Do we really need more science?
It can be fascinating to read about the types of thing scientists are working on. With my background in Pharmacy I usually tend towards articles on bioengineering, medicine and such but then again there are all sorts of things happening in the world of science.
Now when scientists are working on something they are usually trying to do something novel. Discover a new way of doing things, a solution to an unsolved problem, help society get better, or find a new way to make money. Usually the project sounds really good at first glance. Here are a few that come to my mind:
- Eradicate Malaria
- Increase food production from farm animals
- Make a totally renewable fuel source to replace gasoline
- Repair brain damage from Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and Stroke.
I mean which one of those four things look like a bad idea? At first glance they are all things to get very excited about!
The devil is in the details
But when you look at things a little deeper then things geta a little more murky.
Elon Musk's Neuralink
The science is to allow a chip to interface with the brain to allow a damaged part of the brain to be automated with a programmable chip. If the brain can no longer send proper signals to the body for movement (Parkinsons) then why not let a chip do it for you? The muscles and joints still work so why not?
But step back a moment. If a chip is moving your body what's to prevent it from being hacked and allowing someone else full control of moving your body? How scary would that be?
Bioengineering bacteria to break down wood mass
The amount of woody mass created (or able to be created) on this planet is immense. Imagine if everyone wanted to sustainably plant trees! What a boon for the environment. Now imagine that those trees could be responsibly harvested and processed to create ethanol..which is a perfectly acceptable substitute for gasoline. That means that any country in the world that can grow trees or shrubs could theoretically be energy sufficient. Wow.
But step back a moment. If a bacteria can convert wood mass to alcohol that means a bacteria can destroy wood / trees. Imagine if this superbacteria got out in the wild and started infecting natural forests. It could be a global disaster if the worlds started getting sick.
Bioengineer farm animals to photosynthesize
The amount of forests cut down to allow widespread cattle farming is destroying the environment. The amount of methane released from cows fermenting grass is immense and is causing climate change. What if cows could get a portion of their energy directly from the sun. Bypass the need for grass and let the cows make their own food! Some lower animals can do that but what if cows could do that. Cheaper beef without the environmental impact!
But step back a moment. What happens when you alter a human food source to something unnatural? Will it have an effect on the human population at large? What happens to the mentality of a cow? I mean a cow typically spends its entire day grazing, ruminating and sleeping. What does it do if it no longer needs to gaze and ruminate? As a dog owner I can attest to the fact that a dog tired from exercise and mental stimulation is a happy dog. A dog that is bored from lack of activity or things to do is a destructive dog. Would the same happen with cows?
No more malaria by generic engineering of mosquito's
Malaria is a horrible disease. It kills huge numbers of people. We know it is transmitted by female Anopholes mosquito's and we now that if you don't get bit you don't get sick. With genetic engineering it may be possible to change the genetic makeup of the mosquito population. If you changed the genetics so all the offspring were males--no more female mosquito's to bite. No more female mosquito's to make more of those horrible little biters! Of maybe you just modify the mosquito so they no longer have their probiscis (the needle like beak). If they can't "bite" they can't spread the disease. Again, no feeding no more mosquito's and no more Malaria. Horray!
But step back a moment. Did we learning nothing from DDT? Insects are a necessary part of the environment. They provide a base layer to an intricate food chain. In the days of DDT it was a wonderful pesticide what eradicated all the bitey bugs. But then the birds died and the forest grew very quiet. Do we really want to kill nature? Do we really know what the end result of genocide on a mosquito population will really lead to?
Lets use the science we have much better instead
Now I'm not against science and learning. Indeed I believe it is crucial to advancing humankind. However, I would suggest that we are at a point in human history where society needs to catch up to our scientific know how.
Which probably sounds like a "What are you talking about???" Statement.
So let me take an example:
Recently I read an article about a cure for sickle cell anemia. For those of you who don't know what sickle cell anemia is: It is a genetic disorder which leads to blood cells which don't work properly. It causes significant problems for those who have the disorder as their very lifeblood doesn't work the way it should.
A cure would truly be lifechanging for anyone who has the disease. Of that I am 100% certain.
How could a cure be a bad thing?
Well, truth be told the cure isn't a bad thing. However, it takes months of therapy. An army of scientists to do the work. More money than most people will make in a decade and would be available only to the exceedingly rich.
Our current treatments aren't cures and they are certainly far from perfect. Someone getting "modern" treatment will still have significant challenges in their life. However, I would also say that getting those modern treatments can be the difference between death or true disability and being able to lead a useful and fulfilling life.
Doing a little "back of the napkin math". One person cured using gene therapy $1 million dollars. One person helped with traditional therapy at $100/year means 1000 people could be helped for a decade rather than one person cured.
We have the building blocks for a better future already
Rather than making advancements in the traditional sciences of chemistry, biology, physics and such. Perhaps we should focus on "Social Science". Why focus on making life better for the few when we can make it better for the many?
Science has indeed advanced to the point where people can lead great lives. We have tools for any need. We have the ability to do amazing things. We have amazing medications and gadgets. We have the ability to share knowledge on any subject anywhere to anyone. The science of today is truly exciting!
However, access to today's innovations is limited and often expensive. The rich tend to gather and discard causing environmental problems. The poor look on with an inability to attain even the more basic level of innovation.
As an example:
- We have induction cooktops yet people still cook over 3 stone fires!
- We have the ability to purify and transport water easily yet many people don't have adequate water supplies.
- We can easily create electricity from sunlight but many people are still without power
- We can easily provide vision using glasses but many have no access to them because of funds or proper testing.
Maybe
... just maybe
Society should try to catch up and make sure that all people have access to the scientific innovations we already have before we spend huge amounts of money to find even more marvelous inventions or advances.