Am I a Luddite?

All I will say is that I have a healthy skepticism in science as a cure-all. Whether any of you conclude that I am a Luddite is up to you.

I do appreciate many of the scientific advances of this day. To state but a very few, scientific progress has made possible this blog and my picture of William Ichinomiya Tecumseh Shermantaro. However, even as such advances cure diseases, others help us annihilate our fellow man. And even if scientific advances let populations expand and live longer, is that really a good thing? Perhaps this is diverging a bit, but while the scientific community praises the longer lifespans due to medicine, increased food output and sanitation, they simultaneously bemoan overpopulation and advocate limited reproduction, which makes individuals born in this generation feel like... unwanted baggage. At least, that is what I think the logical outcome would be.

Not to step on the toes of my scientific bretheren--I am a Bio major after all--but perhaps the noble thing in not knowing whether or not you will live to see tomorrow (as so many people in the Old World do) means that you would appreciate what little you have today... and thank Whoever it is that gave you the little time you have.

Yeah, so I lied

Earlier I had said:

I do believe that people (even me) are too afraid of death. What else can support multibillion dollar drug industries? Since latter half of the twentieth century, we have been so accustomed to science finding answers to all of our problems and curing all of our ills. We no longer expect to die before the age of fifty.

This final point could also be the topic of another post, but I'm running out of time. I'll just leave it at this: it is unreasonable to think that six billion people can possibly enjoy the same standard of living of a few hundred million, and this fantasy is what is causing liberals to have delusions. I'll refine this thesis some other time.

I was reading a criticism of The Constant Gardener. I have no intention of discussing the plot or theme in detail, but I did find a tidbit that made me nod:

The basic point is that Western civilisation has got itself into a situation where we are all whimperingly dependent on the march of modern medicine. The religious support of fortitude given by a providential understanding of what happens to us has gone, and the old Roman recourse to Stoicism as a philosophy can be found in Shakespeare but not much since. Spinoza might understand freedom as the embrace of necessity, but it is hardly a popular option, and our civilisation has nothing left to sustain it except biochemical technology.

My final post on unfettered scientism (for now)

From Vox Popoli:

Science is not a religion, it is a method. However, belief in that method
can be and has been transformed into a religion.

Tying Two Threads Together (unintentional alliteration)

I found another article I believe complements the post before the last. Here is a quote which I consider a keeper:

Appleyard writes, "We could not now respectably speak of 'the improvement of the race' or of 'selective breeding'--the terminology of the old eugenics--but we do speak of the 'quality of life' and assess our children in consumerist terms." Not only is the meaning of childhood distorted but the meaning of parenthood as well. Selective abortion means selective acceptance. The unconditional character of maternal and paternal love is replaced by choice, quality control, and an only conditional acceptance.

This is a terrible time to be a human being. It seems as if the only reason children are alive is because their parents haven't killed them yet. All the talk about "overpopulation" makes a human being feel like he is an unwanted space-taker.
These are interesting times we live in. At one end, we have First World Leaders unwilling or unable to put a meaningful effort to preventing or fighting wars (Bush notwithstanding) as populations in poor countries skyrocket, as do the number of casualties in conflicts worldwide. On the other hand, unfettered scientific progress looks ready to manufacture a post-human race, widening the chasm between haves and have nots. It looks like our world is primed for a disaster no one will withstand.

Out of it

Do you ever get the feeling that everything is just wrong and there is no way to put it all together?

Inequality in the Most Concrete, Material Sense

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/06/INGKGFGTEG1.DTL

I started hearing of sex selection less than a decade ago. It seems sequitur that once something like that is acheived, other things will be as well. But... designer humans? That's just too creepy. That's even creepier than the lifelike robots they started building in Japan.

What are the implications of something like this? Increased longevity, and perhaps increased strength, durability, et cetera.... what these biologist tag as "Liberation Biology" seems more divisive than liberating. Obviously these new human modifications will cost a pretty penny, but the end result is humans that are.... better. It could be possible that these improved humans become so advanced that so diverged from the race that they would become a new species. Equality, as we know it would be destroyed forever. The have-nots.... what becomes of them? As a wannabe Libertarian, I usually ignore talk of haves and have nots--I'm no Leftist. But I have always counted on the de-facto equality of humans because of their common biological traits. But could modified humans be considered equal to their "natural" forebears? That is almost like asking if a housecat is equal to a lion. They may have some traits in common, but the differences are so marked and staggering that it's almost not worth mentioning their similarities...

This certainly reminds me of the movie Gattaca, but in that movie, they simply removed genetic defects and altered DNA to reach the maximum of human potential. They didn't try to create superbeings. I don't see the future as rosily as these wannabe gods do.....

Though Europe dies...

"...realize, that Europe did not create Christianity. Christianity created Europe. And will create new Europes, wherever its living seed may fall. Christendom is simply moving -- to Africa, to Asia, to the Americas perhaps; to wherever Christ is wanted, and away from where He is not."

--David Warren

Fictional General of the Day/Week/Year/For All Time

William Ichinomiya Tecumseh Shermantaro

Not getting it

A reviewer rips Forrest Gump:

I hate this film with a white-hot intensity because it endorses -- not implicitly, mind you, but with big fucking capital letters -- the reactionary idea that ‘tis better to coast through life without an education, the power of reason, or a social conscience, lest you get AIDS and die like the atheistic, egghead dog that you are.

Forrest Gump was annoying in that it inserted the title character into moments in history. But besides that, it teaches us a lesson--that simplicity is better. You can go far sticking with a few solid principles than flitting and floating with every new passing mode.

Forrest simply does what his Mama advises him to do. While this offends the sensibilities of the post-Boomer generation who have been taught to question all authority (ironically, the people who our generation this ARE authorities in their own right), one must realize that all human beings are born naked, weak, and unable to go through life without SOMEONE guiding us. Usually that someone is a parent, and usually parents have the child's best interest in mind. This isn't always the case, but for a child to follow the lead of his parent takes FAITH. And faith isn't always blind--but this is beside the point. A little faith (in the general, rather than the religious sense which seems to so incese our reviewer) can go a long way--it can carry you where reason seems to crumble. In all things, Forrest simply remembers the advice of his mother, and that's all he needs.

What seems to irk our reviewer is that the free-spirited, hippyish Jennie is "punished" with AIDS for being not-stupid unlike Forrest. I sincerely doubt the movie wished to "punish" her for her ways. The review conveniently forgets the fact that Jennie was frequently sexually abused by her father, and that may have (scratch that, it DEFINITELY had) a role in her development. But unlike Forrest, she doesn't live a life of simplism--she follows whatever new, stylish thing hits the social circuit. And that eventually kills her.

What really annoys me about that review is the accusation that Forrest does not have a social conscience. That's utter bullshit. From his upbringing, he knows that he should treat people with respect. Furthermore, Forrest is mentally handicapped yet is cognizant of his weaknesses. We see this in his line "I know I am not a smart man." Since he is aware of his own shortcomings as a person, it makes him less likely to look down on others based on their "inferiority" (the basis of all racism). I guess what I am saying is that with humility like Forrest's, you don't need a social conscience. (Usually, people with a "social conscience" (perhaps like this reviewer) tend to have massive Messiah complexes). The whole "social conscience" argument doesn't hold water when one remembers that Forrest used his wealth from the shrimping business to build hospitals and churches (and when he gave his would-be partner's share of the wealth to his poor, black family).

I don't know why I'm even talking about this. Liberals piss me off, I guess.