Thanks Terry - I was expecting more critiscism though - come on - let's have a healthy punch up over this
TFF, I agree with you completely - your words are very balanced.
And your last point - I presume you are talking about religion, amongst other things - I agree completely. Dogmas that are based upon nothing more than things like tradition and a subjective interpretation of ancient writings are notoriously stubborn in reacting to new knowledge and this is (just one) of their weaknesses. Scientific knowledge it much more fluid and this is its great strength - and the fact that it relieves much suffering when at it's best, i.e. it has a definable and demonstrable benefit.
I would try to balance this with the damage that I think SOME technology has done to society. It centres mainly around television and satellite and other forms of entertainment that I think have had an adverse effect upon social cohesion. People are less likely now to have strong links to their local community and even their families - to the point that we now have to pay experts to talk to us when we have problems, which was a role traditionally filled by friends and family. Incidentally studies have shown that people recover from trauma as quickly by spending quality time with family as they do by engaging mental health workers.
This whole problem is partially caused by a preoccupation with technology and gadgetry. We simply spend more time in front of a screen that face to face with real humans. Technology is both a blessing and a curse - there are more positive benefits than you can count, but we also live in an unhappier age than we did 40 years ago if depression, suicide, crime, drug abuse figures are to be believed, and one of the abiding themes of modern society seems to be loneliness and a desire for meaningful, intimate contact with others. We also have a tremendous drive to get the latest gadget and have replaced the old class system with one based upon the fashion you can afford and the products you own - this is partially driven by technological innovation.
With TV, I remember a study showed that when it was introduced into a tribal group their young females started to experience eating disorders for the first time within six months. So it opened up the world to them but also brought problems - blessing and curse.
I would ask: Who is going to grapple with these issues and provide solutions? Who is going to understand the different impacts that science is having upon society (for ill and for good)?
For example, science has had a reductionist effect upon the individual - it tells us that we are no more valuable than anything else - it tells us that we will be extinct like everything else - it tells us that we are just a bunch of evolutionary driven desires and that beauty, love, justice, mercy, evil, good, and so on are just illusionary and are simply human constructs - it tells me that the deep and seemingly noble love I feel for my daughter is no more than hormones and proteins pushing my behaviour and that the idea of a central me that is in control is simply illusory.
The upshot of this is that people are left in the position where they are prone to existential angst and nihilism. The scientific view has stripped us of real meaning – if everything I do will be forgotten and is irrelevant then what is the point?
Now this may be true, (though I suspect not) and ‘the truth shall set you free’. But what do we replace this with? When we strip away meaning and leave some (obviously not all) to think that hedonism and the serving of self is the only meaningful response, are we surprised if people become more inward looking and clamour after short term highs, living for the moment and the next PS3 game that will distract me from this hard and crappy life for the next few hours? I’m overplaying it slightly here
If scientific progress is not to inflict immense harm on us and the global psyche then we must engage our best minds to think about how we deal with the fallout from knew knowledge, and construct a new and meaningful narrative that will bring us together instead of allowing the age of the individual to continue to grow.
The problem may be that there is no profit in it.
I may be wrong.
It seems that the strength of religion is that it does try to grapple with these issues and has mainly sought after values that bring cohesion to society such as self-sacrifice, loving your neighbour, putting other's needs before your own etc. And it often uses such terms as love, charity, mercy, responsibility, duty, stewardship, forgiveness, honesty and so on. These things have been seen as concepts that help make 'good and docile little citizens, but I think that we now understand their value in the breach.
What does the modern education system do whilst it tells children that they are just a vessel for their selfish genes? How does it engender a caring and compassionate persona?
In England our children are stabbing each other to death at an alarming rate and the expulsion of children under five years of age from school is at an all time record because they are uncontrollable – drug use in under-tens is almost the norm.
What is the solution and what part can science play? It is an honest question. Science has some of our very best minds - how do we engage them in these issues that are not as super-sexy as working with particle accelerators, but just as needed. This is the problem maybe, our genius is engaged elsewhere and we are left with the dense politician to sort society.
Blacknad.
