THE GENI(US) IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE
also known as
THE HUMPTY DUMPTY PRINCIPLE
exemplified by
THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One of the more bizarre contradictions in our lifetime is that climate-crisis-deniers call into question what reputable climate scientists predict, namely doom and gloom if the world’s population does not immediately stop CO2 emissions, plastic pollution and a raft of other man-made products that have the effect of shooting ourselves in the foot – and soon in the head. Who is to blame? The corporations that make and sell the stuff (like petrol and gas), or the consumers who buy the stuff? Since the climate-crisis- deniers are known to be anti-science, i.e. deprived of rational thought, one can easily dismiss them, or can we?
Nobody in his right (sic) mind can deny that SCIENCE has brought humankind all the progress we now live by. All the great scientific discoveries have in the first instance enriched our KNOWLEDGE of how nature works, from gravity (Newton) to relativity (Einstein), to name but the greatest of the great. It seems, however, that often the scientific GENIUS is not only driven by gaining new knowledge but by applying this knowledge in a way that will benefit such a genius, moving into APPLIED SCIENCE, registering a patent or two and making a fortune, or, if not astute enough, making someone else a fortune. Probably the best known such applied scientist genius was Edison, who as an INVENTOR changed the world for better or worse. ENGINEERING geniuses like Daimler, Benz and Ford definitely made the world a worse place to live, deriving kinetic energy from fossil fuels and leaving behind toxic CO2 emissions. The Frankenstein chemists that spawned the plastics industries all had good intentions. The pharmaceutical industries that caused the current opioid epidemic are no different from when British traders pushed opium in China. The mad scientists that developed atomic bombs are said to have had good intentions: to guarantee peace on earth, sort of.
As the saying goes ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’, one cannot help wondering why SCIENCE has not been able to prevent its worst outcomes, like the present CLIMATE CRISIS. Why on earth is the 2019 Nobel Prize in chemistry given to scientists who developed lithium-ion batteries, when any rational being can figure out that the manufacture and disposal of vast amounts of toxic lithium-ion batteries will pollute the world like never before. Who is to blame? Bad science? Can good science fix the problems caused by bad science?
So, here comes the rub: bad science is like the genie that escaped from the bottle and no one can put genie back. Bad science conforms to the Humpty Dumpty Principle in that what is badly broken cannot be put back together again. So, how can we stop bad science in the first place, since we cannot remedy the outcomes of bad science (and subsequently the corporatization of applied science and engineering)?
So-called pure science disavows any application, good or bad, presumably in the knowledge that the consequences of any scientific discovery – in the sense of understanding our natural world – can subsequently be used for purposes that damage our natural world. On the other hand, ever since year dot, those who live by nefarious and criminal purposes – like the military complex – will employ so-called pure scientists in the hope that they will discover something/anything that will lead to the development of better and more efficient killing machines (see my blog on the weaponization of AI). The ideas of a gentle scientist sitting in the attic of the ivory tower, with tea stains on his shabby suit, straining his formidable brain to the point of a scientific breakthrough on paper, have long disappeared – if they ever existed. Nowadays science is a vast money-go-round that by definition prohibits ‘pure’ science from taking place. A positive cost-benefit analysis of any science project is the first requirement. Sure, sometimes the ‘benefits’ are a bit nebulous, like space missions to the Moon and to Mars and to god-knows-where but as long as they advance the commercial satellite applications closer to earth, so be it – and anyway such projects are largely paid for by the tax-payers and therefore largely risk-free.
So, the point is that good science is in retreat while bad science is marching along the tunes played by military bands - he who pays the piper … -. A bad omen, one might say.
So, when the Guardian columnist George Monbiot blames the evil fossil fuel corporations for the climate crisis, the many comments from the readers either congratulate him for his insights or else rubbish them by arguing that the end consumer is at fault. Sure, the fossil fuel corporations are evil like all other corporations and businesses that make huge profits from selling products that (often knowingly) cause the degradation of the natural world – innocent humans included – but then again the whole history of what is called civilisation (with its associated curse of nation and empire building) is premised on the freedom (entrenched in law) to advance one’s obscene wealth to the detriment of the 99.9% left behind. If such (criminal) activity is rewarded, why not make a fast buck and to hell with what and who comes next. Instant (legal) gratification is very addictive and engages the mind of many a brilliant entrepreneur. Take the cum-ex scandal, which is the tip of an enormous iceberg (made of taxing the working classes) on which the idle rich dine out to their hearts’ delight (the valuable crumbs that fall from the tables are given to scientists at Ivy League universities so that they can figure out how to better apply Pavlov’s Dog behaviourism to the working classes).
So, what is the ordinary punter supposed to do? Driving home from work in his dirty diesel, getting a take-away meal all packaged in plastic, then at home consuming a bit of electricity provided by a coal-fired power plant, having a gas-fired shower, and having a sleep in his bed made from unsustainable timber and synthetic foam … and the rain is pelting down as never before, with a leak developing above the ranch slider that opens to the tiny balcony, is this a climate crisis or what? Who cares! Have to do it all again tomorrow. No time to think. Having saved for three years for an overseas holiday on the Gold Coast of Australia, he is happy in economy class drinking cheap red wine from plastic cups, dreaming of golden beaches and tropical sunshine, all the way increasing his carbon footprint in this rattling tin can called a Dreamliner, burning toxic kerosene. When he gets there, there is a hurricane in progress and the Gold Coast is a disaster. Bad luck or what? After two weeks of bad weather he has to fly home again. He has no choice but to get back to work, 9 to 5 + a two hour commute. 5 days a week, on a zero hours contract. As a construction worker he earns about double what a street cleaner gets in his city. Life is as good as it gets. He lives by metaphors he has learned off by heart. He failed science at school. He remembers his science teacher as an absolute idiot. He has no idea why these scientists get a Nobel Prize for inventing lithium-ion batteries, even though his smart phone, and a few other gadgets, are powered by them. Imagine getting one of these battery-powered cars they have these days. They cost triple of a good old diesel. He read somewhere that, one day, even the Dreamliners will run on batteries. Where the hell are they going to put all these batteries when they’re spent? He has to recharge his ‘smart’ phone twice a day because the bloody battery is no good anymore, and his phone is a cheap one, for which one cannot replace the battery. Bloody climate crisis, alright!
Scientists are a different species, somehow disconnected from ordinary mortals. They exist, as the joke goes, in their heads and use their bodies as a form of transport to get to the next conference. They publish incomprehensible articles in science journals, and yet, every now and then, they hit the jackpot, like finally figuring out how to make a functioning quantum computer chip that can compute in 3 minutes what the most advanced computer today could only achieve in 10,000 years. Imagine the implications for securing the patent. Imagine having a weapon with such advanced AI capability, and you’d be the master of the universe. Dystopian, Orwellian future, all round. Thanks to bad science and those who apply it. The few good scientists who warn us about the consequences of bad science are but a cosmic joke.
So, we cannot just turn around now and follow good old Rousseau and his Back to Nature calls, or join the Amish, or live like the Flintstones. Bad science has brought us here and there is no way back. Like lemmings we have no choice but to jump over the cliff when the time comes. Sad but true. At least there will be no more difference between rich lemmings and poor lemmings. And as Russell famously wrote: peace will return to earth. And the climate will slowly but surely find its natural balance again.
So, please don’t worry, this is only a cautionary tale, a fairytale that only nobodies, like me and you, write and read. A story, like many others they tell you on your social media. And as Nietzsche famously wrote: science tells stories just like all the other stories are told, especially the ones with an unhappy ending. Nobody really knows what is fact or fiction, when in fact everything is fiction. Maybe we need to start a new history of science and life in general, a new story beyond good and bad, where all man-made crises have ceased to exist. CHEERS!
No comments:
Post a Comment