------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an excerpt from Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions. The character Kilgore Trout is a science fiction writer riding with a trucker in this part.
The driver said he used to be a hunter and a fisherman, long ago. It broke his heart when he imagined what the marshes and meadows had been like one a hundred years before. "And when you think of the shit that most of these factories make- wash day products, catfood, pop-"
"He had a point. The planet was being destroyed by manufacturing processes, and what was being manufactured was lousy, by and large. (Kilgore talks about not being much of a conservationist for a while, citing that the Creator of the Universe regularly destroys things with natural disasters.)
They rode in silence for a while, and then the driver made another good point. He said he knew that his truck was turning the atmosphere into poison gas, and that the planet was being turned into pavement so his truck could go anywhere. "So I'm committing suicide," he said.
"Don't worry about it," said Trout.
"My brother is even worse," the driver went on. "He works in a factory that makes chemicals for killing plants and trees in Vietnam. Vietnam was a country where America was trying to make people stop being communists by dropping things on them from airplanes. The chemicals he mentioned were intended to kill all the foliage, so it would be harder for communists to hide from airplanes.
"Don't worry about it," said Trout.
"In the long run, he's committing suicide," said the driver. "Seems like the only kind of job an American can get these days is committing suicide in some way."
"I can't tell if you're serious or not," said the driver.
"I won't know myself until I found out whether life is serious or not," said Trout. "It'sdangerous, I know, and it can hurt a lot. That doesn't necessarily mean it's serious, too."
"At least it's olives," said the driver.
"What?" said Trout.
"Lots worse things we could be hauling than olives."
"Right," said Trout. He had forgotten that the main thing they were doing was moving seventy-eight thousand pounds of olives to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I am also not sure that there is a reason to take life seriously, but that is at odds with how frustrated I am about our consumer based economy. I had this conversation with a guy in the MN airport and we both didn't know how to respond to: what can we do now, where can we go from here?
I have been thinking a lot about machines and products. it was something that really struck me in India- every street has a clothes washer who does a great service for very little money and they also end up being a public eye for the street. There are all these small service jobs that end up providing interaction and additional public eye. Here, we have large metal machines in our basements. Once we get those, we need to learn how to use them, we have additional appliances- irons, etc. and additional products- softeners, scented stuff. All of these things only have to do with the room they are in and the clothes that remain clean on our bodies. There is no community involved. The only interaction is when the delivery man brings them from the store to your house.
ReplyDeleteThese are all the same things progressives have been thinking around- being closer to our food, paying correct prices for our goods. We realized that someone is being exploited, so we though, well, there should be fair wages and we should know through what chain the trading happens- and we have the wonderful fair trade movement. I would like to point out that it is entirely different from the foodie movement though, which brings in the local economy. Living in Seattle, the housing market crisis didn't mean to me what it does to parts of the Midwest- because my local economy is thriving from a continuing technology boom.
Is it better to buy a product fair-trade from half-way across the world or a local product? Since it is likely that there is already a company in that half-way across the world country producing a good very cheaply, then giving someone there fair wages seems good. So then we are back to the question, what do we do now?
I am willing to buy products made in the USA, but I would much rather see products made in my state. We have cheap goods with little money going to the worker or even producer. Part of the money that stays in our country is how much it costs to ship this stuff everywhere, the other part (which I imagine is a little less than half considering how most retail mark-up is 50%- does anyone know a good website that shows this?) goes to large companies and large advertising systems. Now we have growing unemployment and people are scrambling to think of how to make jobs for people.
As an attempt to answer your question Kai, I personally feel that local cottage industry is good. (In a related note: buy Ren Zimm bags, tehehe) I am pretty sure that making chemicals that kill all the foliage in Vietnam is bad. Can we start there?
This response is from my friend Kai:
ReplyDeleteThis is a cool place to start. I agree that the destruction of Vietnam foliage by chemicals is bad. However, there are a lot of caveats there.
What if that action saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Would that still be bad? Would it be acceptable? Would it be good?
What if that action saved one life? What would that be?
Basically, can we say that if it saves X number of lives, then it would be a good think to do?
This is an example of the "paradox of the heap" I think.
Also, is the creation of those chemical inherently a bad action? Or is it the application of them that is bad? To take that back to Cat's Cradle: do we blame the scientists, who are so far removed from the "human element" that they do not understand the implications of what they are doing, or do we blame the actors that put those inventions to use? Who is more stupid: Felix Hoenikker for creating Ice-9? Or his children for having the chance to destroy it and not doing so?
I would say that it is the application of the substance that is bad. I don't think the creation, in itself, is inherently bad. Although it may have the potential to be catastrophic, humans still have the choice of whether or not to use it.
This is a really difficult argument though. You could almost continue in this fashion forever.
One of the things I just read in The Argumentative Indian is about duty vs. consequence in the debate between Krishna and Arjuna presented in the Bhagavad Gita: "A tussle between two contrary moral positions--Krishna's emphasis on doing one's duty, on one side, and Arjuna's focus on avoiding bad consequences (and generating good ones) on the other."
It seems we could apply this directly to Cats Cradle. Is it the duty of a scientist to pursue truth, or knowledge? Or should they attempt to avoid the potential harm that could come from their endeavors?
Has the bolder moved at all? Or has it just become more complicated
Vietnam and foliage-killing chemicals is a hard example. (I think America was mostly in the war in fear of communism as a world power, not as much to save lives.) So I will comment on your question:
ReplyDeleteIs it the duty of a scientist to pursue truth, or knowledge? Or should they attempt to avoid the potential harm that could come from their endeavors?
You mentioned that we have a choice of whether to use the chemical or not. We also had a choice of whether or not to develop the chemical in the first place. I support scientific research (or I wouldn't have a job right now...), but I think it's limits should be explored. I enjoy hearing the tiniest details of biology that are being explored at my place of work, but what does it really mean? It seems to mean that we will know more, in case we can use this knowledge to do good (in the case of my research institution). Do you think there is a limit?
Maybe we are pouring millions of dollars into research that will primarily only aide the wealthier classes who can afford the treatment for a disease or cancer that perhaps primarily occurs in people over 60. I wonder if it would have been better to put that money into eradicating something like malaria, which kills all ages of people, oftentimes people who cannot afford treatment, and have not lead as high quality of lives because of that. I am trying to figure out if this situation means we currently have a limit on the amount of knowledge we need for disease A in an effort to focus the getting of knowledge on disease B. My point is that we do need and want a lot of scientific knowledge and I think it could be spent on better things than chemicals that kill foliage in wars.
So maybe it is not what is good, but constantly trying to figure out what is better?
The other problem is that we can think these things as much as we want, but in reality there are complex politics and disparities that get in the way of ever applying any answer we come up with. In light of that, why does good matter?