Science and Human Life
Bertrand Russell
1
Science and the techniques to which it has given rise have changed human life during the last
hundred and fifty years more than it had been changed since men [sic] took to agriculture, and
the changes that are being wrought by science continue at an increasing speed. There is no sign
of any new stability to be attended on some scientific plateau. On the contrary, there is every
reason to think that the revolutionary possibilities of science extend immeasurably beyond what
has so far been realized. Can the human race adjust itself quickly enough to these vertiginous
transformations, or will it, as innumerable former species have done, perish from lack of
adaptability? The dinosaurs were, in their day, the lords of creation, and if there had been
philosophers among them, not one would have foreseen that the whole race might perish.
2
But they became extinct because they could not adapt themselves to a world without swamps.
In the case of man and science there is a wholly new factor, namely, that man himself is creating
the changes of environment to which he will have to adjust himself with unprecedented rapidity.
But, although man through his scientific skill is the cause of the changes of environment, most
of these changes are not willed by human beings.
3
But they became extinct because they could not adapt themselves to a world without swamps.
In the case of man and science there is a wholly new factor, namely, that man himself is creating
the changes of environment to which he will have to adjust himself with unprecedented rapidity.
But, although man through his scientific skill is the cause of the changes of environment, most
of these changes are not willed by human beings.
4
One of the most obvious problems raised by a scientific technique is that of the exhaustion of
the soil and of raw materials. This subject has been much discussed and some governments
have actually taken some steps to prevent the denudation of the soil. But I doubt whether, as
yet, the good done by these measures is outweighing the harm done in less careful regions.
Food, however, is such an obvious necessity that the problem is bound to receive increasing
attention as population pressure makes it more urgent. Whether this increased attention
will do good or harm in the long run is, I fear, questionable. By a spendthrift use of fertilisers,
food production in the present can be increased at the cost of food production in the future.
5
The question of raw materials is more difficult and complex than the question of food. The
raw materials required at one stage of technique are different from those required at another.
It may be that by the time the world's supply of oil is exhausted, atomic power will have taken
its place. But to this sort of process there is a limit, though not an easily assignable one. At
present there is a race for uranium, and it would seem likely that before very long there will
be no easily accessible source of uranium. If, when that happens, the world has come to
depend upon nuclear energy as its main source of power, the result may be devastating. All
such speculations are of course very questionable, since new techniques may always make it
possible to dispense with formerly necessary raw materials. But we cannot get away from the
broad fact that we are living upon the world's capital of stored energy and are transforming the
energy at a continually increasing rate into forms in which it cannot be utilised. Such a manner
of life can hardly be stable, but must sooner or later bring the penalty that lies in wait for those
who live on capital.
6
The problem which most preoccupies the public mind at the present moment is that of scientific
warfare. It has become evident that, if scientific skill is allowed free scope, the human race will
be exterminated, if not in the next war, then in the next but one or the next but two - at any
rate at no very distant date. To this problem there are two possible reactions: there are those
who say, 'Let us create social institutions which will make large-scale war impossible'; there are
others who say, 'Let us not allow war to become too scientific. We cannot perhaps go back
to bows and arrows, but let us at any rate agree with our enemies that, if we fight them, both
sides will fight inefficiently.' For my part, I favour the former answer, since I cannot see that
either side could be expected to observe an agreement not to use modern weapons once war
had broken out. It is on this ground that I do not think that there will long continue to be human
beings unless methods are found of permanently preventing large-scale wars. I shall return to it
presently.
7
Apart from the more general duties of scientists towards society, they have a quite special
and exceptional duty in the present critical condition of the world. All men of science who
have studied thermonuclear warfare are aware of two superlatively important facts: first,
that whatever agreements may have been reached to the contrary, thermonuclear weapons
will certainly be employed by both sides in a world war. Second, that if such weapons are
employed there can be no hope of victory for either side, but only of universal destruction
involving, quite possibly, the end of all human and animal life and almost certainly, failing that, a
complete reversion to barbarism.
Bình luận