Rocket Scientist

Have you ever wondered what the effect of acceptance of science and technology upon a society?  Probably not.  For many it’s transparent and part of the background.  Or you say to yourself, we accept it enough with our cell phones and high definition TV.  But acceptance of science is more than accepting of the convenience that goes with it, though there were times when society didn’t even accept that.  But apparently, trust does not come with accepting the boons.

However, as a writer of speculative fiction, and a scientist/engineer, I have rather a more pointed interest.  There is a recurring theme, actually, in speculative fiction of the evil scientist, mad with power and eager to take over the world.  He or she lusts for more power or information or more something and, amoral, will destroy anything in his or her path in order to obtain it.  This is probably so popular in fiction because regular run of the mill people believe it, believe, absolutely, that it is religion more than anything that allows for ethical behavior.  With that belief, they often accept the corollary that science, as religion’s anathema, is amoral and is, in fact, incompatible with personal faith.

Is it true?

Aside from the latter being frequently false, in my opinion, I believe the former is also false.  Religion is not required for morality and I believe that the characteristics and rigors required by science make the “mad scientist” character almost noncredible.   Why do I think so?

Well, what does history say?

I can think of several instances when the religion was directly or indirectly the cause of pain: Salem witch trials, Spanish Inquisition, a large number of particularly gruesome wars.  Even today it is a factor in wars if only as a rationale and can be readily wielded to drive a wedge between one group of human beings and another, even if there is no other reason.  This isn’t to say that religion in inherently evil.  Far from it, for there are - yes, folks, there are  - good things religion has done too, even as far back as the Dark Ages.  However, religion, by definition, requires faith and looks to people for direction (since God is generally not directly available for consultation).  It is also a very emotional thing, appealing to the heart primarily rather than the mind.  Unfortunately, people more interested in control and power can use these characteristics to manipulate people with hatred, with fear, with words of intolerance, even when all of those go against the tenets of the base religion.

Note, however, this is not an indictment of religious people.  There are any number of people with strong belief systems that will not be swayed to do evil things and, frequently, they provide as much relief to these situations as they can.  An example lay in those as those religious people who worked the Underground Railroad and fought for abolition even as others were preaching in defense of slavery.

But this isn’t about religion.  So, when has science done something similar?  I’ve heard Nazi Germany and Hiroshima laid on the plate as proof of the mad scientist concept, proof that they have done as much damage.  Except neither of those situation were driven by science; science was, at worst, an enabler.  But that’s a far cry from scientists getting mad with power and taking over the world.  Hitler was not a scientist but a clever manipulator, mad for control and apparently a hatred for Jews and other easily marginalized groups.  That does not excuse all the scientists that helped him, though one could make a case that some worked with little other choice.  Others, like Mengele, can not be excused or even explained and will be a blight and an embarrassment for the scientific profession for some time.  But he wasn’t trying to rule the world, just the corner he’d made into a nightmare.

Nor do I think it reasonable to hold the misuse of science by others, those that crave power or wealth, as science gone mad.  Historically, conquering groups (including religiously led groups) have always used technology without hesitation, even against those who had little or no defense against it, but it hasn’t been the scientists who determined the use.  It is the person who pulls the trigger who must bear responsibility.  And while science has allowed more effective ways of hurting people, it has also provided considerably to the health, education, and well-being of people through medicine and hygiene, plumbing and irrigation, air conditioning and information technology.  Just as religion has provided comfort to people despite some ugly bits of history.

So, what’s my point?

Today’s point is that history doesn’t provide a ready example of the kind of villain so popular in comics and literature.  That isn’t the only reason I don’t buy into this image, and I have more to say, but I think I’ll save it for tomorrow.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS