HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 13, 2006 This is the third and final article in my series about John Waters - links to the previous articles are below. I do this because Waters buzzes around most anything I write related to these issues like a mosquito (rather than write in an engaging and logical manner) and he doesn't spend much time at the rebuttal forum. I then usually feel inclined to write more rebuttal articles than I'd like. Perhaps next time, I can simply point to these three or perhaps John will refine his technique – we shall see. This time, I will focus on that other oft repeated denial from John. I claim that John is a modern Luddite, a proponent of the neo-Amish movement. Perhaps he truly does not think of himself in that way. His writings, however, indicate otherwise. That view has some validity in my opinion, at least when one gives it a cursory glance. I'm very sensitive to the damage man is doing to the environment, and there are three obvious paths we can take. We can go backwards and live a simpler life, we can do nothing and attempt to prevent the forward march of science and technology, or we can embrace new science and technology. The first option, while admittedly attractive in some ways, has one major flaw: it will mean the death of humanity. It might be considered a short-term solution to some of our most serious problems, but in the long term, it's suicide. I covered this in more detail in part 1. The second option is what I will focus on in this article, and the third option is what I support and what John passionately writes against: embracing these sci-tech changes head on, as they are not that different from every other advance in our history. WikiPedia has this to say about new-Luddites: Unlike anarcho-primitivists most Neo-Luddites do not consider technology itself to be evil. They instead believe that it influences human nature in a way that promotes evil actions. Apply that to this quote from John: Technology and science have advanced very rapidly during my lifetime, which began in 1939. The invasion of Poland and much "ethnic cleansing" followed. Today in Africa and in other "developing nations" there is "ethnic cleansing" as well. The more advanced the technology, in fact, the more rapid can be the "ethnic cleansing." Sci-tech has advanced exponentially since Archimedes and Pythagoras, but over the world at large, ethics has scarcely advanced at all. So, whether one agrees with these Luddite views or not, it should be rather clear that John does in fact support some of them. John often uses the adage “playing God”, that we shouldn't be playing God, that we are, in particular case x and y, trying to play God, and so forth; this is a common neo-Amish tactic. Let's look at a few instances: Of course the skeptics don't believe in a personality of universal manager or "God." So if God isn't running the universe, what or who is running the universe? God or no God, some humans want to control everything, as though they were God. Yes, humans even want to conquer death. If AI gets its way, soon the post-singularity technologusts will take over. Will they be able to pull this off without making a single error? Dammit, my humble computer crashes sometimes. Can't the engineers fix my humble computer before they try transforming the universe? First, note how John associates atheism, skepticism and sci-tech – this allows him to tear these ideas down easier. After all, most people are not atheists and most people do in fact believe a God is at the helm. I'm an atheist, however, surely a theist might ask that if God has allowed us to develop this far, why would be necessarily object and draw a magic line in the sand and expect us to suddenly stop our development? As I showed in Part 1, farming was an advance that significantly altered the human condition; many advances which seem “low tech” in hindsight were actually significant in their time. We started conquering death long ago. What is more natural than conquering death? What is the purpose of health if not to live? Death is a failing of body systems due to disease. Curing those diseases lengthens life. Humans would “naturally” die in their early 30s, but thanks to various advances, many of them low-tech, humans now live much longer. We could live much longer still. The errors that he mentions are just another version of his magic line. What do errors have to do with advancing? Sometimes, meat is tainted, sometimes, a rotten potato makes it into a bunch. There have always been errors with human technology, simple and advanced, and there likely always will be. Anyway, once the technologusts start multiplying on Earth, with their ability to turn any substance into gold or anything else that the God-like post-singularity human wants, what will keep the technologusts from flying all over us and covering us with their nonobot bodies and devouring us utterly and turning us all into solid gold? Jeepers creepers Midas! John is referring to nano-technology and its predicted ability to make useful materials very cheaply and easily. Making steel involves melting metals at a very high temperature and adding ingredients. What a wonderful material steel is, however! We already have materials which are both stronger and lighter, but they are more expensive to manufacture. We can already turn oil into plastic and rubber, infinitely useful substances. Now, we are experimenting with turning vegetables into high quality plastics. When we take a closer look, we could, in theory, turn any material into any other. After all, there are 100 some odd atoms on the Periodic table – the LEGOS of matter - and various processes can connect them together in novel ways. What magic line does John worry about? Why would anyone harm John Waters or anything he cared about necessarily due to new material processes? Couldn't someone today abduct him and toss him into a pot of molten iron? Molten metal isn't so good for the body, after all. Is it bad, per se, that we can buy plastic cups at very low cost today? What negative impact does John worry about here except simply the very process of advancement itself? Is it “God like” to make a carbon composite airplane wing? If man is playing God, then we started long, long ago. Actually, this “process” likely began before modern man as there is evidence that our non-homo sapien ancestors invented fire and other early tools. Here is John again, repeating this neo-Amish cry: Yes, He's [Fred Smith] got the whole world in His hands. Sci-tech humankind is presently playing God in transforming the world and philosophy also. Folks also thought that the putting lightning rods on churches was “playing God”. However, God didn't seem to mind and lives were saved, something one might presume that God is happy about. Perhaps God wanted us to invent lightning rods in the first place? Why gives us a brain to consider such possibilities if not to use it? Related to our abortion debate and keeping with the idea of lightning, let's look at this bit from John: Let's assume that a woman has become pregnant and the embryo is growing inside of her. If she unintentionally and spontaneously aborts the embryo, that isn't the same thing as her purposefully having the embryo removed. A man on the golf course can be struck by lightning or shot to death by a poor sport he has just beaten. Legally the first is an "act of God." The second is legally a crime. The spontaneous abortion is like the lightning bolt or "act of God." We could distribute lightning rods all over golf courses and “interfere” with God, and, certainly, if folks died very often in this manner (and if many somehow insisted on playing golf during thunderstorms), we probably would. And as a direct result of our “God-like” aspirations, lives would be saved. This debate highlights the humanist's desire for consistency and reason in ethics, where possible. If a potential life equals a realized life, then losing such a being to a biological “accident”, or, “act of God”, is just as tragic as someone lost from purposeful abortion. Where then is the cry for implants which could inform a woman of her pregnancy before she would naturally be aware of it? This information might save hundreds of millions of potential lives – wouldn't that be worth a little “God playing”? The Tsunami early warning system being erected in the Indian Ocean is a similar act, is it not? Isn't that also playing God? What if God wants to punish the people there again? I guess he'll have to think of something else... Why waste time trying to imagine what supernatural beings want from us and then apply these speculations to progress? Can anything surprise or shock an all-knowing being? A futuristic artificial heart coupled with a brain-implant that allows someone to live to 300 is nothing very much different in the grand scheme of things. No special line in the sand would be crossed, it would simply be doing what humans have always done and will likely always continue to do. If God had wanted it otherwise, then he shouldn't have allowed Man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Neo-Luddites like John can turn down these advances as they come along if they choose, though I doubt many will. How many turn down immunization today? Or cooked meat? Gas masks? Steel-toed boots? Calculators? Computers? Watches? Alarm clocks? Paper? Toilet paper? Soap? Freezers? Gloves? Tractors? Bee-keeper suits? Ski masks? Plows? Irrigation channels? Why would humans have the gall to put water where God had not intended it?? To drink or grow food where God had not originally placed water?? Isn't this whole argument really rather silly? In summary, I'd like to say that whether one agrees or disagrees with humanism, transumanism, current technological trends and predicted future trends, what is rather clear is that John Waters engages in personal attacks (just as I sometimes do), drops critical threads of reasoning in debates, dislikes science rather extremely and holds many neo-Amish views. Hopefully, in future articles from John, he will refrain from hiding behind a false front. Hopefully, he will expose himself as he really is. I'm not shy about my dislike for religion and magical thinking in general and I realize that I would be more appealing if I pretended to like them. I value honesty, however. --- Resources: Part 1 and 2 of this article. WikiPedia's page on neo-Luddites. Note that this page is flagged as being possibly non-neutral. However, the lone quote that I used from this site agrees with other Luddite resources on the web. More info about neo-Luddites. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
