Dilemma
By SIR CARLETON ALLEN DAILY it is borne in upon me that there is something incorrigibly wrong in my attitude towards nature and ' the conquest of environment.' When thousands of people congregate to see, rapt and adoring, how swiftly objects can be made to move on the earth or in the sky, I think they are simply mad, for I can see no virtue whatever in speed for its own sake or in ' annihilating distance' for the fun of annihilation (which generally involves also the annihilation of human beings). When I see infants doting on space-ships as the highest ambition of adventure, I shudder, and heartily wish that they would be good, honest—or bad, dishonest—pirates or redskins instead. Those who defy nature and perform mar- vellous physical feats I admire and respect, well knowing that I could never, never, possess their courage and endurance; but a sour little imp within me always whispers, ' To what good? '
I have heard and read learned disquisitions on the ethics of the hydrogen bomb, but many of them fall back on theo- logical dogmas and doctrines which make little appeal to me. The dilemma which I feel is that of a regrettably unscientific and untheological person, and 1 doubt whether it poses a moral problem at all, but rather one of sheer expediency. Let me try to state it. The species man cannot survive in the biological struggle without some, and indeed much, ' conquest of environment.' Those anthropological types which have failed to achieve it have either perished or—like African bushmen or Australian aborigines—have survived only in a condition which not even the crankiest romantic of ' back to nature ' could envy. Not to labour the obvious, man could not have reached his present Position in the order of creation without harnessing forces of nature which are infinitely more powerful than himself and Which he does not even yet fully understand.
On the other hand, he has now carried this effort so far that, according to many scientific authorities, he is in grave danger of self-destruction, unlessthe can do what he has never yet done in history, namely, make his reason rule his passions. It looks now as if forces which could be put to beneficent purposes, but which happen also to be illimitably destructive, will grow quite out of his control, for we all know that we are only at the beginning of these discoveries, and already cobalt bombs and anti-protons loom up. Meantime—again according to eminent authority—while it is absorbed in these immense projects, humanity is neglecting one of the most glaring necessities of Physical existence, that of feeding itself, and it may, within measurable time, be in danger of death by inanition.' Between these two contraries is it possible, whether as a matter of morality, or religion, or practical wisdom, to set a frontier? Is there any point at which it can be said to the Scientist by the priest that the Everlasting has set his canon 'gainst self-slaughter? Or at which the philosopher can say that it is wrong, or mere self-interest can say that it is unwise, to go farther? The difficulty of setting-a limit is manifest. On What rational basis could it be ordained that it is legitimate to climb Snowdon, at comparatively small risk and expense, but illegitimate to climb Everest, at great risk and expense; or wise to girdle- the earth but unwise to explore the moon? Any attempt to be arilitrary at once involves one in inconsistencies. I may say, in an impatient moment, that man would have been much happier without the internal combustion engine, but I know very well that I am not prepared to give up my car for the horse and buggy; and if I denounce the engine, I should * go farther back and denounce the wheel itself—perhaps the greatest human discovery—and this lands me in patent absurdity. I may (and do) regard the radio as an instrument of terrifying' potential evil, but I am also well aware of its possibilities for good. The only consistent embargo seems to be that of Erewhon—no mechanical contrivances whatever, not even a watch—but that is for the satirist's fantasy, not for the world of men.
In the unscientific past there has been much vague uneasi- ness about interference with nature.' The ancients had a very clear conviction that man always paid the penalty if he became too presumptuous in the face of the cosmos. Icarus met his foredoomed deserts for flying too near the sun. Prometheus was one of the many fire-gods who have been worshipped as benefactors, but the jealousy of Zeus took terrible vengeance on him for his impiety. Old-fashioned, conventional Horace grumbles : Nothing is too difficult for mortals; we seek the heaven ,itself, silly fools that we are.' The theme of impious- ness in trying to add a cubit to human stature constantly recurs. The churches have, on the whole, regarded at least with sus- picion too bold probing into the mysteries of nature, though I cannot discover that there is any doctrine of Christian theology which definitely prescribes a limit to man's inquiry and experi- ment. Distrust of interference with nature,' carried to the point of mere prejudice, has doubtless done much harm in the past—for instance, it has militated against the development of medical science and surgery. Even in modern times the view has been heard that certain maladies are God's punishment for sin and that nature must take its course '; artificial insemina- tion irregarded in some quarters as against nature' and therefore as against Divine law.
Such restrictions upon scientific exploration most modem men cannot accept, but there are millions today who must be asking, Where is all this going to stop, and ought it to stop ? ' For myself I do not for a moment pretend to know the answer, but I am sure that the question must be faced and that we are not facing it. Is there no point at which it is reasonable, if not imperative, to say : This is the limit of human intelligence. Beyond it I become involved in powers which I can never master and which must inevitably master me, to my min."? May it not be that the highest achievement of science is nescience ? Hoc solum scio quod nil scio ? Can we. 'shall we ever, learn that the conquest of environment' is not man's highest achievement and that the real worlds to conquer lie within, himself? Perhaps my dilemma is due to sheer stupidity and failure to understand the issues, but if some wise person can show me the way out of it, I shall be humbly grateful to him. I hope, however, that he will not tell me that my trouble is lack of faith, because I am afraid I shall regard that as merely evading the question.
Previous page
