Technological us (part II)

Taking Einstein's argument at face value, it is actually somewhat amazing that he had thought that the invention of atomic energy could herald in a new age of peace. Technological invention has been with mankind as long as we have existed as a species and has done nothing to stop warfare. On the contrary, it has greatly increased our ability to kill ourselves. We have become quite efficient at death -- as illustrated by Nazi death camps. But then again, Germans are efficient at everything.

More importantly, our militaries have become quite mechanized. We try to distance ourselves from the repugnance of killing, a psychologically taxing act, by the use of technology -- whether it be a trigger, a bomb, a missile, or a computer screen; and, by this means, we insulate ourselves from guilt. This reminds me of the guillotine which was invented as a "humane" means of execution. Charles-Louis Sanson, an architect of the Reign of Terror, explained in 1792:

Today the machine invented for the purpose of decapitating criminals sentenced to death will be put to work for the first time. Relative to the methods of execution practiced heretofore, this machine has several advantages. It is less repugnant: no man's hands will be tainted with the blood of his fellow being.

Returning to Einstein's assessment: To be fair, the atomic bomb was a much more significant invention than the guillotine. Einstein might have assumed that the Bomb's horrific capability of destruction would convince humanity that we can no longer fight without risk of extinction; thereby leading to more diplomacy of the pen and less diplomacy of the sword. As we know, this never happened. Although an unstable entente was reached during the Cold War because of M.A.D. (mutually-assured destruction) ... it was an illusory peace, undermined by puppet wars and ideological conspiracies. There was no blossoming of diplomacy.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, our nuclear plight has worsened. Nuclear weapons once in the hands of a stable Soviet government have now been doled out to various regimes. Meanwhile, small and ideologically radical nations pursue weapons of mass destruction with the very possible intent of using them.So much for peace-by-technology.

A discerning reader might now be thinking, "Well, sure, technological advances in arms technology are going to be fraught with ethical conundrums; but advances in medical and agricultural technology have only benefited mankind."Although medical advances have increased the life expectancy and standard of living of first-world citizens, the same cannot be said for the majority of the earth's population -- whose life-expectancy and live birth rate are still on par with the Dark Ages. Pharmaceutical companies, who maintain a stranglehold on the American drug market, are even more vigilant about international trade. Similarly, our use of genetic engineering has created new robust crop strains -- but these are protected by intellectual copyrights which assure that these strains will never reach those people who need it most. Ironically if medical advances ever were extended to developing nations, it would lead to an even larger starving population.

Even if a major revolutionary medical or agricultural advance were made let us not delude ourselves to think we would turn altruistic overnight. We would patent our panacea; sell it off for billions of dollars. We have known how to prevent cholera, dysentery, typhoid fever and malaria for centuries now and yet tens of millions of Africans and Asians die yearly from these maladies.Looking at technology-as-a-phenomenon, rather than breaking it down into its components, it's plain to see that technology has vastly improved the lifestyle of those fortunate enough to live in industrialized nations, while doing little for the rest of the world except to give them Baywatch and piratized American music.

But then the side effect of these benefits has been to edge the world population closer to self-annihilation; while also making the disparity between rich and poor even more blaringly obvious through satellite television and the ubiquitous internet.The most horrific part of this is that the majority of Westerners are unaware of the status quo. We are heedless to the effects our actions have on surrounding nations. We are ignorant of the venomous hatred our apathy is cultivating in these countries ... and when they strike back at us, we are baffled as to why.

I know that I have not really answered anything here. All I have done is allowed some of my thoughts to escape ... to foment. I'm unsure how I feel about the matter. I am not a Luddite, but I believe in responsibility and thoughtful advancement. I don't believe that just because we can do something entitles us to do it. Part of me desires a simpler world, on an abandoned island somewhere. But then, don't we all?