Thirdly, was I attaching scientific planning? According to Professor Haldane ‘Mr. Lewis is clear enough. The application of science to human affairs can only lead to Hell.’ There is certainly no warrant for ‘can only’; but he is justified in assuming that unless I had thought I saw a serious and widespread danger I would not have given planning so central a place even in what I call ‘a fairy tale’ and ‘a tall story’. But if you must reduce the romance to a proposition, the proposition would be almost the converse of that which the Professor supposes: not ‘scientific planning will certainly lead to Hell’, but ‘Under modern conditions any effective invitation to Hell will certainly appear in the guise of scientific planning’ – as Hitler’s regime in fact did. Every tyrant must begin by claiming to have what his victims respect and to give what they want. The majority in most modern countries respect science and want to be planned. And, therefore, almost by definition, if any man or group wishes to enslave us it will of course describe itself as “scientific planned democracy’. [Bold print mine].
There are, I think, a number of facets emitting light in Lewis’s words. Among them:
It is not unusual for a criticism of science, or of the way science is used, or of the integrity of certain scientific theories, to be construed as a reactionary or uninformed or prejudicial attack on all science. It strikes me that this is much the same as the way a criticism of religious systems has been viewed at times in history, and even in the present day in some quarters; science is a religion to many and we should not be surprised when a criticism of it evokes reactions sometimes observed in religious circles.
While it seems unlikely that anything so obvious as Hitler’s brand of scientific planning will arise again in the West; an observer may conclude that scientific planning has been refined to the point where physical coercion is no longer needed since brainwashing has been refined. “If science says so then it must be so”, is the mantra of society. “If science says so and tells us that in the light of its proclamation we must live thusly, then we must live thusly”, is another mantra. Society marches to it, dances to it, allocates its resources according to it, makes life and death decisions in conjunction with it, and justifies its narcissism with it.
We have placed ourselves in a cage, locked ourselves in the cage, and we eat what our masters toss into the cage. We raise our young in the cage, form and dissolve what passes for relationships in the cage, and often have no compunction about ignoring the welfare of our fellow prisoners in the cage because, after all, the natural selection process is what it is.
Well, at least our keepers don’t put us in physical concentration camps; why should they? They need not spend the money, they imprison our hearts and minds and then have us live as they would have us live…paying for our own food and shelter…after making us men and women without chests; that is without hearts and souls, to import an image of Lewis’s from The Abolition of Man.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment