Rocket Scientist

So, if history doesn’t provide an example of the quintessential, nay almost cliché, “mad scientist,” why is this such a prevalent character?  Well, just because it hasn’t happened in the past, who’s to say it couldn’t?

I won’t say it *couldn’t*, but I won’t say it’s likely.  Here’s why.

The number one reason people want to rule the world is to control people and, through them, resources, power, wealth.  The most effective way of controlling people is to (a) limit their education, (b) limit/control the information that reaches them and, if possible, (c) manipulate emotions (which can be helped by (a) and (b)).  You can control people with force, but force requires a large number of people using, well, force.  How do you get these henchmen?  Money or you control them through methods a-c.

The problem with methods a-c is that they are the antithesis of what a scientist is.  Scientists, real scientists, want an educated public, one that understands what the mean when they say something.  People who are clueless about science, rather than embracing scientific conclusions, are suspicious and eager to discount those things they can’t understand.  In other words, an ignorant public would work against a scientist as well as being against everything he stands for.

But what about the money aspect a la Lex Luthor, for example?  There are scientists/engineers that got rich creating something useful or helpful, or designing software or videogames.  But, while there are handful of these, it is much more likely for technical expertise to be hired by more business oriented folks where the technical expertise gets perks and the business folks get ridiculously rich.  Most of those programmers and the like that did get rich, sold off their assets for a bundle and then tried to figure out ways to spend their money.  Methods tried generally tend toward foolish waste and/or philanthropy, as opposed to trying to leverage more money or they reinvest that money into something they believe in, like green technologies or space.  Bill Gates can program, but he is more a businessman than a software person, and, in either case, a scientist he is not.  Actually, if you want to get rich, engineering/software is the way to go.  Scientists that have made money hand over fist are all but unheard of unless they made their money in something besides, uh, science.

So, if a scientist is not going to control the world, what if he just wants to destroy it?  Well, that’s not impossible.  But really, when has anyone really tried to destroy the world just ‘cause?  When terrible things have been done, it has either been done with the idea of furthering an agenda (no matter how insane that agenda might be) or it has been thoughtlessly destructive like Timothy McVeigh.  I can’t think of a motive for a scientist to be thoughtlessly destructive.

But the other…perhaps that’s more food for thought.  And I’ll be thinking about it for part 3.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS