Closely allied with the idea of Progress is the assumption that science and technology are good. That they must produce results where the good outweighs the bad is simply taken as a given. Science and technology are the driving force behind Progress. They are taken not only as its initiator, but as the saviour when things go wrong. There will always be a quick technological fix for our problems, we believe, not noticing the irony that technology introduced the problems in the first place.
The Promethean Path of Progress
The faith in the positive results of science and technology is a curious notion since many scientists insist that they do not even consider the broader consequences of their research, and that science is inherently neutral regarding the moral consequences of its application. This is even more striking when science and technology are married to capitalism, so much so that better living through chemistrynegative consequences are often ignored or disguised. The development of nuclear energy is a good case. Questions about safety in uranium mines, safety of reactors, and the ultimate disposal of spent fuel were brushed aside in the quest for an unlimited electrical supply. Interestingly, both science and capitalism failed in the end, as reactors have shown to be detrimental to both public and economic health. Even the safety of electricity, especially high voltage transmission lines, is in some doubt, though you wouldn’t know it by listening to scientists. But given its pervasiveness, it’s unlikely that any real study of possible danger will emerge. There is no reason to assume that developments in science or technology will invite applications that are good rather than bad. Often this categorization is not even made during the considering of the application. What is possible is the only thing that matters when striving for the advancement of science — what is profitable dictates the introduction of technology. Yet we have deeply ingrained in our society the idea that innovation is positive, so that we can hardly hear the word without thinking good. The word innovate only implies newmust there be a better mouse trap?. But new and Progress work hand in hand with science and technology as predefined goods leading us inevitably to a better society. And so we are condemned to repeat our mistaken belief in the benign effects of science. When science is our only guide we are often unable to see the cause and effect relationship. A blurring of causes prompts us to do nothing, for lack of scientific proof, what we think of as certainty, means that we have no basis for action. But science and technology do have bad effects. These effects aren’t always unpredictable if we would only choose to consider the possibility. We have to learn to recognize these effects as a result of something, something we need to examine. They didn’t just happen, they were caused – we caused them. They are also not uncorrectable, if only we would stop believing in technological fate. The Pugwash Group, the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize winner, is a group of scientists that believes that scientists do have a responsibility to consider the social implications of their work. It is our complacency that allows technology to run amuck. It is our responsibility, society’s responsibility, a burden we refuse to accept. We are taught to believe in science and its practitioners. Worship of science and technology as a replacement for a belief in God. The belief that science and technology are an omniscient realm of human progress is a powerful force. It is a doctrine that needs to be challenged.
Scientific Subterfuge
Science, like any other belief system, has its own built-in doctrines. The two most powerful tenets, usually not articulated, are that science is the only way to explain how the world works, and that science can ultimately explain everything. Quite a claim when you think about it, but where do these two beliefs lead us?
Only Science Explains
Science tends to dominate any discussion once it has been brought into the debate. This can be especially convenient when using reverse-onus arguments since it’s often exceedingly difficult to prove something caused something else. The existence of science leads us to think that anything not scientifically proven is not true. This is the arrogance of scientific thinking. Any non-scientific explanation is dubbed anecdotal evidenceanecdotal evidence or an old wives’ tale. These phrases reek of disdain and untruth. Indeed experience is a perfectly good alternative description, but one that would give too much credence to ascientific explanations.
Explanations cannot be true, prescriptions cannot be effective, until they are quantified and statistically proven. This has been the plight of all sorts of alternative medical treatments, from the benefits of vitamins to holistic or traditional medicines. To be considered effective they must be sanctioned by the orthodox scientific community, the one least likely to approve. Only with the recent discovery of a scientific basis for the health claims of vitamins, have they been removed from the class of voodoo medicine. Whole disciplines of study have been consumed by the belief that scientific proof is the be all and end all of learning and understanding. The mere term social scienceSocial Science is an inditement of a way of thinking that has done enormous harm to the study of human behaviour. We have political scientists who can ream off statistics on what percentage of voters believe such and such, but who flounder in explaining why or what effect this will have on their behaviour. The same is true of sociologists and psychologists who become trapped by the idea that they must use scientific methods in all their work. The subjective is condemned or dismissed, unless of course it can be turned into statistics. Without scientific analysis and proof the subjective is considered invalid.12 Yet the scientific process only dictates that proof is necessary for questions that are proposed in advance. Questions that are ignored do not need investigation under this system. Unfortunately, these unstated questions tend to be the most interesting and crucial. The blind idolization of science has brought us high chemical use on farms from pesticides and herbicides, to antibiotics, to artificial hormones and steroids, to genetically engineered plants and animals. Yet the science that was used to introduce these either didn’t dare or was incapable of asking the questions related to long term effects (such as cumulative low dosage exposure, or the narrowing of the genetic pool). In fact, science is often only used by society to answer the easy to prove questions related to short term, localized, and macro effects. Public health officials are alarmed that most antibiotics have lost their effectiveness, leaving the public at risk. Many believe that high antibiotic use on farm animals, and over-prescription by doctors allowed this to happen. Proving this is another matter. We ask questions like why me?“why me?” when we get cancer, in the despair of not having a scientific explanation of this fate. But shouldn’t the question really be “why not me?” in our contemporary environment? Who can say that they haven’t had high chemical exposure in their daily lives? Is it any wonder that there are long term effects that the scientific methods of today cannot explain? But we continually allow science to have the final say, to be the only arbiter of cause and effect, and by doing so we abdicate our responsibility. Scientists in Boston accidentally discovered estrogenic effects in commercial plastic. Studies are now being conducted to determine the extent to which normal exposure to this is causing the increased rates of breast cancer and abnormal sexual development in humans. The irony is that science is built upon the the shifting sands of theoryshifting sands of theory. Time and again theories have been defended, almost worshipped, until finally discredited and repudiated they are discarded like yesterday’s news. Theories are dressed up as fact until it is proven, scientifically of course, that they are wrong. Then a replacement theory is trotted out and mounted on a pedestal for admiration. We like to think that this is only a fate of long ago, that there are no modern day Galileaos being persecuted by the new The Church of ScienceChurch of Science. Unfortunately our modern day worship of science doesn’t really accommodate imperfect understanding, doesn’t recognize guesses and speculation paraded as theory. The media don’t help either. When scientific Cold conFusionheroes are regularly proclaimed and celebrated, often out of context and proportion, this only reinforces the public worship of science. We also have the regular reporting of contradictory or preliminary scientific studies on subjects like coffee consumption, cholesterol, and suspected carcinogens. This apparent confusion causes people to believe science is too complicated and deep for their understanding, leaving them only with their faith.Science Explains All
The scientific community assumes that everything is understandable, logical, ordered, and fundamentally simple. That with the proper understanding, everything is provable or disprovable. Everything is definable in mathematics, if only we could discover the formulae.
Unfortunately this belief that all is scientifically knowable does not stop scientists from applying their half-baked knowledge in the real world. Indeed, it seems almost a scientific imperative that partial results be used in a manner that wildly projects the full consequences. Theory worship is also part of the science explains everything school. We tend to think that scientists exhibit the behaviour of impartiality, lack of bias, and adherence to fact. Yet adherence to favourite theories long after the weight of evidence is against them is not uncommon. The norm is to propose a theory and to cling to it tenaciously. When order and predictability were proving to be inadequate for describing reality, scientists conjured up the theory of Chaos. chaos in control Chaos describes a system of ever increasing complexity and unpredictability. Chaos explained why physical phenomena such as the weather couldn’t be predicted with any long term accuracy. But Chaos was too disturbing for scientists as it shattered the hope of explaining everything. So now we are offered the more reassuring and conveniently complementary theory of Anti-Chaos, which attempts to understand why Chaos doesn’t get out of control. Anti-Chaos explains why disordered systems seem to spontaneously become ordered, and why this is natural and inevitable. It is being used to explain why life is created out of disordered chemicals, even why the economy and society are ordered systems of individual complex behaviour. Anti-Chaos is a product of the scientific search for a universal principle of organization. The desire to have a reason for life to exist.Medical Technology
Medical technology has a peculiar slant. Undue attention to economic and prestige considerations has meant it is geared to the diagnosis and treatment, rather than the prevention of disease. Using high technology, chemical and now genetically manufactured products, this has lead to the indiscriminate use of tests and prescriptions of drugs. We’re treating diseases not people. Good nutrition or stethoscopes pale in comparison to CAT scanners and endoscopic surgery. The minuscule understanding of the human body and mind that medical science offers is emphasized every day by the development and use of drugs where side effects of serious proportions are considered normal. We tend to sneer at the quaint practices of physicians of earlier times. We cringe when we think of the use of leeches, blistering, and other inappropriate treatments used in the past. Yet our modern worship of medical science blinds us to the amazing lack of knowledge that medicine still hides. Ulcers, long said to be primarily caused by high stress, have now been shown to be caused by bugs. However, this was only accepted by the medical profession after one tireless doctor finally infected himself, in an effort to produce evidence that would convince his colleagues to abandon their old theory and treatments. It appears that medical science is often just flailing away, in search of new treatments and drugs. Comparatively little research is devoted to prevention and understanding of cause, partly because big money can be made on treatment in the meantime. Prevention is also hard to quantify and prove, is not as politically valuable, and is far less glamourous. Technology also plays its part. Technology to aid prevention is much harder to create as it requires a needle in a haystackdeep understanding of cause and effect, often over the long term. Research that is done on prevention is usually centred around screening techniques that involve technology in the form of tests for predisposition or early signs. Now we have stumbled into casual application of reproductive technologies, including in-vitro fertilization, developments in treatment of premature babies and even in-utero operations. Only now are we considering that there might be ethical issues that society should examine.
Playing God
The problem with the advancing medical knowledge of genetics is, as usual, the lack of thought put towards the consequences. Scientists love barrelling ahead with research identifying genetic defects, but this research has potentially devastating personal and social consequences. Consequences which only now, well into the process, we are beginning to recognize and discuss.
It is certain that we will shortly have a furious debate about the right to be genetically tested, or to refuse, and the right to know the results, or to bar others from knowing. Refusal to disclose will be casually taken as confirmation of a bad result. Is an employer entitled to know the genetic predisposition of an employee? What if it is to protect the person from exposure to harm? But it could just as easily be used to screen potential long term burdens. How about an insurance company or the government? These aren’t sudden questions, but the predictable results of this genetic research. Unfortunately they weren’t dealt with before we had to navigate the mine field. These aren’t just questions for the future either. We have already seen the screening of employees based on drug tests, and on insurance applicants based on habits and heritage. What happens when genetic predisposition predicts that specific behaviour will certainly lead to harm? In some sense, we have been unnatural selectionthwarting natural selection for years. Using medical treatments we have ensured that common human problems become prevalent rather than be eliminated. Defects such as poor eyesight will eventually dominate the population. I don’t give this example to suggest we ban eyeglasses, but rather to prod us to recognize that our common practices have long term effects. Yet all our technology has not brought us cures but rather treatments for symptoms. We do not cure cancer, we only allow for remission.There Can Be Too Much Technology
The introduction of new technologies into society usually occurs without public debate or control, even without much thought. Yet profound implications flow from this casual attitude. Technology is about making tools. Tools are supposed to aid people. Yet most of our technology was introduced as commercial products whose primary purpose is to generate profits, not to better society. Many things are possible technologically, but this doesn’t mean that we should produce them. Somehow we have become a society where even absurd technology can flourish, and be considered essential. The cult of technology has convinced us that we need these devices to live better lives. We are also a society that unquestioningly believes that technological development is irreversible. We believe that once introduced it is impossible to put the genie back into the bottle, or even to technological fatetame it. Thus we usually don’t even try, and just accept all the results bravely. We just accept the introduction of technology. Even worse, we actively encourage the takeover of society by technology. Whenever a new technology is on the horizon, we either expect the government to foster its introduction or we expect government to get out of the way through deregulation or lack of regulation. Business executives now argue that the government should stay out of the way regarding the definition and regulation of the information superhighway. Because the idea of technology is so seductive, its pace so frenetic, its direction so tantalizing, we are reluctant to interfere with its development. The sense of technology is that it is the engine of business growth, the potential behind medicine, the key to knowledge. It thus becomes equated with societal benefit, it must be good, we should want more. Consider television, where we now expect to move to satellite delivery, to unlimited channels, to unrestricted access. But if the past is any predictor of the future, why are we so complacent about this television outlook?
Television Trauma
The technology of television has inflicted a trauma on our culture, one which may never heal. It was introduced with no understanding of the enormous long term consequences. It has redefined public debate and politics, education, sport, entertainment, and leisure time. It has redefined what it means to be an informed citizen.
Introducing yet more technology is not going to lessen the effect. Do we really need more television? Yet the technology steamroller continues at its frenzied pace. All the technology players are converging. More and more of our society will be conducted through the television conduit. Who wants a 500 channels and nothing on500-channel universe? There isn’t any reason to believe that more channels will bring us better programming. Five hundred channels of mediocrity, titillation and schlock will not improve the situation. Death stars may only hasten the decline of our minds. Channel surfing isn’t a result of a cornucopia of fine programming, it’s a fruitless search for quality. The motto for Britain’s recent Sky satellite TV network is There’s no turning back. They don’t know yet in how many different ways this could prove to be true. What is the inditement, what has television wrought? Promotion of passive viewing has induced an amazing tolerance for poor quality in entertainment and information programming. So called interactive television will not improve the situation. Giving the viewer the choice of one of several outcomes, viewing angles, news clips, or multiple choice opinions is an empty gesture meant to imply active participation. All the decisions have been taken, as usual, long before the viewer’s involvement. With entertainment programming the decisions have been taken largely based on attracting advertising. In news programming, decisions are dictated more by budget constraints and the visual quality of the subjects than the news value. Television has prompted a marked reduction in literacy and interest in reading, even by the potentially literary minded. It takes great self-control to turn off the television and read, especially for those raised on the tube. The decline in literacy and short attention spans have struck newspapers and magazines, prompting them to emphasize short articles and graphics in a self-defeating attempt to attract the T.V. generation. The literary decline has also shown up in education. Pedagogues have engaged in endless experiments to try to compensate for poor reading skills and concentration. This has had the unfortunate but predictable result of amplifying the lack of skills rather than neutralizing the damage. The impact of television on literacy and news has resulted in a less informed citizenry. Serious sustained debate on issues cannot be expected when television is the the medium trivializes the messagemedium of information and discourse. The imminent and much predicted convergence of telephone, television and computer networks brought about by technological change, is assumed to be a good thing. That the various industries involved want to grow by expanding into each other’s territory is easy to understand. That this must be a good thing is taken for granted by the pundits and regulators. And anyway, if we don’t do it then our global competitors will take over our market. It is assumed that governments can’t do anything about this new television. They must simply stand out of the way because the technology is uncontrollable. The best we can hope for is healthy competition. What are you going to do, ban satellite dishes and monitor all telephone traffic? Our governments tell us this, that culture is on its own in the harsh technological reality. Yet when something like taxes are at stake, they will go to practically any length to interfere, distort and control.Computers Cultivate Complexity
Computers have ensured society would become increasingly complex. Many modern activities would be impossible to sustain without computers. The massive changes in the nature of work and the economy for instance, have been enabled only by the use of computers.
Computer technology for managing complexity has increased at a much faster rate than the sophistication of its dealings with humans. As more complex tasks are enabled by computers, more burden is placed on humans to manage the process, and to live with the consequences. One of the reasons that computers are so hard to use is the cult of technology that surrounds them. We expect to not understand them, we feel it’s our fault if we don’t, and we know we’re supposed to defer to the experts. But what incentive is there to produce computers that function as better tools? During much of the impersonal computerspersonal computer revolution, the dominating factor in purchasing decisions has not been quality or ease of use, but rather price. For many years most personal computers were purchased by companies for their employees in the hope of increasing productivity. Basically, those who bought the things didn’t have to use them, their underlings did. Since the definition of a thing that can be called a computer, even a personal computer, can vary so widely, lowest price usually means lower quality in terms of human usability. This produced a market dominance by PC compatibles, prompting home purchases based on the lower price and similarity to work machines. So far, the dynamics of the personal computer software industry have been to reduce choice and in turn to reduce quality. Through a combination of the corporate purchasing process and increasingly dominant players, software has become harder to use. So computers are not all that easy to use, but generally they have made life better, if at the price of more complexity. Increasing complexity is not a bad thing in itself. The problem is that computer development has introduced complexity in human affairsTechno-Peasants andVirtual Unreality
Now we are on the verge of the large scale introduction of virtual societyvirtual reality technology. The potential harmful effects of this are being ignored as usual. People only want to foresee the good effects.
Virtual reality will be quite varied. It’s hard to see any problems with the ability to experience the design of a building or steetscape before it is built. Artistic, educational and cultural applications are also seen as potential beneficiaries. The problems will probably come from the same source as the bad effects of television and computer games. The real money in virtual reality will be in producing entertainment and games. People quite willingly pay to be entertained, and have come to expect it. Long exposure to television and video games, have lead to children who are easily bored and are desensitized to violence. It’s interesting that a large proportion of this entertainment is violent. The unreality of this kind of entertainment is that it ignores the morals of society and encourages attitudes of callousness and aggression. The military has known for years that repetition of training in fake LoveGenetic Gerrymandering
We are experimenting with the recipe of life. Since scientists discovered DNA we have possessed knowledge of profound implication to our world. Experiments crossing genes from one species to another could have horrific social and environmental consequences. The problem is we don’t know, and we can’t. Nature is far too complex, and science too feeble to completely predict the results of these manipulations. Numerous examples of well meaning scientific experiments gone awry should give us pause when we consider allowing the use of genetic technology.
What will be the result of introducing these genetic manipulationsgenetic reengineering into our food supply, and our environment? How will it affect the gene pool to concentrate on specific characteristics with food production? Killer bees, the Gypsy Moth, and Purple Loose Strife were all products of well intentioned experiments with nature. How about manipulation of our bodies through the new gene therapy? Who will deserve treatment? What effect will this have on subsequent generations? Will we require people with socially aberrant genes to have them fixed? Can we really isolate the effects of these alterations? Leeches and thalidomide were once embraced as treatments by the medical profession. Do we let science forge ahead with these developments, believing the assurances that all will be well? Society needs to realize that these are the kinds of questions that should be answered before genetic engineering becomes another uncontrollable technology.It Doesn’t Just Happen
We live in an age dominated by technology. What started out as a desire to make tools to lessen drudgery and physical chores has transformed into the underlying factor of much of modern society. No longer are we making tools for our use, we are now a society dominated by tools. The economics of modern technology mean that quick introduction and continual refinement are the ways to success. Unfortunately, this doesn’t lend itself to thoughtful analysis of the societal implications of new technologies. The animator of scientific discovery is curiosity, the desire to know how things work. The motivation has shifted from proving, or rather reinforcing a belief in God, to proving the nonexistence of God. For many, science has taken the place of religious belief, or put another way, the belief in science as a benevolent force has taken hold. The belief in scientific research as a good has grown to encompass technological development. Unfortunately, the application of science in the form of technology is never morally neutral. Technological use has profound implications for society, yet our society does a terrible job of simply assessing this impact. Perhaps we are afraid of what we might find, if we only looked. Unless sudden, dramatic problems arise, no one notices that technology is reshaping our society. Even then, our inherent belief in technological progress prevents us from assessing the impact and attempting to change the outcome. The changes just seep in. Unbridled technological development has and will have much more of an influence in shaping our society than we like to think. What kind of society would we have today without the telephone, the airplane, or the automobile? How about television and computers? And what is to become of us thanks to genetic engineering, so carefully couched in the unassailable terms of technology so we don’t realize we are referring to the artificial manipulation of life? The talk of the information superhighway as the great leveller in society, the way that we can finally achieve equality, is wishful thinking. Because it is the sophistication of the exchange that matters, not the access to the medium, nor technical prowess with its manipulation. It is not a lack of access to information that we are suffering, it is a paucity of knowledge, analysis, and understanding. U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich opined that every poor child should have access to a subsidized portable computer. We grope for yet another technological fix for our societal ills. It is through education, and especially culture as it’s pervasive and potent teacher, that we could achieve our lofty goals. By teaching our citizens to think for themselves, to question, to prod, to explore, to choose.
12 This is true even in everyday life. I was at the dinner table one evening when my mother mentioned she thought one brand of dripless candle she had used was better than another. My brother quite seriously started to devise a way that we could prove this.
13 Well they are, just not what we think of as our society.
>> VII Corporate Culture and Sanctioned Art