Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Brilliant Ideas
When I was a kid I had the brilliant idea that I could boost my brain power by attaching electrodes to my head and by plugging them into an electrical outlet. Maybe I got the idea from Forbidden Planet, I’m not sure. Thank God I didn’t actually do it. I wouldn’t be here today to write this. The best way to nurture your brain power, I think, is to leave it alone. Like Woody Allen says in Sleeper, the brain is my second favorite organ.
Scientists are often subject to what I call the Brilliant Idea Syndrome. Walter Pidgeon, in Forbidden Planet (1956), is one such scientist. He has the brilliant idea that he can boost his brain power and learn the secrets of an ancient, superior civilization by attaching electrodes from a certain machine to his head. He screws up big time. Not that anything bad happens right away, like his head exploding, or his ending up selling pencils in Times Square. But he hasn’t reckoned with mankind’s violent past, and his own unconscious urges. The machine boosts his brain power, but it also boosts his inner demons, giving them substance and power. These are his "Monsters from the Id," and they end up destroying everything. So much for scientific curiosity.
One reason I call it the Brilliant Idea Syndrome is that, like the Sun, which is so bright that it blots out the daytime stars, a scientist’s idea is often so brilliant that the fact that he can do something often blots out the reasons why he should not: "Can I?" often blots out "Should I?" I think most of biotechnology falls into this category, or at least the parts where they have the brilliant idea to create transgenic organisms (monsters). And we’re creating monsters today. Where are they coming from? The Id? Let us hope not.
July 2001
Scientists are often subject to what I call the Brilliant Idea Syndrome. Walter Pidgeon, in Forbidden Planet (1956), is one such scientist. He has the brilliant idea that he can boost his brain power and learn the secrets of an ancient, superior civilization by attaching electrodes from a certain machine to his head. He screws up big time. Not that anything bad happens right away, like his head exploding, or his ending up selling pencils in Times Square. But he hasn’t reckoned with mankind’s violent past, and his own unconscious urges. The machine boosts his brain power, but it also boosts his inner demons, giving them substance and power. These are his "Monsters from the Id," and they end up destroying everything. So much for scientific curiosity.
One reason I call it the Brilliant Idea Syndrome is that, like the Sun, which is so bright that it blots out the daytime stars, a scientist’s idea is often so brilliant that the fact that he can do something often blots out the reasons why he should not: "Can I?" often blots out "Should I?" I think most of biotechnology falls into this category, or at least the parts where they have the brilliant idea to create transgenic organisms (monsters). And we’re creating monsters today. Where are they coming from? The Id? Let us hope not.
July 2001
Comments:
<< Home
You are right when you say we should ask the question should we before we get too excited about being able to answer can we, but after I read the post, I asked the question 'should we ask the question should we before we progress at anything?'.
I don't think it is always best to ask should we before doing something, because it might end up hindering progress. No gains are made without losses, so if we're looking to cut our losses, we might be cutting our gains as well.
Of course after that, there is the question about whether or not progress is always a good thing, and of course it isn't, but I do agree that idle hands do the devil's work, so I'd rather have humans fuck up the world while trying to make it better than fuck up the world for no reason at all.
I don't think it is always best to ask should we before doing something, because it might end up hindering progress. No gains are made without losses, so if we're looking to cut our losses, we might be cutting our gains as well.
Of course after that, there is the question about whether or not progress is always a good thing, and of course it isn't, but I do agree that idle hands do the devil's work, so I'd rather have humans fuck up the world while trying to make it better than fuck up the world for no reason at all.
# posted by 
: 11:42 AM
: 11:42 AM
Some people have a strong moral compass, and some people have a good ability to assess risk. Sometimes this keeps people from doing things they shouldn't do, but sometimes both of these abilities seem to go out the window. I wish people had asked more questions before inventing the Atom Bomb, for example, and I wish they would ask more questions now before inventing all these monsters. Thing is, it is the corporations that are behind all this, and the reason is not progress. It is money, pure and simple. If I patent a tomato, for example, then I own the rights to that tomato worldwide (read more of my posts) and I make a lot of money, especially from Italians (Joke). Corporations, unlike human beings, are not governed by morality. The only thing driving a corporation is making a profit. That is the sole measure of its success or failure. Corporations make money and people like you and me are used as guinea pigs, because in many cases no one knows the long-term effects of eating Genetically Modified food.
The atom bomb is a sticky example.
If it had never been invented, all of those people would have probably died anyway from fire bombing as they did in Tokyo, which actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.
Also if the negative aspects of atomic energy were not persued, none of the positive ones would eaither...for example nuclear power plants. Sure nuclear fission plants have problems galore, but they may give birth to the first fusion plant. They are building one now in France, and it may really change the way we harnest energy for the better.
Could that be accomplished without buidling an atom bomb? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The problem is that we used the bomb to kill people, not that we developed the technology to do so.
The same technology was being persued in Germany, so eventually someone was going to harness it. Why not just be happy that it was us and not them?
Steps have to be taken back before they can be taken forward. Just like your post, which is initially hurt by my objections and then strengthened by you're ammendments.
If it had never been invented, all of those people would have probably died anyway from fire bombing as they did in Tokyo, which actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.
Also if the negative aspects of atomic energy were not persued, none of the positive ones would eaither...for example nuclear power plants. Sure nuclear fission plants have problems galore, but they may give birth to the first fusion plant. They are building one now in France, and it may really change the way we harnest energy for the better.
Could that be accomplished without buidling an atom bomb? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The problem is that we used the bomb to kill people, not that we developed the technology to do so.
The same technology was being persued in Germany, so eventually someone was going to harness it. Why not just be happy that it was us and not them?
Steps have to be taken back before they can be taken forward. Just like your post, which is initially hurt by my objections and then strengthened by you're ammendments.
# posted by : 10:43 AM
: 10:43 AM
Well, I don't always think it is best to ask "should we" before we actually begin inventing something. For example, if Thomas Edison had been constantly questioning himself, he might never have invented anything. This crops up all the time in the creative process, particularly with writing, which is what I know the most about: there is the creative part of the process, and there is the more left brain editing part. Thing is, sometimes I think you probably should ask if you should write certain things (stories about incest, sadism, other forms of perversion) before actually writing them. I know this is a difficult problem. I'm advocating self censorship, to a degree. But the only reason I entertain that is that what I write might harm someone else. If it would, then maybe I shouldn't do it. To get back to Thomas Edison, he had no possibility of inventing an Atom Bomb, and I doubt if he would have ever invented a device to torture people. You might extrapolate that out, though, and say that something he did invent could have been used for a purpose he never intended. So you end up going round and round. Thing is, today's scientists are creating monsters in their labs. There is no ambiguity there. While I don't necessarily think that is wrong morally, I do wonder if we should be replacing nature with a genetically modified version. The impact of that affects everyone on earth. Example: scientists create Golden Rice, which is supposed to contain more vitamin A, thereby reducing some incidence of blindness in developing countries. I don't think Golden Rice is a good idea. Why? First, though their motives may seem altruistic, the companies developing the product stand to make a bundle of money on it. Second, if there is so much blindess, why not just give the people vitamin A? Profits. Long term. Third, why do we have to change an entire crop that occurs naturally on earth? Mankind has done pretty well with the bounty nature has given us, why change it. Fourth, man has an abysmal record of intervening in nature with disastrous, unintended consequences. Since these consequences affect everyone if they are wrong, or even if they are right, then everyone should be able to decide if they want to participate in eating transgenic crops. Problem is, with the way this stuff spreads, it supplants natural crops, so some day the only thing that will exist will be the genetically engineered variety, or a version thereof.That's all I've got for now.
Post a Comment
<< Home
