Collapse of the United States

This was written August 17, 2003. It was written in response to a letter to the Kaw Valley Green Party. The points being answered are obvious from the essay.

First, the statement is made that, "What we are watching today, I believe, is a culmination of 10--15 years of mounting barbarism of the American culture the world over." This is wrong. If I were going to put a date on the start of the "mounting barbarism" a knee jerk reaction would put the start as the point were Jimmy Carter tried to fashion U.S. foreign policy by requiring countries, even those who fought communism, have decent internal politics to get U.S. support. This point of view was laughed out of the public eye by people who said it couldn't be done. A more thoughtful reaction would put the date around the Second World War. The United States has never given up on that war. Consider, as far as I know the United States is the only country that keeps troops occupying Germany and Japan. Someone older than me would cite this. Someone in tune with history might cite Teddy Roosevelt, and his "Talk Softly and carry a big stick" policy. The point is, it has been here much longer than 10-15 years.

This article talks about the destruction to the environment, which is real and dangerous, but in reality there is a competing disaster which might overtake us first. That is, the current policies of the United States visa vie the budget will result in total economic collapse within perhaps as little as ten years. While this might result in widespread starvation (in the midst of plenty) as happened in Irish Potato Famine, this might save the environment.

(Personally, I have recently decided that world population is already too high. Consider my page at http://www.bill.baldwincs.com/writings/politics/depression.html.)

Another point that is sidestepped it that the United States is not traditionally a scientific powerhouse, more like scientific wimps. True, the United States gets a lot of Nobel prizes, but how many are for native born citizens? I have a video which talks about the life of Dr. Robert Goddard, who invented liquid fuel rockets. That is not even pure science, but he was called a quack in the United States, even as Hitler used his science to manufacture that era's "weapons of mass destruction." If you look for scientific advances, it is more traditional to look to France or Germany, even Russia. What the United States passes off as "science" would have caused the scientific community of the early 1900's to shudder.

In reality science is truly morally neutral. It can be used to aid mankind, or to destroy mankind. It is unfortunate that people too often see a use for the latter, and not the former.

I agree, however that scientist should make it a point to see their work is used for the former and not the latter.

What is really needed it a reworking of society. That is, cultural values, which place a premium on the macho, and the violent, needs to be changed to a society that places emphasis on peace and understanding. To me the question, recently, has come out as "do I try to change society, or wait a few years for the society to totally collapse to try to change it?" It is much easier to convince a starving man that the status quo has a problem than it is a person in the midst of plenty.

Thanks for the letter.

Response

This brought a response in which the "moral neutrality" of science was questioned. Therefore, I responded with the following comments on August 22, 2003:

Facts are wrong. human life only took about a million years to evolve, out of 3 billion years. Species go extinct every once and a while, and the human species may go extinct regardless of science. (See my article at http://bill.baldwincs.com/writings/science/Overpopulation.html.)

Science is neutral. Antibiotics, for example, is usually seen as a positive result of science. Nobel invented dynamite for use in mining, etc. yet it can also be used for war. The latter embarrassed Nobel so much that he also is well known for the Nobel prizes, including the Nobel peace prize. I watch movies on TV often, which is positive, but the same technology is used to aim smart bombs in war. This is what I mean when I say science is neutral.

Yet, as my article shows, science can have unintended consequences. For example, antibiotics. These kill "germs" but in doing so they tend to create germs which are resistant to the antibiotics. Also, since people are protected from even common germs by over protective parents, people tend to get sick easier. I've seen one health threat listed as houses that are kept too clean.

Similarly, the "green revolution" looks good until one realizes that the increase in human population also increase the incident of disease. People that lived 30,000 years ago probably lived disease free lives. Currently we are in the midst of an explosion of disease. Smallpox (at least the serious type) has been totally made extinct. As far as I know, that is the only one. Yet how many new disease have been created during my lifetime.

In this case, again, the science is neutral, but the use of the science by people have caused problems.

There is also the problem of what do you call science. Science means, basically, thinking about doing something, and testing, before you do it. The opposite of science programs such as the the "No Child Left Behind" program where the program was never tested, and the results are really not known. The religious right, with its trying to use religion as the sole arbiter is another result of ignoring science. I would say an inevitable result.

If you, in solving a problem, try something, and base your actions on whether or not that thing fails, are using science. Remember, the hand ax was a technological breakthrough in its day.