Technology is often proclaimed in society as wonderful, that it is progressing mankind to places undreamt of, that all will be better after progress is achieved. Societies try to acquire the newest technology in order to move forward into their vision for the future, typically a world where problems and disease are either gone or simplified and where humans can have easier lives. This advancement, in part, is rooted in scientific discovery and innovation. Progress claims to be able to accomplish more with technological improvements, probe the mysteries of the universe, and attain more knowledge, but better understanding does not guarantee the creation of a better world. Scientific progress, especially as it pertains to technology, is not moving humanity in a better direction, but instead is causing it to move away from what is good; it is not progressing humanity toward anything but the destruction of its nature.
Progress is seen as a path toward the improvement of humanity and the world, often accomplished through conquering man’s nature. Mankind thinks that by overcoming its nature, it will improve. As Lewis writes in Abolition of Man, man wants human nature to surrender, but “[t]here neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on Man’s side. Each new power won by man is a power over man as well” (58). By trying to make nature surrender and to gain more power over the world, man ultimately loses power because he ends up giving into his nature even more. By striving to avoid nature, which includes the excellent parts, man ends up giving in to the less desirable parts of nature. So, humanity is headed in the direction it is trying to escape, yet the belief is still held that favorable progress is being made. Lewis explains why people believe this progression is possible: “Because we have to use numbers so much we tend to think of every process as if it must be like the numeral series, where every step, to all eternity, is the same kind of step as the one before” (80). The road to progress is never-ending, a series of steps that appear to be leading somewhere but never will. Since all the steps are the same, the beautiful, golden future that people picture when progress is mentioned can never come to fruition. Those who desire progress do not have a clear picture of what they want to progress toward; they simply have vague ideas of changes they wish to see in the world and within humanity.
People see progress as favorable, but it really goes nowhere except downhill. The more one moves away from what it means to be human, the less human he becomes. For example, civilization in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is so sterile and cold toward human life despite living in a world saturated with experiences, sounds, and smells. Mankind in the story lacks basic human emotions and abilities, such as the ability to deal with pain, grief, and sorrow. When an outsider sees his mother die, the nurse in the hospital is concerned that his emotional outburst will undo “all [the children’s] wholesome death-conditioning with [his] disgusting outcry–as though death were something terrible, as though anyone mattered as much as all that” (Huxley 206). When someone dies, no one cares because everyone in the society lacks the connections among themselves to truly care about another person; the only value someone has is in how they can make civilization keep going. Brave New World’s idea of progress is a world controlled to avoid unhappiness and designed for maximum efficiency to the point that people’s lives are shallow and lack meaning. The Director of one of the control centers states, “[T]hat is the secret of happiness and virtue–liking what you’ve got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny” (Huxley 16). The kind of happiness presented to the citizens is a structured, watered-down version of what people can experience, for true happiness cannot be properly experienced without knowing pain and finding it oneself. The pain that people so desperately try to avoid can enhance the appreciation for all the good that the world has to offer. The mankind that Huxley presents has regressed by trying to obtain progress; the virtues that humans possess have either been distorted or destroyed by reaching for utopia. The essence of scientific progress is to have everything more streamlined, more efficient, and humanity more reliant on technology. The desire to head into a technology-laden society is to create a world where humans no longer interact with each other and nature in a meaningful way. When the end goal is destroying the supposed enemy that is human nature or streamlining civilization to where one is bred and born for a certain job, humanity ultimately suffers more.
Believing in progress without understanding what it truly is and what it means for the world can be detrimental. Scientists have the tendency to discover and invent without thinking through the implications their discoveries and inventions could have on society, simply viewing them as the next step forward. This quickness can cause ultimate damage to lives, bringing morals into question when technology is created that has the potential for harm. In Copenhagen, written by Michael Frayn, Heisenberg experiences the moral dilemma of working on the atomic bomb to prevent the Nazis from acquiring it sooner or taking his hands off the project altogether, knowing it would be finished sooner (Frayn 42-43). He would not have been in this situation, however, if he had taken the time to see what his research meant before releasing it into the world. As his friend, Bohr, puts it, “At the speed you were going you were up against the uncertainty relationship. If you knew where you were when you were down you didn’t know how fast you’d got there. If you knew how fast you’d been going you didn’t know you were down” (Frayn 24). Heisenberg was so focused on his research that he did not take the time to examine the philosophical implications of his discovery; he could not see where he was going and work at the speed he did at the same time. His inability to see what his research could potentially be used for and then his desire to not face the issue of the atomic bomb head on created a lot of problems for a lot of people. Had Heisenberg considered more closely if nuclear fission could be used for warfare, he would not have had to deal with the moral conflict that faced him. Scientists should take the time to understand how their discoveries will impact the world before they lead somewhere that has unintended consequences.
Scientific endeavors that are thoughtlessly pursued can bring danger to humanity. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein was able to bring his creation to life, but his creation was not progress. He was experimenting with forces outside of his control, namely the ability to create life from scratch, and his efforts in science did not aid humanity in any way. They only harmed it because the monster, in his fits of rage, began killing humans (Shelley 102). Frankenstein’s story shows what happens when a person lets his passions for a subject get the better of him, for he worked so diligently on his creation only to have the end result tear apart his life and the lives of others. When Walton, a man set to find a route through the North Pole, meets Frankenstein, the latter warns him about this very danger. He declares, “Unhappy man! Do you share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught?” and goes on to tell Walton that he has the whole world before him and therefore should not let his quest consume him (Shelley 12). At the end of the book, Walton realizes how pursuing his goal can drag others into peril, even if it would open up new opportunities, and thus turns back (Shelley 160). Whether progress is sought for personal gain or to forge a new path for mankind, if it causes the destruction of others in the process, it should be avoided.
Introducing more technology into the world can drastically alter people’s lives to the point that they are robbed of their own humanity. Peter and Wendy, two children in Ray Bradbury’s “The Veldt,” relied on it so much to where it replaced actual human interactions and real-world experiences. They relied on it to the point they did not know how to perform basic tasks like tying their shoes or taking a bath (Bradbury 8). Additionally, they became so disconnected from others, letting a technologically advanced house take the place of their parents, and the parents did not see the change in their kids until it was too late. The technology also helped the children manifest their darkest desires which arose because of their obsession with the mechanical house. The parents thought the house full of technology was a blessing, but only years down the road did they realize how useless their existences felt without any work to do and how much of their kids’ lives they missed (Bradbury 3). Humans need to have a purpose in life, and too much technology removes it, whether it be no longer caring for one’s children or the inability to perform basic tasks. Doing work brings pleasure, too, and handing all of it over to mechanical processes has a negative impact on the human psyche. Technological progress opens up the potential for people to harm themselves and others by relying on technology to facilitate their being.
Scientific progress leads mankind toward a place devoid of what living and being a human truly mean. It promises a brighter future while only being able to deliver a society that includes more technology and more scientific discoveries that may be either useless or harmful. Since the steps of progress are eternal and vague, there will never be a point at which one can declare that progress has been reached, for there will always be something else that could be remedied. What people think should be changed in the name of progress often leads to the loss of connection and purpose, and a limited range of emotion.
Comments
Post a Comment