A reflection on the vanity of the scientist
At the very beginning of this satirical reflection, I will reveal its key idea.
Towards the end of my active life, I came to this snide conclusion:
We are living in a time when a fundamental qualitative change is taking place. Contemporary science is beginning to do more harm than good to humanity and nature (as we know it today).
Some will argue that science can be kept under control. But the bureaucratic organisations designed to do so are clearly incapable of doing so. For, again, only scientists can control science, and these are almost without exception clever collaborators who are above average and who try rather to stimulate science and to restrict even the craziest scientific ideas as little as possible. Scientists’ satisfaction stems primarily from a desire for recognition – for universal appreciation for the important things they have done for the “Good.” It all starts, as a rule, with scientists wanting to “bona fide” help some small group of people, which puts them in a position of moral superiority and invulnerability. But ambition, which for many scientists borders directly on vanity, is actually a very positive trait. It can rightly be considered one of the engines of scientific and technological progress. Until today, it was certainly fine and brought progress at acceptable risks.
Something began to change in the mid-20th century with the development of weapons of mass destruction – especially nuclear weapons. Many of the gentlemen involved in the Manhattan Project realised the dangers of the atomic bomb, and then fought fiercely to ban nuclear weapons.1 Many eminent scientists even dared to criticise the proud creators of the even more destructive H-bomb, arguing in confusion that the weapon was completely useless because it was so destructive that it was virtually impossible to use. At times even the somewhat cynical Edward Teller2 questioned their doomed efforts. But such an inventor of the murderous dynamite, Mr. Alfred Nobel, had clearly understood this long before. In his will, he decided to turn his despicable fortune into a Nobel Prize for other aspiring adepts like him. Those who to this day, in the sweat of their brow and with the help of the mental doping pill Modafinil3, set up nights to excel in something exceptionally terrible. By inventing such a prize, Mr Nobel is actually apologising to ordinary people to this day: “Look, I was not the only one! More and more ambitious people take my Nobel Prize, my (deadly explosive) money, for their dubious activities, and they are proud of it.” This was his personal penance, but he certainly didn’t get to go to heaven to see Jesus for it.
Where is the danger of the current successful scientist, such an internationally wanted criminal, a dishonest wholesaler, a corrupt constitutional judge or the bloodthirsty tyrant himself in the form of Tamerlane4. The modern scientist knows that his successful research in any field is sure to be abused. All the more so the more impressive his discovery. New young scientists and scientists have to tackle, with increasing audacity, ever more bizarre problems in order to draw attention to themselves and succeed. They are determined to continue their work.
Eminent scientists live in symbiosis and tacit alliance with the ruling aristocracy. But even very good scientists can lose their jobs for an hour if they express an incorrect opinion. They have to settle for somewhat lower incomes (compared to the global aristocracy) for their relative freedom and to satisfy their vanity. They adopt a world view from it, including contempt for the lower social classes, and side with the elite in social conflicts. Their children also have some chance of becoming the new aristocrats because large information systems and complex scientific tasks are linked to the bureaucratic organisations through which the global aristocracy rules. 5
Prof. Jaroslav Flegr is the prototype of my beloved scientist. His “Theory of Frozen Evolution “6 and for example the opinion that “a cow does not feed on grass but on the bodies of bacteria and protozoa decomposing cellulose from plant matter in its digestive tract “7 fascinated me at the time. I have only recently realised the certain danger of such people. It occurred to me while listening to one of Mr. Flegr’s presentations on his favourite scientific topic (toxoplasmosis or coronavirus). It was as if the very “scientific vanity” itself appeared in his disheveled silhouette, not very skillfully masked by an almost spartan modesty and a playful understanding for us – the less understanding.
Scientists have simply penetrated the innermost recesses of the origin of matter and the laws of life. They have taken advantage of the current genetic revolution8 and have started playing the creator – i.e. God. Some of them must have thought that this could not end well. Indeed, already in Mr Crichton’s timeless “Jurassic Park” this problem is adventurously developed. The almost perfect security system there cannot, under certain conditions, prevent dangerous dinosaurs from escaping and causing a catastrophe. The famous Murphy’s Law: “If it can go wrong, it will go wrong.” 9 In other words: “If something can be led into trouble or misused, led into trouble or misused it will be.” We have reached the time when super-hazardous microorganisms can be created with the help of modern instruments, so to speak, “in the garage.” What Artificial Intelligence (AI) will bring to all this, experts today are only guessing.
Civilization and science, in the words of Oscar Wilde, have always offered us ordinary people convenience.10 That is what ordinary mortals wanted – it made life easier. It liberated people and prolonged their active lives. But with it came the devastation of the natural environment and the general overpopulation of the planet. Instead of simplifying our lives, scientific progress is now increasingly complicating them. Today, science has also become a major negative factor for our freedom. Scientific systems make it possible to decisively influence events in society and to control the movements and activities of almost every person. Mind reading is being worked hard on. Global and local elites simply cannot resist such temptation and not use it appropriately in covering up and preserving the disproportionate inequality in the distribution of the world’s wealth.
If only the vanity of scientists could be satisfied by making them, for example, excellent violinists. That does sound rather ridiculous. After all, the only effective weapon we have against possible depression from this state of our science and civilization is humor.
References
Macourek, Nesvadba, Lipský: “I killed Einstein, gentlemen …” [film],Directed by Oldrich Lipsky, FSB, Czechoslovakia, 1969 (DVD) CRICHTON,
Michael. Jurassic Park, Prague: Baronet, 1993 (English original 1990)
Notes
1. J. Robert Oppenheimer directed the secret military Manhattan Project from 1942 – the development of the first nuclear weapon at the secret US laboratory at Los Alamos. After World War II, Oppenheimer did not agree to further bomb development and did not want to continue military nuclear research ( https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer).
2. Edward Teller, the creator of the first H-bomb, received America’s highest civilian honor (the Presidential Medal of Freedom) in 2003, whereupon he surprisingly stated, “I have often struggled with doubts about whether I am doing the right thing.” The development of the hydrogen weapon has been criticised by prominent scientists such as E. Fermi and I. Rabi (McCRACKEN, Garry, STOTT, Peter. Fusion – The Energy of the Universe. Prague: Mladá fronta, Edition Columbus, 2006, p. 111.).
3. Modafinil is a brain-stimulating drug designed to treat excessive daytime sleepiness that is associated with a serious sleep disorder called narcolepsy. It has been used with success by some science over-enthusiasts. (Prof. Ing. Jaroslav Petr, 5/17/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CI60EDKVdU time in record: 0:51:58).
4. Tamerlane (also Timur, or Timur Lenk) was a successful warlord and fierce conqueror who created a vast empire in 14th century Ancient Asia.
5. HAMPL, Petr. Breaking the Walls. Olomouc: Naštvané matky, 2018, pp. 117-118. (modified, generalized).
6. FLEGR, Jaroslav. Frozen evolution or It’s different, Mr. Darwin. Prague: Academia, 2016
7. FLEGR, Jaroslav. Evolutionary melting or On the origin of genera. Prague: Academia, 2015, Box 38 How to Commit Evolutionary Suicide and What a Cow Eats, pp. 330-331.
8. Prof. Ing. Jaroslav Petr, 5/17/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CI60EDKVdU time in record: 0:56:45).
9. BLOCH, Arthur. The Complete Murphy´s Law. Prague: Argo, 2011, p. 17.
10. WILDE, Oscar. The Crime of Lord Arthur Savile, short story, (original: Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime and other Stories, 1891).
