elimination. Therefore, considering that in spite of all the noble assertions to the contrary, man’s behaviour is still largely determined by punishment and reward, it is logical to think that the pollution of the environment will generate an effective feedback mechanism that will tend to limit the extent of the phenomenon itself. For example, we may expect that as the level of air pollution will rise, the pressure to eliminate it will also rise and the regulations against it will become more stringent. When sufficient clean air rules will have been enforced, air pollution will tend to decline and, as the danger recedes, the regulations (or their enforcement) will tend to relax. This, in turn, will produce an increase in air pollution with more strict regulations until an equilibrium will be reached when air pollution will be kept at acceptable levels. It will be also recogzised that a certain damage to the environment is unavoidable and that it is unrealistic to expect to use Nature without interfering to some degree with its pristine purity. In addition, man, like most animals, has an inborn tendency to keep his living quarters reasonably clean and it is only very recently that we have started to realize that the oceans, for example, are almost as much part of our immediate environment as the pond in our backyard. For these reasons, it is very unlikely that the deterioration of the environment will ever become truly catastrophic and irreversible. While as a consequence of a sudden emotional surge man is often ready to do very foolish things, it does 174
not seem to be in his nature to commit collective suicide in a slow, gradual and cold-blooded manner. Concerning the second evil, it is dimcult to discuss now the possible effects of future “genetic engineering” and the probability of the practical realization of this concept. Man has moved only a few steps on the road leading to the capability for gene manipulation and even the potentialities of the field are largely unexplored. The fear of Frankenstein monsters is, therefore, at least premature. On the other hand, the nuclear age is already thirty-years old and in considering its possible deleterious consequences, we have the advantage of some experience. Since shortly after the end of the second world war humanity has been living under the cloud of the so-called balance of terror. Because of its importance in contemporary life, it deserves some discussion. THE BALANCE OF TERROR More than twenty-two centuries ago, having conquered most of the Italian peninsula, Rome met Carthage. The struggle lasted more than a hundred years and ended with the complete destruction of the African power. Why did they not pursue a policy of peace and cooperation? The immense destruction caused by the Punic Wars would have been avoided and the energies and monies could have been used to generate prosperity for all the peoples of the world including the Roman and the Carthaginian. Why did they choose to fight? The answer is simple: because it was the normal thing to do. If in a given historical period two groups become dominant, conflict among them is inevitable. The Romans and the Carthaginians were not abnormal or insane; on the contrary, if they had chosen to live in peace, they would have behaved in a very abnormal and unusual way, as history before and after them has shown. Nowadays, two giants watch each other across oceans that, because of modern technology, are smaller than the ancient Mediterranean. Conflict, under usual circumstances, would be inevitable. The circumstances are not usual however. For the first time in history, as a result of war, his customary way of settling such problems, man can wipe out its own species from the surface of the planet. Today the superpower which is contemplating starting a full-scale atomic war has the absolute certitude that nobody will win and that, therefore, at the end it will be among the destroyed losers. It would appear that this is the most powerful stimulus toward peace. It is easy to imagine that Hannibal would have become the most ardent advocate of peaceful coexistence if, when he was passing the Alps, he had become absolutely certain that his war against Rome would have ended with his own destruction and the annihilation of Carthage. It seems obvious that the certitude of defeat would have made lambs of Hitler and Genghis Khan. This suggests that the chance of war among the great powers may have decreased tremendously and that perhaps fear, the great pacifier, one day may accomplish what centuries of noble principles have not been able to do: the total abolition of war. In this case the balance of terror would indeed be a blessing instead of a curse.
What about the “minor” terrors of atomic technology as, for example, the danger of accidental explosion of a bomb or of a nuclear electric plant? There is no doubt that such real dangers are real. In fact, considering the number of bombs in existence and the growing number of nuclear plants, the probabilities that such accidents will occur can be assumed to grow every day and, therefore, that sometime a nuclear accident will probably take place. If the thought of the consequent death of thousands (or tens of thousands) seems unbearable, one has simply to consider the death figures of only one of the major wars that have been fought in this century alone or the number of deaths by starvation that could result in a future world with insufficient sources of energy. Even if the only effect of the atomic age were the abolition of major wars we would conclude that once again science, in this case with the hydrogen bomb, has rendered an immense service to humanity. This is most likely going to be the case.
THE DANGERS OF SCIENCE Scientific and technological progress place more and more power at the disposal of man and there is no doubt that this increases the danger of accidents and the seriousness of the consequences in case of misuse. Although progress in any field of science tends to influence, in various measure, all the others and to a certain extent sciehce could be considered one and indivisible, it is obvious that the dangers of accidents and misuse seem to be more prominent as a result of progress in the field of, let us say, poisonous gases, than if progress is made in the field of research concerning the pigments of certain butterflies. For this reason the possibility of forbidding research in certain areas (genetic engineering, “death rays”, poisonous gases, possible genetic superiority of a given race, etc.) has often been discussed and, to a certain extent, some restrictions have already been enforced. The purpose of such restrictions is, of course, to prevent the discovery of certain natural phenomena, the knowledge of which is considered dangerous. Together with the thought that the atavistic association of knowledge and evil is still with us, the first question that comes to mind is: are the restrictions going to achieve the desired results? It seems logical to think that, in our time, if the level of science and technology is such that something can be discovered, sooner or later it will be. This proposition does not apply to previous historical periods because its validity is based on an attitude that originated, in the western societies, during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. In the classical world, for example, anatomy was not seriously studied although technically it would have been possible. Why the scientific revolution generated such an inquisitive attitude and for how long it may last are questions beyond the scope of this article; it is sufficient here to recognize that now (and for the foreseeable future) so many have so much interest in scientific inquiry that it is highly improbable that anything technically discoverable could remain unknown for very long. It is obvious that Democritus could not have discovered the atomic bomb 17.5
but it seems also obvious that if the Americans had decided against its development, sooner or later the Russians or the Germans or somebody else would have exploded such a device. It is very easy to think of other examples: even if Newton’s apple had been a five-ton rock, most likely today we would know the laws of gravitation and if Fleming had had a weaker power of observation, sooner or later somebody else would have stumbled on some antibiotic. Similarly, if the Beagle had sunk off the Galapagos with all aboard, it would have affected the theory of evolution only to the extent that today Wallace would be the object of our undivided admiration. This is not to say that the restrictions and encouragement on the part of governments or powerful foundations cannot retard or accelerate the rate of progress in any given field. The persecution of Galileo did not help the development of science in the seventeenth century and the massive support of the Manhattan project surely accelerated the development of the atomic bomb. These effects, however, tend to be limited in time and space and do not have a significant overall effect on a global scale. It is evident that if everybody would agree to limit research in a given area such restrictions would be effective. At the present time, however, such general agreements between all governments, foundations and individuals are so improbable that they cannot be considered a realistic possibility. CONCLUSION Obviously the risks of mishap increase with the advance of science and technology but efforts to limit or restrict their progress are unjustified on two grounds: first, what at first we consider a bane may turn out to be a blessing, as discussed above apropos of the balance of terror; second, the direction, scope and results of scientific progress seem to be largely outside the control of a given government, foundation or group of individuals. Scientific and technological advances will put at the disposal of man more and more power and energies that if misused will be able to cause increasingly serious damage to larger and larger parts of humanity and the environment. If we extrapolate into the future the ever-growing capacity of man to manipulate energy, it is not only conceivable but probable that one day we will be able not only to sterilize the earth’s surface hut to disintegrate the planet and even to wipe out the rest of the solar system. In view of the fact that scientific and technological progress cannot be stopped and that we cannot go back to the pre-scientific age, it would appear advisable to accept this as a fact, try to control our atavistic fears, abandon inane and naive efforts to limit such a progress, and concentrate on even better safeguards against accidents and misuse of the power that science has and will put at man’s disposal. After all, although there is no doubt that in the third century B.C. the possibility that humanity could perish as a result of war was more remote than now, it would also appear that if both Rome and Carthage had nuclear weapons, Carthage would still exist.
176
Dept. of Physiology-Pharmacology,
INTRODUCTION Throughout the ages, beginning with the punishment of Adam and Eve, man has expressed his fear of the dire consequences of the acquisition of knowledge. Prometheus was tortured and chained to the rock, Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt, Dante’s Ulysses was drowned in sight of the mountain .of the Purgatory and even the Sorcerers’ Apprentice paid the price of his audacity. Although it has always been admitted that knowledge in itself is good (God, for example, is omniscient), it has also been recognized that knowledge can be dangerous and often associated with evil (the Devil is also omniscient). It was known that usually the Gods felt the necessity of punishing man when he learned some of their secrets and that man tended to use the acquired knowledge for evil purposes. Examples of the results of such wickedness were black magic and witchcraft. Witches were usually unsophisticated evil beings while sorcerers were often scholars with a penchant for the evil use of occult knowledge (Faust being one of the best known members of the class). Sorcerers were also the forerunners of the mad scientist, a more recent figure mercifully confined, for the most part, to the literature of the youngsters. Although nowadays we may not be as interested as we used to be in the elimination of witches and sorcerers, it would be unwise and, perhaps presumptuous on our part to think that our atavic mistrust of knowledge (occult or otherwise) would by now have completely disappeared. In fact, the signs of its existence are quite evident. THE THREE EVILS A few decades ago when physicists built the first atomic bomb, for the first time in history, humanity acquired the capacity of self-destruction. Recently the genetic code was deciphered and the foundations were laid for the eventual manipulation of the genetic material and the creation of Frankenstein-like monsters. A few years ago man started to realize that, because of his activities, the environment was deteriorating and the
Creighton
University
School of Medicine, Omaha,
possibility of irreversible damage was identified. With such discoveries modern science has begotten three evils capable of arousing in the soul of man terrorizing nightmares based on the fear of self-annihilation, the fear of physical degeneration and the fear of irreversible poisoning of the external milieu. It would appear that these fears are largely unjustified. Although our recent recognition of the dangers of pollution was fairly sudden, obviously the phenomenon itself is of a progressive and gradual nature. This and the gradual, ever-increasing intensity of its deleterious consequences are particularly suited to elicit an objective assessment of the damage produced by their continuation and the advantages of their elimination. Therefore, considering that in spite of all the noble assertions to the contrary, man’s behaviour is still largely determined by punishment and reward, it is logical to think that the pollution of the environment will generate an effective feedback mechanism that will tend to limit the extent of the phenomenon itself. For example, we may expect that as the level of air pollution will rise, the pressure to eliminate it will also rise and the regulations against it will become more stringent. When sufficient clean air rules will have been enforced, air pollution will tend to decline and, as the danger recedes, the regulations (or their enforcement) will tend to relax. This, in turn, will produce an increase in air pollution with more strict regulations until an equilibrium will be reached when air pollution will be kept at acceptable levels. It will be also recogzised that a certain damage to the environment is unavoidable and that it is unrealistic to expect to use Nature without interfering to some degree with its pristine purity. In addition, man, like most animals, has an inborn tendency to keep his living quarters reasonably clean and it is only very recently that we have started to realize that the oceans, for example, are almost as much part of our immediate environment as the pond in our backyard. For these reasons, it is very unlikely that the deterioration of the environment will ever become truly catastrophic and irreversible. While as a consequence of a sudden emotional surge man is often ready to do very foolish things, it does 174
not seem to be in his nature to commit collective suicide in a slow, gradual and cold-blooded manner. Concerning the second evil, it is dimcult to discuss now the possible effects of future “genetic engineering” and the probability of the practical realization of this concept. Man has moved only a few steps on the road leading to the capability for gene manipulation and even the potentialities of the field are largely unexplored. The fear of Frankenstein monsters is, therefore, at least premature. On the other hand, the nuclear age is already thirty-years old and in considering its possible deleterious consequences, we have the advantage of some experience. Since shortly after the end of the second world war humanity has been living under the cloud of the so-called balance of terror. Because of its importance in contemporary life, it deserves some discussion. THE BALANCE OF TERROR More than twenty-two centuries ago, having conquered most of the Italian peninsula, Rome met Carthage. The struggle lasted more than a hundred years and ended with the complete destruction of the African power. Why did they not pursue a policy of peace and cooperation? The immense destruction caused by the Punic Wars would have been avoided and the energies and monies could have been used to generate prosperity for all the peoples of the world including the Roman and the Carthaginian. Why did they choose to fight? The answer is simple: because it was the normal thing to do. If in a given historical period two groups become dominant, conflict among them is inevitable. The Romans and the Carthaginians were not abnormal or insane; on the contrary, if they had chosen to live in peace, they would have behaved in a very abnormal and unusual way, as history before and after them has shown. Nowadays, two giants watch each other across oceans that, because of modern technology, are smaller than the ancient Mediterranean. Conflict, under usual circumstances, would be inevitable. The circumstances are not usual however. For the first time in history, as a result of war, his customary way of settling such problems, man can wipe out its own species from the surface of the planet. Today the superpower which is contemplating starting a full-scale atomic war has the absolute certitude that nobody will win and that, therefore, at the end it will be among the destroyed losers. It would appear that this is the most powerful stimulus toward peace. It is easy to imagine that Hannibal would have become the most ardent advocate of peaceful coexistence if, when he was passing the Alps, he had become absolutely certain that his war against Rome would have ended with his own destruction and the annihilation of Carthage. It seems obvious that the certitude of defeat would have made lambs of Hitler and Genghis Khan. This suggests that the chance of war among the great powers may have decreased tremendously and that perhaps fear, the great pacifier, one day may accomplish what centuries of noble principles have not been able to do: the total abolition of war. In this case the balance of terror would indeed be a blessing instead of a curse.
What about the “minor” terrors of atomic technology as, for example, the danger of accidental explosion of a bomb or of a nuclear electric plant? There is no doubt that such real dangers are real. In fact, considering the number of bombs in existence and the growing number of nuclear plants, the probabilities that such accidents will occur can be assumed to grow every day and, therefore, that sometime a nuclear accident will probably take place. If the thought of the consequent death of thousands (or tens of thousands) seems unbearable, one has simply to consider the death figures of only one of the major wars that have been fought in this century alone or the number of deaths by starvation that could result in a future world with insufficient sources of energy. Even if the only effect of the atomic age were the abolition of major wars we would conclude that once again science, in this case with the hydrogen bomb, has rendered an immense service to humanity. This is most likely going to be the case.
THE DANGERS OF SCIENCE Scientific and technological progress place more and more power at the disposal of man and there is no doubt that this increases the danger of accidents and the seriousness of the consequences in case of misuse. Although progress in any field of science tends to influence, in various measure, all the others and to a certain extent sciehce could be considered one and indivisible, it is obvious that the dangers of accidents and misuse seem to be more prominent as a result of progress in the field of, let us say, poisonous gases, than if progress is made in the field of research concerning the pigments of certain butterflies. For this reason the possibility of forbidding research in certain areas (genetic engineering, “death rays”, poisonous gases, possible genetic superiority of a given race, etc.) has often been discussed and, to a certain extent, some restrictions have already been enforced. The purpose of such restrictions is, of course, to prevent the discovery of certain natural phenomena, the knowledge of which is considered dangerous. Together with the thought that the atavistic association of knowledge and evil is still with us, the first question that comes to mind is: are the restrictions going to achieve the desired results? It seems logical to think that, in our time, if the level of science and technology is such that something can be discovered, sooner or later it will be. This proposition does not apply to previous historical periods because its validity is based on an attitude that originated, in the western societies, during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. In the classical world, for example, anatomy was not seriously studied although technically it would have been possible. Why the scientific revolution generated such an inquisitive attitude and for how long it may last are questions beyond the scope of this article; it is sufficient here to recognize that now (and for the foreseeable future) so many have so much interest in scientific inquiry that it is highly improbable that anything technically discoverable could remain unknown for very long. It is obvious that Democritus could not have discovered the atomic bomb 17.5
but it seems also obvious that if the Americans had decided against its development, sooner or later the Russians or the Germans or somebody else would have exploded such a device. It is very easy to think of other examples: even if Newton’s apple had been a five-ton rock, most likely today we would know the laws of gravitation and if Fleming had had a weaker power of observation, sooner or later somebody else would have stumbled on some antibiotic. Similarly, if the Beagle had sunk off the Galapagos with all aboard, it would have affected the theory of evolution only to the extent that today Wallace would be the object of our undivided admiration. This is not to say that the restrictions and encouragement on the part of governments or powerful foundations cannot retard or accelerate the rate of progress in any given field. The persecution of Galileo did not help the development of science in the seventeenth century and the massive support of the Manhattan project surely accelerated the development of the atomic bomb. These effects, however, tend to be limited in time and space and do not have a significant overall effect on a global scale. It is evident that if everybody would agree to limit research in a given area such restrictions would be effective. At the present time, however, such general agreements between all governments, foundations and individuals are so improbable that they cannot be considered a realistic possibility. CONCLUSION Obviously the risks of mishap increase with the advance of science and technology but efforts to limit or restrict their progress are unjustified on two grounds: first, what at first we consider a bane may turn out to be a blessing, as discussed above apropos of the balance of terror; second, the direction, scope and results of scientific progress seem to be largely outside the control of a given government, foundation or group of individuals. Scientific and technological advances will put at the disposal of man more and more power and energies that if misused will be able to cause increasingly serious damage to larger and larger parts of humanity and the environment. If we extrapolate into the future the ever-growing capacity of man to manipulate energy, it is not only conceivable but probable that one day we will be able not only to sterilize the earth’s surface hut to disintegrate the planet and even to wipe out the rest of the solar system. In view of the fact that scientific and technological progress cannot be stopped and that we cannot go back to the pre-scientific age, it would appear advisable to accept this as a fact, try to control our atavistic fears, abandon inane and naive efforts to limit such a progress, and concentrate on even better safeguards against accidents and misuse of the power that science has and will put at man’s disposal. After all, although there is no doubt that in the third century B.C. the possibility that humanity could perish as a result of war was more remote than now, it would also appear that if both Rome and Carthage had nuclear weapons, Carthage would still exist.
176
