"
"Yes," Mustapha Mond was
saying, "that's another item in the cost of stability. It isn't only art that's incompatible with
happiness; it's also science. Science is
dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled."-
Mustapha Mond, Pg. 225.
In
Brave New World, near the end of the book(Ch. 17) the Savage, or John, begins
to converse with the Resident World Controller of Europe, Mustapha Mond. One topic
involved the rather prevalent effect of science on civilization's progress,
easily seen with genetically bred children and various drugs being part of
their culture. As Mustapha Mond explains, he began questioning the previously
established scientific boundaries during his time as a physicist. With this
kind of background, he is privy to what science is capable of. Despite acknowledging its place in
civilization's history, he looks to other consequences science could deliver.
One
example of this is what could happen when humanity abuses the results of science; Mond recalls a point in history similar to
our own, but only in name. The Nine
Year's War in Brave New World appears to have advanced significantly in terms
of science, as Mond describes the use of anthrax bombs having a profound effect
on the general population (the war in our time occurred in the late seventeenth
century, far from this kind of technology).
As truth, beauty, and knowledge were prized in the society before this
event, people were shocked into a desire for a more peaceful, stagnant life.
"Happiness has got to be paid for. You're paying too much for it, Mr.
Watson---paying because you happen to be too much interested in beauty. I was too much interested in truth; I paid
too."-Mustapha Mond, Pg. 228
As
the chapter comes to a close, Mond continues to note how happiness could only
be achieved at the expense of science, and perhaps consequently, progress,
becoming increasingly stagnant. What
comes to mind is an event similar to the end of the Nine Year's War in the
book: The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II. The world's reaction was a stunned one; up to
that point, we never imagined a weapon so destructive could be used by
humanity. What I wonder is, will our
civilization as we know it reach a breaking point with science? The Arms Race died down despite the Cold War nearly going nuclear, leading to the dismantling of many nuclear warheads. As
far as our society has progressed, I've noticed that science becomes prevalent
mainly through medical breakthroughs and technology such as space exploration
and robotics. From this point of view,
it appears that science won't necessarily put the stability of society at risk.
However, when there are numerous other
factors driving us to instability as a race, the question comes to mind: Can
science truly undermine a society's ability to remain stable, or can it pave
the way to progress while simultaneously respecting the other aspects of civilization?
I would say that science is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it provides the ways of our destruction. Atomic bombs and military drones are good examples of the very weapons man has created shattering the lives of millions. On the other hand, we have made progress that can expand our society further. I mean, there is already a company paying a three-month trip to Mars. We can make stem cells without fetuses in the next decade or so. Science is indeed a two-edged sword, but I think the factor that decides the fate of society as a whole is whether the wielder of the sword will use it for good or evil.
ReplyDeleteScience is the state of knowing, through facts, figures, explanations, and trial and error. Society is significantly affected by science and what it can bring to the table, whether positive or negative. I think that we all have to realize society's limits to scientific acts, like nuclear bombs and such, and not put our society at any risk. Thus, we can still use science as a tool to aid our society and people's lives as well, especially in the medical field.
ReplyDeleteScience and society go hand in hand with one another. Society allows for scientific research to occur while science aids in the stability of society. In the World State, people ostracize science because it promotes radical thought, but they seem to forget that science created their society. Science can be lethal if given to the wrong people, but sanctioned research cannot hurt the World State if it is monitored correctly. With science, there is always an opportunity for new discoveries to occur. The problems that the World State has might even be solved with enough research which would allow society to return to normal.
ReplyDelete