The Madness of Science

If anyone had the gift of prescience it was C.S.Lewis; nowhere better seen than in the third instalment of his science fiction trilogy - That Hideous Strength. He mythically, graphically, with foresight shows the results of the amoral search for knowledge at all costs, along with its hideous consequences; it was a titanic struggle between good and evil to Lewis.

For the continuance of real good something or someone is usually willingly sacrificed, whereas evil always sacrifices something or someone without their consent, against their will, for the cause. One gives the other takes. In this light, vivisection was a big issue in Lewis’ day, where animals were experimented on, sometimes enduring terrible pain, for the sake of scientific research. He asked, is it a cost too high? Are their alternatives? Is it moral?

With science being portrayed as truth, the future, there is a reckless search for knowledge. This carries with it the assumption knowledge is always a progressive step in mankind’s relentless search for - for himself, ultimately - no matter how it is procured. What we don’t see doesn’t bother us.

This search is precisely what gave German doctors (considered world class) the right, even the unpleasant necessity, to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge by cruel experimentation with prisoners, including children, innocent defenceless children for God’s sake. What hubris, what arrogance, what wickedness, drove their self-justified insanity - all in the name of scientific experimentation and the perfection of the human, particularly Aryan humans.

Some young people, quickly dogged by regret, have sued hospital trusts (UK) that allowed their wishes to be fulfilled for not providing more counselling or suggesting alternatives. This isn’t likely to change a lot of impressionable and idealistic young people, and money won’t repair the damage - the removal of male or female anatomy. But it might slow the process and give people time to process the outcomes, provided it has testimony from both sides and is genuinely non-biased.

Science, scientism to be precise, lacks humility. It does not always take into account morality (things can be right or wrong, and some knowledge is too costly) - arguing that science is a neutral project for the sake of all mankind. Too bad if you are an animal or were a child in a concentration camp or the subject of non-scientific ideologies that propose almost everything we wish for is a human right.

Speaking of ‘For All Mankind’, this Apple TV series rewrites the history of the space race and shows the inevitability of what happens when people go any further than Earth. The initial rush of cooperative enthusiasm soon enough reverts to international tensions. How long before the proposed Moon or Mars colonies will need to provide a judge, court, and jail? In other words, not satisfied with the damage we have inflicted on Earth, let’s take our contagion to the stars. Whilst some, especially those given to the doctrine that knowledge is progress will view this as unnecessarily bleak or negative, it has sound scientific backing - read history - wars, killing, hatred, greed, etc. The empirical proof is all too real and should give pause to the proud notion we will do better anywhere else.

If we are prepared to put up with all this, considering some consequences tragic, collateral damage but equally necessary, then blast away - Proxima Centauri here we come.