The five editorial leaders of the April 22, 2010 issue of The Economist once again ratified the old man’s long held view that he has indeed lived in the best of places in the best of times in the earth’s history. Of course, the corollary of that title is that those “best of times” are ending with the old man’s tenure here. Much as I would have it otherwise for the sake of our progeny, my cup no longer “runneth over” and as so often in my case, my thoughts again leave me with my cup half empty rather than half full.
Presumably the magazine’s editorial staff decided that Synthetic biology, The euro-zone crisis, Thailand in flames, Water, and Facebook and Google were the most significant news items deserving extended coverage in that week’s issue. Throughout its history the magazine has championed free markets, global free trade and the benefits of human innovation and technology. Following up on the euro-zone leader in that issue, the cover leader of the very next issue warns of “double-dip recession” but the writers still try to reassure us that “the fundamentals [of the market] are reasonably good” and the worst could be avoided if politicians would only use reasonable judgment.
I have no wish to be known as a Luddite opposed to all scientific innovation. The gods know that the wonders of technology have made it possible for me to enjoy in old age the challenges of continued learning, frustrations and all. I well remember that during my college years in the mid forties, then UBC’s Physics Department head among other things, Dr. Gordon Shrum, speaking to a gathering of students, described in his inimitable enthusiasm the marvels of the transistor and all the wonders of the future that would come to pass as its many uses unfolded in the lifetime of the students then at college. Shrum was possibly the most positive doer and ultimate mover and shaker in public life that I have known. He saw nothing but good resulting from scientific discoveries and innovations and what he considered progress in community growth. I have no doubt that the amazing scientific achievements in the near quarter century since he left for other spheres will only increase his optimism, fully assured that his successors will deal efficiently with whatever little problems those innovations may cause.
And yet I continue to believe that every “improvement”, each new tool or gadget to make our lives easier, more interesting, faster or better, carries with it the seeds of our own destruction. When I heard Shrum’s address, the atom bomb was new history. Though I don’t recall his reference to it, I am almost certain that like the scientists who developed the bomb, Dr. Shrum thought primarily of its positive potential as energy source and not as the most fearful agent of mass destruction that still dominates international politics today. Every time we take a bite from Eden’s tree of the knowledge of good and evil, humanity seems to look only at the “good” part without considering the “evil” consequences that will likely follow. The point may be illustrated by a reading of the five editorial leaders mentioned above. I would comment particularly on the two I consider most fundamental:
- And man made life. This opening leader refers to the Venter Institutes’ success in making a bacterium that has an artificial genome—creating a living creature with no ancestor. The editorial writer says, “It is now possible to conceive of a world in which new bacteria (and eventually new animals and plants) are designed on a computer and then grown to order. That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb.” The writer points out some of the marvellous possibilities for the infant process of creation. Creditably he also points out the potential horrible consequences of what someone’s designer creation may cause, referring to the release of “malicious biological inventions”. He mentions the possibilities of terrorists and even hackers causing havoc. My feeling is that whether malicious or benevolent, a biological invention released by its maker can breed by itself, go through some sort of evolutionary process, mutate into other forms of life and so on. Once perfected one can imagine all sorts of strange consequences. No doubt computer technology will be completely changed. Economies will rise and fall with great uncertainty. Entertainment and even the criminal justice system will be turned upside down. Identification of criminals through unique DNA sequences, so popular with the CSI television series, will become as passé as eyewitness evidence, for presumably it could now be duplicated or inserted into the evidentiary process. The editorial writer’s concluding recommendation is to Regulate, Monitor, Encourage the good to outwit the bad and with luck keep the Nemesis at bay. Our record of doing that in the societies we know today is rather dismal.
- Water. This editorial report on “The world’s most valuable stuff” reinforces even further my “cup is half empty” syndrome. The writer lays it on the line. There is only so much water. “Nature”, he says “has decreed that the supply of water is fixed.” With one billion people now without access to decent water, he depicts scenarios of water wars, starvation, mass migration and fighting all over the world. Though we cannot increase the supply of water, The Economist predictably offers better management, genetic development of less thirsty crops, technology and the market mechanism as ways of limiting over usage. In this case, however, the magazine’s usual rosy outlook does not prevail. Even now in the old man’s rain forest valley on the west coast, lawn watering is banned for two months this summer because of low reservoirs. How long will it be before local crops wither on the vine and we too will be at each other’s throats to obtain decent water to drink, let alone grow crops?
- 30 -
