Paul A. Thiessen’s model of DNA using dice for molecules. http://www.ChemicalGraphics.com

Science, Technology, and Human Values: Who’s Ahead of the Game?

By

Rebecca Loda

Throughout the centuries, society has been given men ahead of their time. These men are seen in both actual history, and in fictional accounts of that history. Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, and even Freud laid the framework in their fields, with revolutionary ideas whose shockwaves are still felt today. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so society has also possessed those how refuse to look forward, those who resisted the great thinkers in science and civilization. The advancement of science and technology is like the flick of a light switch; research may be slow and tedious, but once discoveries are made, they are not long hidden. In contrast, advancement in the ideas of ethics and human values come slowly, like the rising of the sun; there are hints at advancement for a long time before the next step is ready to be made. Because of this, science and technology takes off in leaps and bounds before human values have awakened to find society moving again.

This race between science and human values is a common theme in literature. Sigmund Freud discusses it in his essay Civilization and Its Discontents, bringing up themes later reflected in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. In the more concrete story line of Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People one finds intertwined this same conflict. It seems generally agreed that science and technology are winning in this race, at the expense of humanity. But there is less agreement as to just what to do about it, or what is needed to save humanity from its own scientific advances.

Sigmund Freud breaks the conflict and race down even farther so as not to be simply between science and human values, but ultimately between the death instinct and Eros. Civilization, sustained by technological breakthroughs, gives rise to aggression and the death instinct. This instinct opposes the desires of Eros, which bring man together in love relationships. If aggression between individuals is allowed to dominate, civilization is threatened, and so restrictions are placed on man. These restrictions destroy happiness in civilized man, who can no longer gratify his instincts. In responses, man’s goal becomes attaining happiness in spite of civilization’s restrictions. To this end, energy is put into art, religion, addictive habits, and scientific advancement. This scientific advancement is a double-edged sword; while it offers happiness to the individual responsible, it may serve to advance civilization and further restrict man. While Freud offers the attainment of happiness as the balance against the destructiveness of civilization’s advancement, his is not an optimistic outlook. The best that can be hoped for is that Eros can keep up with the death instinct, even as love gives more opportunity for aggression.

In Beckett’s characters Didi and Gogo one sees examples of the discontent of civilized man. They have no outlet for their energy, built up by the restrictions of civilization. They seek to simply amuse themselves as best they can as life passes them by. They can find no reason for living within themselves, but decide to hang themselves come tomorrow, if they are still waiting. Who or what they are waiting for is never defined, but the impression is given that it will offer purpose and help to those willing to wait. In Didi and Gogo waiting for Godot, Beckett portrays the idea that man needs a purpose and reason for living that stems from outside one’s own being. As in Freud, the answer, at least to some extent, to this is Eros. While they still feel life is rather pointless, these two characters are greatly heartened by each other’s presence, and find in interacting with one another at least a small reason to be happy. So Beckett sees humanity advanced through valuing others as well as through seeking happiness.

An Enemy of the People gives another look at this idea of valuing others, that misery loves company, so to speak. Here one sees a thinker up against the masses who refuse to look ahead. The human value conflicted against here is once again happiness, but it manifests itself in new forms. Happiness is found in having lots of “stuff” and being held in high regard by others, to the point of being greedy and power hungry. Those who refuse to accept scientific thought and advancement feel that their happiness is threatened by removing personal gain, and having it admit that they were wrong. In sticking together, if science is right, they will lessen the individual cost of the consequences. The forward thinker in this play, Dr. Stockmann, is a man alone with his scientific confidence. He cares little for power, but thinks all people should be concerned with the truth revealed through science. While the other authors discussed here have concerned themselves with how humanity can keep up with science and civilization, Ibsen seems to show the possible danger of humanity getting the upper hand. The majority in An Enemy of the People is complacent about and happy with the state of human values and society in their little world. When these ideas of what is important and should make them happy are threatened by science, they dig in their heels and refuse to even consider the evidence; they are happy with the old ideas. Dr. Stockmann and the people exemplify the two extremes of the conflict between science and human values. Ibsen presents them in such a way as to convince one that neither of them is complete. While science needs to be tempered by valuing human beings and the need for happiness, these values need to be open to change in response to advancement in science.

This view is similar to that held by many informed people currently, including myself. Today one sees the two extremes of Ibsen’s play throughout society. For some, the idea of humans as valuable and special has little value; we are simply another part of nature, in this grand experiment. For these people, the more we can find out about this experiment of nature, the better, no matter the cost to human value and society. On the other end are those who see science and technology as dehumanizing and destructive; better to stifle science than to risk losing sight of the importance of human life and happiness. In this genetic age, this conflict has come to a head. Better understanding genetics, and the completion of the human genome map offer many avenues of new study, and opportunities to improve human life. It is true that there is also much opportunity for abuse and devaluing human life. These are the aspects of genetics that the public, often through the media, focus on. It is true that science cannot be allowed to proceed blindly, without concern for human values; this would be scientific anarchy. Neither can fears based on hypothetical situations be allowed to rule. Many people were caught off guard by these advances in genetics, and have not had time to decide how they view them in terms of humanity. When I was first introduced to the area of human genetics 4 years ago, I decided this conflict could be helped by informed people who base their opinions on firm ideas of the value of human life and knowledge of science. Perhaps I am idealistic, but I think that society has these forward thinkers, and there are opportunities for them to influence the public. The field of genetic counseling offers such an opportunity. A person with the right balance of science and people skills can help slow science down and awaken the ideas of human values in people regarding scientific advances in human genetics.

If human values are to keep up with scientific advancement, there needs to be not complacency but action. Freud saw both science and the search for happiness rooted in the outlet of energy from repressed instincts. The continual recharge of this energy promises to keep the race between these two forces going. As expressed in Ibsen’s play, it seems the key to a thriving society is to let neither science nor human values get too far ahead.