Einstein appears to
confront the crucible of scientists like him bridging the way to the potential nuclear
destruction of humanity in the pursuit of an ambiguous definition of
truth. Albert saw the aggregation of
wealth and industry consolidating humanity’s basic roots to feed, nourish, and
grow a complete society. Given the
opportunity part of our plant will destroy the sources of profit in the
long-run for a perceived benefit in the short.
Independence is in jeopardy. I
can feel the trepidation in his words of that time reverberating.
The idea of defining
why we do what we do, when it is probable that our objective once achieved may
be misused to the detriment of the whole is confounding. There is a gap requiring trust, which can
only be filled by faith in humanity.
Faith is the antithesis of science.
Faith requires an assumption with a hypothesis the scientist knows cannot
be proven. It is an agnostic’s
playground, which Einstein appears reluctant to stomach, but ultimately
recognizes as mandatory.
Einstein appears to
acknowledge this debate of faith. He is
professing effort; that scientists try, have tried, and will continue to try to
bridge this gap, knowing the impossibility, yet still trying. It is better we do try; for what are we if we
cease trying? This becomes his
conclusion.
I think about all the
benefits of the microchip in finance, medicine, transportation, communication,
education, energy, public safety etc. and with every advance comes a threat, if
not a commensurately greater threat to the vulnerability of society becoming
less self-sufficient. We develop new
animals to fear in our caves. We are
becoming further from our native identities.
We are farther walking closer to the edge.
The animals, the
plants, the seed, the warm-embrace of friend and family: are we moving towards
or away from these supporting tethers of life or are we leveraging them to the
verge of extinction for a more profitable present? The bees, the water, the very genetics of our
seeds are being ramped for exploitation.
Einstein saw the raw powered-danger of science. He knew what humanity would choose if left
unabated.
I see the battle of
misplaced faith. Some think a God will
make sure everything is all right. The
Dalai Lama says God would say, “I didn’t do that. Humanity did that. Why are you asking me?” As an atheist, I kind of end up in the same
place. What are we going to do? We are doing it. We are suffering.
I wish there was a
magic answer, a savior, but there is only us.
Given the advances in technology health care should be getting less
expensive not more. The human body is
not evolving to a more complicated life form.
Our sense of greed is merely adapting.
Food should be getting easier to grow.
Quality of nutrients should be improving. We should be satisfied with quality at a
moderate financial cost, not profit at any human cost.
The average prosperity
gap should be closing, not widening. Why
is that; what are we choosing to do with our science? Who owns our science? Which states hold the patent rights inside a
stock price? These are Einstein’s
nuclear weapons active in a far more malignant cancer than a missile silo. Surely death in a flash of masses of humans
is still able to recur, yet what of the systematic decay of what it means to
achieve self-sufficiency and dignity? Oh,
what would the Eggman say?
No comments:
Post a Comment