I am a regular viewer of Cspan, and lately Cspan's Book TV is my favorite. This morning, I watched a panel of science writers speak to the Commonwealth Club of California. The discussion turned to the broad question of whether science will contribute to the ultimate destruction of humanity or provide the means to save us. You can probably imagine the discussion that ensued regarding this complicated question- the destructive use of atomic energy, the threat of biological warfare, the needless and greedy politicization of science, advances in medicine and other life- and earth-sustaining technologies, and so on. The science writers pointed out that every rational investigation of the topic proves science has, in spite of its destructive uses, contributed vastly to the preservation, and moreover, the quality of human life. I agree.
However, as we acknowledge the destructive forces at work in the human application of science, we must ask- What, then, can save us from ourselves?
During the questions-from-the-audience portion of the program, a woman stood up and said (this is paraphrased)- You aren't scientists, you are science writers. Your lives are devoted to producing narratives that help us understand the constructive and destructive properties of science. Isn't it possible that literature has the power to mitigate the destructive forces of science, and that literature, not science, will provide the ultimate salvation of humanity?- Of course the writers lavished her with applause and praised her wisdom (partly facetiously). I think she made an important point.
Ultimately, what is more important than the stories we tell ourselves and each other that enable understanding, mitigate the desire for power, and calm our existential fears? This brings us to the age-old question: What is more essential to human existence, art or science? Many seem to believe not that art has outlived its usefulness, but that the overwhelming advances in technology have settled the dabate. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I always thought art and science were both essential. Not one or t'other. Someone has to communicate with the laymen what the propellerheads are doing, and what they know. Don't we need the art to interpret the science? Don't we need the artist to explain why the science is applicible, don't we need art to explore the values we use to apply to science? Doesn't science enhance the understanding of art? They seem to be a compliment to eachother. (or did I miss the point?)
Also, Mom: Wow. I'm so glad you're doing this. It's interesting to know you all my life in a "casual" way and then read something you've composed "formally" using your ninja writting skills and wisdom and intelligence. My reaction was something like this: "damn. she's smert. an' she writes gud." Well won't be able to comment for a while cuz I'm headed down south of the tropic of cancer (Gomez Farias area, you wanted me to remind you!)with my 'underground society'. heh. Mua!
Have a wonderful adventure, my beautiful, precious daughter, and... come back altogether or else- ha!
Post a Comment