Helpless Earth
Reckless Science
© Copyrighted material
Part A – The Enterprise
Scientia potentia est.
- 1 -
Modern threats
In the 1950s, professor Frank Fenner was involved in a government project that infected the animals with a lethal disease, which devastated large rabbit populations.
Later on, Fenner outstandingly contributed to the worldwide eradication of a notorious human disease, smallpox, officially announced in 1980.
However, his broad concern with human problems culminated in despair.
Like others, he noticed the growing masses of modern machines that pollute the air and damage the climate.
But his calculations showed a chilling consequence – or maybe better said a “scorching consequence” – which he disclosed publicly shortly before his death.
That day, many readers were surprised to learn that the admired scientist supported the most radical claims of the most pessimistic camps:
Global warming will escalate, mitigation efforts will fail, and eventually all humans on earth will face annihilation.
However, though the interview seemed quite sensational, not all the readers were necessarily surprised.
Some might have long observed the Doomsday Clock, which moved forward significantly since its 1947 launch.
Others might have heard of a famed authority, Martin Rees, who analyzed the crucial dangers of contemporary scientific technologies, and gave a seasoned warning:
The risk of doom in the 21st century is 50%, if not higher.
Clearly, Rees did not address a fearsome question:
Will contemporary civilization survive, or crumble?
But based on Rees, at best, the odds are even; like the odds of a flipped coin landing on heads or tails.
How could such an apocalyptic danger arise?
Starting in the 18th century with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, steam-engine machines were employed in various fields, such as mining, textile weaving, production plants, agriculture, transportation, and book and newspaper publishing.
In this transformative era, automated manufacturing began, established occupations changed, economic production surged, new forms of capitalism developed, masses of wage earners sharply grew, air polluted cities attracted huge rural populations, and unknown social problems emerged.
Furthermore, boosted by (and further boosting) the industrial achievements, scientific activities vastly increased.
A growing number of amateur and professional scientists across diverse research fields sought out significant discoveries and exploitable technologies, filed patents and promoted their inventions, which often brought substantial rewards.
In the 19th century, scientists were able to identify specific viruses, observe electric particles in the atom, design the periodic table, electrify entire cities, upgrade communication and transportation with the telegraph and the car, and combat ghastly diseases with effective vaccines.
Yet, while many scientific issues – however complex – were being rapidly solved, ethical issues that plagued society were a different story.
The Luddites embarked on a bloody revolt that ended on the gallows. Prolific writers like Victor Hugo and Charles Dickens published extremely critical novels. And Karl Marx spread his radical cultural critiques.
In the 20th century, though considerable populations began to enjoy longer and more comfortable lives, the rift between the positive and negative outcomes of technological breakthroughs seemed to go even deeper in unprecedented ways.
Winston Churchill was worried by humanity’s extraordinary suicide capabilities.
Two world wars plainly showed the horrors of unrestrained development. And then, in the aftermath of the Hiroshima explosion, the Doomsday Clock began to raise the alarms.
Presently, along with the increasing achievements for the benefit of humanity – as the saying goes – the growing apocalyptic scenarios are an open secret.
Fossil fuel engines, nuclear devices, tailor made viruses, or extremely intelligent robotic machines – to mention some examples – might eventually trigger the demise of humanity.
Many admirers of the scientific civilization would be surprised to notice the awkward state of affairs:
The adverse outcomes of past technological leaps – driven by entrepreneurs, politicians, and (of course) scientists – encompass all the threats of human-induced apocalypse, such as military, environmental, accidental, or others.
Indeed, in the modern age, the most intelligent species has managed to jeopardize its existence for the first time in history.
The paragons of intelligence, scientists, consciously or not, have played an indispensable role in this weird achievement.
Amish communities were founded in the 17th century. People living in these communities did not practice scientific research nor did they give it importance.
Hypothetically, humans would not endanger their own survival if they all embraced Amish principles starting at that time.
- 2 -
Breakthrough projects
No one disclosed if a boy had just become a girl, or vice versa. Either way, it was not the first nor the last case. Australian officials confirmed that hundreds of kids had been enrolled in gender transition programs.
The sweeping swapping trend followed a strange story.
Way back in 1907, Leo Baekeland, a chemist, invented a novel type of synthetic plastic. This material, named Bakelite, was one of the game changers of the modern industrial age.
It was eventually accompanied by PVC, polyester, nylon, and other synthetic materials, commonly produced by the petro-chemical industry from fossil fuels.
Media reporters, business leaders, and prominent scientists applauded the innovative plastics that smoothly conquered the world. The Second World War gave a nice push to the boom, which went on for decades before some obnoxious side effects drew serious attention.
It is a bit of a mystery why so many regulatory bodies around the world dragged their feet for so long.
But better later than never, a few awkward facts at last emerged:
1. Due to the durability of the new commodities, plastic waste tends to accumulate, not disintegrate. Thus, for instance, the oceans around the world turned into gigantic dumps of plastics.
2. Some chemicals commonly found in plastics, (e.g. bisphenols) damage the hormone system of humans and other species. Such hormone disruptors – also called endocrine disruptors – routinely leach from plastic materials, including food packages in the supermarket and debris floating in the Atlantic.
3. It may be relatively easy to make food packages with old-style materials, or “clean” plastics – even though some proved to be anything but clean.
But how can you deal with the obnoxious debris in the Atlantic?
How can you get rid of hormone disruptors, which leach from the floating plastic waste to the ocean water, and then to the air, clouds, rains, soils, and rivers?
Moreover, although plastic is a major source of hormone disruptors, there are many other sources, such as herbicides, cosmetics, pesticides, home sprays, cleaning products, fragrances...
On top of that, kids are particularly vulnerable to hormone disruption, which may be irreversible.
But, you may argue, transformed sexuality is not the end of the world, not in the 21st century.
Trouble is, some upshots of hormone disruption are critical enough to threaten human survival.
Shanna H. Swan, an environmental epidemiologist, published a staggering research article in 2017, a decade past the hailed bakelite centenary. Her findings later appeared in a stirring book, Count Down, which detailed legions of hormone-disruption impacts:
Gender shifts, changed sexual preferences, opposite trends of feminization and masculinization, growing LGBT communities, and hosts of health damages, including one that is often dismissed and usually not painful at all: Sperm loss.
The book demonstrates that male fertility is diminishing around the world at such a steady pace that, given the established tendency, the reproduction of human offspring will eventually come to an end.
If you are keen on apocalyptic thrillers, one new option is available now.
Admittedly, it is not as dramatic as H-bombs, abominable robots, or boiling climate. It is just a bit of sperm loss.
This is one of the apocalyptic scenarios that were totally unknown in 2003, when Martin Rees gave his dire prediction for our civilization:
However, looking at the key problem of plastics, the main picture is far from encouraging.
It is true that some industrial companies have stepped back and replaced plastics with traditional materials such as rubber, glass, or cardboard. Likewise, a few have introduced novel kinds of green materials. But concurrently, many companies have launched new projects circulating far more plastics.
One venture called “Ocean Cleanup” has shown some promising results. And yet, global dumping of plastic waste is consistently rising.
Part of the major problem is a perennial debate about what the major problem really is.
Is it the lack of international cooperation? The phony regulation of novel technologies? The inherent faults of insatiable capitalism? The staunch belief in the absolute merits of economic growth? The established patent system, which makes novel inventions particularly lucrative for both entrepreneurs and scientists? Or is it all a question of recklessness?
Other topics are no less intriguing:
For decades, scientists – researchers, inventors, regulators, or industrial experts – have hardly paid due attention to the escalating pollution they were in fact promoting. (Not that it affected their public image, of course.)
Right now, when scientists at last attempt to tackle the outrageous outcomes, they enjoy the public prestige of the Good Samaritans.
Somehow, however, their belated efforts look like trying to shut the stable door after the horses have gone.
Here is a sample of recent dire reports:
Carried by the currents in the oceans, plastic waste tends to concentrate in a number of infamous areas, like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It's about 1.6 million square kilometers, bigger than Texas.
In this area, a huge amount of plastic waste remains close to the water surface, and another huge amount sinks down to the ocean bed.
All in all, the nasty effects of plastic pollution are anywhere and everywhere.
Up to 95% of U.S. adults are estimated to have levels of hormone disruptors in their urine.
Remote Aboriginal and Indigenous societies, which have never damaged planet Earth with their archaic pollution, now suffer from hormone disruption.
Nearly 100% of baby sea-turtles have possibly carcinogenic plastic in their bodies
Sexual behavior of certain aquatic animals seems to have changed: Some males prefer males, some females masculinize.
Your food, your clothes, and even the dust in your home may contain hormone disruptors.
Roughly 400 million tons of plastic waste are produced yearly around the world.
This is expected to double in two decades.
About 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine animals die from plastic pollution each year.
Ten million tons of plastic waste are dumped into the oceans each year.
This is expected to triple in two decades.
Even the radical approaches so far practically considered, will result in a persistent increase of plastic pollution.
Last but not least, grave human infertility problems in both males and females are anything but declining.
Some have justified the persistent foot dragging by a grand excuse: plastic is indispensable!
They have further claimed that if plastic was banned today, there would be no available electricity, no usable transportation vehicles, no… no… and no…
This is broadly true, but something is missing:
If plastic was banned piecemeal, according to a gradual plan, there would hardly be any substantial problems.
Maybe a few necessary industrial products would be a little more expensive, or a bit heavier. Perhaps, one or two exemptions would be allowed. Conceivably, the economy would face some pressures, and certain stock prices would fall. Possibly, some inventors, entrepreneurs, and lobbyists would lose notable financial opportunities. And an unknown number of toddlers would lose some innovative gender opportunities…
The EU Environmental Action Programme
The U.S. Environmental Policy Act.
The U.N. announcement that hormone disruptors are a global threat.
The introduction of the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act to the U.S. Congress.
The announced plan of the European Commission to ban thousands of hazardous chemicals, including many hormone disruptors.
Still, it is amazing how little has practically been achieved.
Some persistent obstacles are juridical difficulties, political complexities, and the slow emergence of scientific evidence.
On top of that, varied factors tend to encourage blatant resistance to environmentalism.
Finance managers, economists, or institutional and private holders of stock investments – particularly plastic and oil stocks – might value business stability more than environmental stability, not to mention gender stability.
A successful company can launch a public-relations campaign, which might influence not only people like you and me, but also official policy makers.
A corporation with a substantial advertisement budget might pressure media editors for “appropriate” news coverage.
Then, there are overt lobbying approaches.
And then, there is a plethora of covert lobbying practices, like the following:
(a) Maintaining behind-the-scenes communication with lawmakers, regulators, or other officials.
(b) Using third-party organizations to provide financial support for political candidates, in exchange for favorable agendas.
(c) Offering highly lucrative opportunities to retired politicians, as if to complete the picture.
(d) Using third-party organizations to fund research that obscures commercial self-interests.
(e) Providing “suitable” ghostwriting services to well-known researchers ready to publish such "scientific" works.
If all that seems incredible, take a look at a few recent online disclosures given by environmentalist investigators. (Web links are listed in the Notes section.)
Corporate EuropeObservatory:
Kempii:
Acid News:
Particularly intriguing are awkward involvements of scientists addressed in scholarly works, such as the following:
David Demortain, ResearchGate:
Further questions to ponder:
How problematic is it nowadays to separate information from misinformation and disinformation?
Since when have novel chemical technologies been affecting sexual behavior?
Do victims of plastics – just like producers of plastics – tend to overlook the issue of hormone disruption?
Do liberal sexual norms paradoxically shield plastics producers from damage lawsuits?
- 3 -
Apropos
The Lenoir engine was developed around 1860. Fueled by gasoline, it seemed a sharp improvement to the earlier steam engines, primarily fueled by coal.
The promising invention, using a preferred type of fossil fuel, gained acclaim pretty soon. However, no scientist at that time knew how dangerous fossil fuel is.
- 4 -
Whistle-blower story
Eventually, he co-founded a high-tech company in Silicon Valley, and contributed significantly to computer science.
Quite unexpectedly, in the year 2000 he published a controversial essay that infuriated hosts of scientists around the world.
The content challenged cherished values and threatened major self-interests.
The title was no less unusual:
“Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.”
Indeed, Joy composed a lengthy thesis that outlined the “Pandora's boxes” of genetics, robotics, and nanotechnology.
He was deeply concerned about research programs, often very promising commercially, which endangered humanity's survival like weapons of suicide.
Explicitly and implicitly, he blamed leading scientific elites for downplaying the hazardous consequences of their projects, or (maybe worse) taking outrageous risks, of which they were well aware.
Practically, Joy saw no other solution than to restrict the search for knowledge, and relinquish the most hazardous types of breakthrough science.
But if he hoped to shake the status quo, he proved to be rather naive.
The public attention he got was rather short-lived.
Not many scientists supported him, to say the least.
He did not inspire a noteworthy social issue, nor a substantial constraint on the customary liberty of science.
The traditional policies of scientific advance, and the prevailing public image of scientists, hardly changed.
By and large, scientists carried on in the same old ways, which was not a big surprise.
Ground breaking projects had long been business as usual.
Tip:
“Nuclear weapons give an attacking nation a devastating advantage over any feasible defense.
New sciences will soon empower small groups, even individuals, with similar leverage over society.”
Martin Rees.
- 5 -
The case of an old city
The myth is pretty well known.
Following a futile siege of Troy, the Greek army built a huge hollow sculpture of a wooden horse, hid some troops inside, moved it close to the immense walls of the defiant city, and feigned a retreat.
Not long after, the Trojan leaders swallowed the bait. The wooden horse was brought in, and then the concealed troops sneaked out and opened the main gates to the whole Greek army, which swiftly devastated the city.
Briefly given in the Odyssey, this story has been told and retold countless times, traditionally in verse accompanied by music.
For some, though, it was merely a peculiar piece of dubious history.
Others were prompted to examine specific issues of ingenuity and stupidity.
Based on Barbara Tuchman, the fall of Troy was a prominent case of an elite debacle, covered in her 1984 historical work:
The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam.
This book delved into decisions and policies of state leaders in different circumstances, and was met with some professional criticism.
Still, it drew readers’ attention to curious questions:
Could some elites tend to take unwarranted risks?
Could excessive power breed not only straight corruption - which is widely maintained - but also defective thinking?
Could foolishness strike regardless of IQ level?
Indeed, such questions seem to carry distinct weight in the current global circumstances, when powerful politicians, entrepreneurs, or scientists might contribute to the flourishing or demise of humanity.
More than a decade before the release of The March of Folly, the social psychologist Irving L. Janis published an influential work:
Victims of Groupthink.
Janis studied defective reasoning shaped by social factors in certain over confident and inflexible groups. He called it “group thinking,” or more contemptuously “groupthink.”
Could “groupthink,” then, have something to do with current political, scientific, or business elites?
Given a few global indicators, such as the Doomsday Clock setting, this question obviously seems to merit some serious attention.
Interestingly, Janis was influenced by George Orwell, who coined infamous terms like “blackwhite” and “doublethink,” pointing to the twisted thinking of an unbridled elite.
As if to broaden the issue, Gorgias of Sicily, (in an article concerning precisely the Trojan War) suggested a linguistic insight on the basic development of twisted thinking, faulty thinking, absurd thinking, and similar achievements of the human mind:
Words are like drugs.
Centuries later, a striking example of eggheads drugged by their own words was given by Friedrich Nietzsche, who flatly mocked his peers, the admired brains who are popularly believed to pursue fundamental truths.
According to Nietzsche, when one manages to see the sheer conviction upon which this or that philosophy is based, one can only say:
“The ass arrived, beautiful and most brave.”
The Latin words he actually used – taken from a famous Christian song – seem a bit spicier:
“Adventavit asinus, pulcher et fortissimus.”
Just to remove any doubt, Nietzsche fully supported his scornful dismissal of celebrated minds with an array of astute arguments.
Perhaps the most comprehensive review of stupidity-at-the-top was offered by the Renaissance humanist Erasmus Desiderius, who used his subversive wit to address the world he knew, and maybe just as well – given some persistent evidences – the contemporary world all of us know.
According to his 16th-century classic, The Praise of Folly, planet Earth is ruled by no other than the Goddess of foolishness.
All humans worship this goddess, all are happy, and all are fools. But the question remains: who are the greatest fools of all?
As to this particular question, major cultural elites are listed by Erasmus one by one: great philosophers, famous writers, respectable educators, commerce magnates, bishops, and theologians who are officially licensed to eradicate any sign of heresy. In short, the greatest fools of all are precisely those considered to be the wisest of all.
Whether this particular model fits some contemporary elites is, of course, up to anyone to decide.
According to my old dictionary, folly could mean foolishness, stupidity, ridiculousness, absurdity, madness, and insanity.
If this listing is somewhat confusing, the enormous inventory of the qualified agents of folly is quite baffling. Prominent examples, aside from straight fools, are donkeys, simpletons, dolts, idiots, imbeciles, buffoons, ninnies, and dummies – not to mention goons, loons, jackasses, noodles, schmucks, simps, palookas and poops.
To be sure, all the above details are just preliminary hints on the overall subject of folly.
Historically, the defective performance of the human mind – the mind of the most intelligent species – so the story goes – has been a spectacle observed in traditional folklore dating back millennia.
It has further been discussed by philosophers, comedians, logicians, poets, military commanders, theologians, psychologists, novelists, historians, and humorists, not to mention kindergarten nurses.
Whether some significant progress has been achieved in this respect is hard to tell.
Whether a problem to be solved, a weakness to be exploited, a vice to be ridiculed, or just a plague, depends on the point of view.
If someone is eager to write a comprehensive book on the subject, I would recommend a title like this one:
“The March of Folly from the Tree of Knowledge to the Tsar Bomba – the most powerful H-bomb ever detonated.”
- 6 -
Hazardous triumphs
Yet - though it did not make a fundamental difference - dangerous breakthroughs have eventually drawn specific attention.
In 1913, the English author H.G. Wells, who was quite familiar with the science of his day, gave a visionary description of a nuclear weapon in a new book with a strange name: The World Set Free.
One of his close acquaintances, Winston Churchill, addressed the growing threats of scientific progress in a 1924 article:
Shall We All Commit Suicide?
In 1933, when Leo Szilard first conceived of a viable chain reaction that could create a nuclear explosion, he was seriously alarmed and attempted to shield the information.
But in 1939, when further research conducted in Germany became widely known, he discussed it with Albert Einstein, who signed a letter to President Roosevelt about the looming nuclear arms race with the Nazi regime.
During World War II, many scientists, including current and future Nobel laureates, participated in the Manhattan Project's production of the nuclear bombs, which eventually wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the order of President Truman.
However, when peace came, a few veterans founded a perturbing periodical named Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
One of their close supporters was Alexander Langsdorf whose wife, Martyl, designed the cover icon of the Bulletin in 1947. It was a piece of graphic work called the Doomsday Clock, which showed 7 minutes before midnight.
Later on, the displayed time was periodically altered to reflect shifts in the urgency of the ultimate catastrophic threat.
Right now, at the time of this writing, the clock shows precisely 90 seconds before midnight, with all that implies.
In a way, the launch of the Bulletin was oddly ironic:
A few scientists aimed to “inform,” “influence,” or “educate” politicians and common citizens about the doomsday dangers of breakthrough weapons, which they themselves had a hand in developing.
Somewhat similarly, the signers of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto warned about the unprecedented dangers and trumpeted pacifism.
Indeed, Robert Oppenheimer, who headed the key Los Alamos laboratory of the Manhattan Project, was worried that one day people would curse Los Alamos, and that all humans would vanish unless they fully cooperate.
One veteran of the Manhattan Project, Eugene Rabinowitch, longtime editor of the Bulletin, anticipated more “presents” from the “Pandora's box” of science.
These Indigenous people threaten neither the environment at large nor their own survival.
From this perspective, they live, like the flora and fauna, far more rationally than modernized people.
- 7 -
Startling forecasts
Somewhat unexpectedly, one of his widely read books highlights the impacts of modern scientific discoveries and technologies on the dwindling safety of life on planet Earth.
If you look for a concise and authoritative discussion on the dangers of nuclear devices, polluting machinery, tailor made viruses, super robots, artificially-intelligent computers, nano technologies, particle accelerators, and cyber networks, this is kind of a classic.
If you are concerned with the current global threats of terror, world war, mega accident, cataclysmic error, perilous research, and hazardous knowledge, this work can hardly be overlooked.
And if you seek a balanced treatment of science – by a devoted scientist, of course – this book addresses both the positive and negative impacts of modern hard science.
True, the Nobel Prize ceremonies annually celebrate outstanding contributions for the benefit of humanity.
Indeed, science has long been compared to a double-edged sword. And yet, the symmetry is questionable, if not optimistically misleading.
Currently, for instance, the positive impacts of science on medical treatment are remarkable in many large populations.
The positive impacts on public contentment or people's morals are varied and dependent on a range of factors, such as personal background, place of living, and favored belief system.
Needless to say, the negative impacts on the prospects of humanity's survival are undeniable.
Still, he further observes an alarming polarity of scientific progress:
Almost every exploitable discovery is potentially "good" and "evil."
If you conclude that the evil potential of scientific advancements keeps growing, you may not be surprised by Martin Rees' pessimism. Indeed, the title of his book speaks for itself:
Our Final Century.
His best-known warning – intricately phrased and often misquoted – amounts to a chilling forecast:
In this century, the chance of destruction of our advanced civilization is 50%, if not higher.
That is not an atypical assessment. Others seem on the same scale.
For instance, Frank Fenner proposed a 100% chance of humanity's demise.
Ray Kurzweil implied “optimistically” that the chance of humanity's demise is lower than 50%.
Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg circulated an evaluation of a 19% chance of human extinction in this century.
It follows, by the way, that the chance of a global catastrophe causing "only" a few billion fatalities is much higher than 19%.
If you need another tip, the chance of a Russian-roulette player to smash his own head is around 16%.
Furthermore, large catastrophic events are typified by a peculiar catch:
In any case, it's difficult to see how humanity will survive, given factors like the following:
- 8 -
Inflated image
Science news takes many forms and fascinates countless millions.
Sometime ago, I had a look at a prestigious online source, which gave compelling reports on a range of topics:
Lung transplantation… ancient people's height… colors observed by birds… hazardous gases... the blood moon… a fish given engineered nutrition… plastic pollution… and robots propelled by thinking.
The fluent passages (specified in the Notes ahead) showed a heart warming picture:
Scientists reveal the fundamental truths of the physical and biological world around us.
Scientists discover significant facts about human life in past ages.
Scientists develop novel technologies that are vastly beneficial to our advanced culture.
And, of course, scientists expose and attempt to mitigate the crucial dangers to the environment.
What a great piece of news!
It almost looked like an inspirational campaign.
Throughout the entire collection – viewed on August 4, 2018 – there was not even one explicit or implicit reference to the disturbing issues that surround science; for instance, the perennial issues of hazardous technologies, multiplying catastrophic threats, and growing doomsday scenarios.
You can google around and see for yourself how, or to what extent, a certain editorial mood or a distinct journalistic agenda indeed shapes the gratifying science news you get ...
***********
The entire book is available worldwide in Amazon stores.