In the middle of the 19th century, Queen Victoria came to visit her subject Michael Faraday, a British physicist who bought most of his education on his own. Among the many and celebrated discoveries of Faraday, many of which were known to have immediate and obvious practical utility, were some wonderful findings in the field of electricity and magnetism
Carl Sagan
In the middle of the 19th century, Queen Victoria came to visit her subject Michael Faraday, a British physicist who bought most of his education on his own. Among Faraday's many celebrated discoveries, many of which were known to be of immediate and obvious practical utility, were some wonderful findings in the field of electricity and magnetism, which at the time were little more than laboratory curiosities. In the best tradition of the traditional dialogue between heads of state and heads of laboratories, the Queen asked Faraday what was the use of these studies and Faraday, so they say, replied "Madame, what is the use of a baby?" Faraday thought that one day some practical benefit would emerge from electricity and magnetism.
At the same time, the Scottish physicist James Clark Maxwell formulated four mathematical equations, which were based on the work of Faraday and engineers who preceded him. These equations created a connection between charges and electric currents and between electric and magnetic fields. From the equations there was a strange lack of symmetry and this bothered Maxwell. There was something non-aesthetic about them, and in order to improve the symmetry and aesthetics, Maxwell suggested adding to one of them a term he called copy current. His argument was fundamentally intuitive: there was certainly no experimental evidence for such a current. Maxwell's proposal had amazing results. His corrected equations indicated the existence of electromagnetic radiation that includes gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light and radio waves, and it was they who stimulated Einstein to discover the special theory of relativity.
The joint work of Faraday and Maxwell, in the laboratory and in theoretical thinking, gave rise to the end of a hundred years of technical revolution on planet Earth. Electric lighting, telephones, drones, radio receivers, television receivers, refrigerated trains that bring fresh agricultural products from far away, pacemakers, hydro-electric power plants, automatic fire alarm systems and target systems, trams and subways, and the electronic computer - these are just a few of the developments Born directly from Faraday's obscure scientific exercises and Maxwell's aesthetic spirit, who dwelt on some mathematical scribbles on a piece of paper. Many of the most practical uses of science were born in such a random and unexpected way. No amount of money was enough in Queen Victoria's day for Britain's top scientists to just sit down and, metaphorically, invent the television.
Few would argue that the sum total of these measures was not positive. From time to time I note to myself that many young people who are deeply disillusioned with Western technological civilization, and often for good reasons, still retain a passionate fondness for certain aspects of advanced technology - for example, electronic music stereo systems.
Some of these inventions have fundamentally changed the nature of our global society. Convenient communication has brought many parts of the world out of their provincial isolation, and has also reduced cultural diversity by the way. The useful benefits of these inventions have been recognized by virtually all human societies. After all, it is impressive to see how little interest emerging nations show in the negative effects of the developed technology (environmental pollution for example): it is clearly alienated that they have decided that the benefits are many times greater than the risks.
One of Lenin's aphorisms stated that socialism plus electrification means communism. But you don't have a more passionate or resourceful pursuit of more advanced technology than the one going on in the West. As a result, the pace of change is so fast that many of us struggle to keep up. Many people living with us today were born before the first airplane and lived to see the Viking spacecraft land on Mars, and Pioneer 10, the first interstellar spacecraft to leave the solar system. There are also among them those who were brought up on a strict Victorian codex when it came to sex, and now find themselves immersed up to their necks in sexual freedom, the clear fruit of effective and equal contraception. (The article was written in the XNUMXs, before the AIDS epidemic. AB) The dizzying pace of change puts many at a loss. And it is easy to understand the longing for a return to a simpler existence, in the style of days gone by.
But the standard of living and working conditions of the majority of the population, for example in Victorian England, were humiliating and depressing compared to today's industrialized societies. The figures related to life expectancy and infant mortality were appalling. It is possible that science and technology are partially responsible for many of the problems facing us today - but this responsibility stems to a large extent from the fact that the public seldom understands them to the point of despair (technology is a tool, not a panacea for every cure), and also from the lack of sufficient effort to adapt our society to technologies the news. Considering these facts, Harini believes that we did an impressive job. Luddite alternatives will solve nothing. (named after the Luddites, the machine destroyers during the industrial revolution in England). More than a billion people living on earth today border the line between inadequate nutrition and hunger with developed agricultural technology. There is reason to assume that an equal number of people remain alive or are saved from deadly and crippling diseases thanks to developed medical technology. If we abandoned the developed technology, because then we would also abandon all these people.
It is possible that science and technology are the causes of some of our problems, but there is no doubt that they are also an essential component in any predicted solution to those problems themselves - national and worldwide.
I do not believe that our treatment of science and technology is done efficiently, with the necessary attention to the final human goals with an adequate understanding of the general public - at least not as it would have been possible to do all of this with a somewhat greater effort. For example, it gradually became clear to us that human activities can have a negative impact not only on the local environment but also on the global environment. Several research groups engaged in atmospheric photochemistry discovered by chance that halogen-containing organic propellants emitted from aerosol spray cans remain for very long periods in the atmosphere, clouding the stratosphere, destroying part of the ozone found there and allowing violet light from the sun to filter down to the surface of Ha'aretz (here the translator added a note: this conclusion is again not accepted by all researchers, but the satellite images showing the ozone hole at the South Pole growing year by year have proven that this comment is no longer accurate AB). The most famous result of this phenomenon is an increase in the rate of skin cancer among the members of the white race (blacks are naturally able to deal with radiation on an increased virtue). But very little public attention has been paid to a much more serious possibility: the intensifying ultraviolet light may also destroy micro-organisms that stand at the base of an elaborate food pyramid, at the top of which stands Homo sapiens himself. In the end, and with distinct reluctance, steps were taken to prohibit the introduction of hydrocarbons containing halogens into spray cans (although no one is bothered by the use of the same molecules in refrigerators for any reason), and as a result it seems that the immediate dangers are not great. What bothers me most about this incident is the discovery of the very existence of the problem only in such a coincidental way. One group came across this problem while preparing the corresponding computer programs, but in a completely different context: the same researchers studied the chemistry of the atmosphere of the planet Venus, which contained hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid. It is evident that the need for a wide and diverse set of research teams, dealing with a large variety of problems in the field of basic science, is necessary for our continued existence, literally. But what other problems, even more serious, are arbitrary and exist without our knowledge, simply because no research group has yet encountered them by chance? Is it possible that for every problem we discovered, such as the effect of halogenated hydrocarbons on the ozonosphere, there are a dozen other problems lurking around the corner? Therefore, it is amazing to see that nowhere - in the federal government, in the major universities or in the important private research institutes - will you find a research group, even a single one, that is very efficient, has a wide range of powers and is properly funded, whose job it is to locate disasters that are going to occur as a result of the decline of new technologies.
The establishment of evaluation bodies for environmental research of this type, and those that will operate effectively, requires a lot of political courage. Technology companies are evident in a very tight industrial ecology and a dense network of economic conventions. It is very difficult to challenge one of the threads in the network without causing shockwaves in all of them. Any assertion that technological development will lead to negative results means - a loss of profits in one place or another. The du Pont company, the main producer of hydrocarbon propellants containing halogens, took a similar approach, taking a strange position in the public debates and claiming that all the conclusions regarding the substances that destroy the ozonosphere are "theoretical". In fact, it was possible to conclude from the words of the company's people that they would be ready to stop producing the substances in question only after the conclusions have been tested experimentally - that is, when the ozonosphere is completely destroyed. There are some problems for which we will have to content ourselves with hard evidence. Once the disaster occurs, we will no longer be able to treat its victims.
It is just as possible that the new Ministry of Energy (established by President Jimmy Carter in the USA) can only be effective if it manages to keep a distance from mobilized commercial interests, only if it is free to look for new options and even the meaning of such options is a loss of profits for several industries. It is obvious that the same thing is also understood in pharmaceutical research, in the search for substitutes to prevent internal combustion and in many other technological fields. I do not believe that the supervision of the development of new technologies should be in the hands of old technologies. The temptation to suppress the competition is too great. If we Americans live in a society of free enterprise, let us show genuine independent initiative in all the technologies on which our future may depend. If bodies that devote themselves to technological innovations and their acceptable limits do not challenge at least some powerful groups let alone cause harm to such groups, they are not fulfilling the purpose for which they were intended.
There are many useful technological directions that are not explored due to lack of government support. By way of analogy, there is no doubt that cancer is a very painful disease, but I don't think it can be said that it threatens our civilization. If we could completely cure cancer, life expectancy would increase by a few years, until some other disease - which today does not affect cancer patients - would take its place. (I wonder what he would have written, if he had known that he would die of cancer at the age of 62 and would suffer severely from the disease in the last two years of his life, but of course there is no way to know that AB) But it can be argued, with most logic, that the lack of adequate birth control threatens to undermine the foundations of civilization for the rest of us. Exponential growth of the population will overshadow all the arithmetical increases - even those that occurred due to the power of heroic technological entrepreneurship - in the availability of food and natural treasures, as it became clear to him, Malthus, many years ago. While some industrialized nations are approaching zero in population growth, this is not the case for the world as a whole.
Slight climate fluctuations can devastate entire populations that rely on a marginal economy. In many societies where technology is not developed and where the chance of reaching adulthood is not so clear, it is accepted to have many children as the only possible means of preventing a desperate and uncertain future. A company like this, being given a proverbial way in the claws of famine, has not much to lose. In a period of unconscionable proliferation of nuclear weapons, when a nuclear facility is almost a product of domestic industry, in such a period there is widespread hunger and a steep decline in abundance, to pose serious dangers to the developed world and the undeveloped world alike. There is no doubt that the solution to problems of this type requires improved education, to achieve a certain degree of self-technological ability, and especially a fair distribution of the world's resources. But there is also no doubt that the solution will not exist without effective and full supervision of childbirth - safe and long-term birth control pills that will be available to men as well as women, and it is enough to take them once a month or even once for longer periods of time. A development of this type will be of great benefit not only overseas but also at home, in view of the considerable concern regarding the side effects of the oral estrogen pills that are accepted today as a means of preventing pregnancy. Why do we not see a real effort in this direction?
There are many additional new proposals that deserve a very thorough examination. They range from very cheap to incredibly expensive. At one end we find the easy technology - for example, the development of closed ecosystems with the participation of algae, sarstains and fish that can be maintained in rural puddles and from which very nutritious and incredibly cheap food supplements can be produced. At the other end we find the proposal of Gerard O'Neill from Princeton University, to build satellite cities that will use materials from the moon and asteroids and will therefore be capable of self-reproduction - one city will be able to build another city using material from extraterrestrial sources. Such cities, which would surround the Earth, would be able to convert the sunlight into microwave energy and continue to transmit it to the Earth. There is great charm in the idea of independent cities in space - each of which is based on different social, economic or political principles or on a different ethnic origin - an opportunity for those who have been severely disappointed by earthly civilizations, to build their own new civilizations somewhere else. Early in its history, America provided this kind of opportunity for the ambitious, the adventurous, and the restless. Space cities will be a kind of America in the sky. They will also be able to greatly increase the survival potential of the human race, but such a project will be incredibly expensive and cost at least as much as one Vietnam War (in resources, not in human lives). In addition to that, this idea has a disturbing undertone of ignoring the problems on earth - where, after all, it is possible to establish pioneering communities, standing on their own, at a much lower cost.
It is evident that today's technology allows for more projects than we can afford. Some of them may be very profitable in the end, but the initial expenses are so great as to put the whole operation out of the practical realm. Other projects need a bold initial investment of resources that could bring about a welcome revolution in our society. Options of this type deserve consideration with extreme caution. The wisest policy would call for combining low risk/medium yield entrepreneurship with medium risk/high yield.
In order to understand and support such technological entrepreneurship, it is imperative that we greatly improve the understanding of science and technology in the general public. We conceived thinking beings. The brain is the most distinct feature of our species. We are not stronger or faster than many other animals that share this planet with us. We are only wiser than them. In addition to the enormous practical blessing inherent in a scientifically educated public, scientific and technological thinking allows us to practice our intellectual skills to the limit. Science is a tour of the complicated, tortuous and terribly magnificent universe in which we live. Those who have devoted themselves to him know at least from time to time, a rare feeling of elation that, according to Descartes, is the greatest of all human pleasures. After all, it is a pleasure that you can share with others. In order to allow the enlightened public to participate in the technological decision-making, to reduce the alienation that too many citizens feel towards our technological society, and to gain the pure pleasure that arises from becoming aware of something profound, we need a better scientific education, one that knows how to impart to everyone who demands the power and joys of the world of science . We can start by halting the devastating reduction of federal scholarships and grants for scientific research and scientific teaching in high schools, universities and research institutes.
The most effective messengers for bringing science to the general public are television, cinema and newspapers - messengers whose scientific segments are often boring, imprecise, clumsy, cartoonish or hostile to science, such as many commercial children's television programs on Sunday mornings. Recently, amazing discoveries have been made regarding the planets, the role of the brain's proteins in shaping our emotional life, the collision of the continents, the evolution of the human race (and the rate at which our past returns and is revealed in our future), the final structure of matter (the question of whether there are elementary particles, or their infinite regression) , to the attempt to make contact with civilizations on other planets, to the essence of the genetic code (which determines our heredity and makes us cousins to all plants and other animals on our planet), and to the fundamental questions of the main one, the essence and destiny of life, of the worlds and of the universe as a whole. Any intelligent person can obtain the new findings and these questions. Why then are they so rarely discussed in the media, in schools, in everyday conversation?
Civilizations can be characterized according to the way they approach questions of this type, according to the food they provide for the soul as well as the body. Modern science's pursuit of these questions represents an attempt to achieve a generally accepted view of our place in the universe. For this, broad-minded creativity, tough skepticism and a fresh sense of wonder are needed. These questions are different from the practical problems discussed earlier, but they are related to these problems, and as we saw in the example of Faraday and Maxwell, perhaps the encouragement of pure research is the most reliable guarantee that we have at hand that we will be able to obtain the technical means to deal with the practical problems before us.
Only a few of the most talented young people choose a scientific career. I am often surprised to see that elementary school children show much more ability and enthusiasm for science than college students. During their years at school, something happens to them that suppresses their interest (and most of all it is not sexual maturation). It is our duty to understand and prevent this dangerous deterrent. No one can predict where the leaders of science will come from in the future. It is obvious that Albert Einstein was a scientist despite the education he received. Not necessarily because of him (see the article "Conceiving and being a free man"). Malcolm describes in his autobiography a bookmaker who never needed to record the bets, but managed his transactions only in his head. What contribution to society, asks Malcolm, would such a Miriam man have had he received proper education and encouragement? The brightest young people are a national and global asset. They need special care and special nutrition.
It is possible that many of the problems facing us today could be solved if we only wanted to adopt brilliant, bold and complex solutions. Such solutions require brilliant, bold and complex people. I believe there are many more such people - in every nation, ethnic group and level of material abundance - than we imagine. Of course, young people of this type need training not only in the fields of science and technology. On the contrary, in order to apply the new technology to human problems with the necessary degree of breadth of heart, a deep understanding of human nature and human culture is needed, that is, a general education in the broadest sense.
We are standing at a crossroads in human history. Never before have we had such a dangerous and such a promising moment at the same time. We were the first species to take its own evolution into its own hands. For the first time we have the means to self-destruct intentionally or unintentionally. Yes, to the best of my belief, we have the means to pass through this phase of technological maturation and reach a rich, fulfilling and life-long adulthood for all members of our species. But again we don't have much time left to decide, here at the crossroads, which way we will turn to lead our children and our future.
