“There are certain risks that one may not take: the destruction of humanity is one…Our researches are perilous, our discoveries are lethal.” These statements made by Mobius in act two of The Physicists are two that I find to be true today as well as back in the 1960s when this play was written. For centuries, man has used science to solve the laws of nature. However, since World War II, man has used science as a means to develop the biggest guns, medicines to cure every disease, and nuclear bombs and missiles. At what point, though, does man see that their continued discoveries are harming the world as much as helping it?
In The Physicists, Mobius stumbled upon his Principle of Universal Discovery like Louis Pasteur stumbled upon Penicillin. Instead of selling his discovery to the highest bidding nation, Mobius saw that this discovery had the potential to destroy mankind and thus chose to hide it. Now I am not saying that the discovery of Penicillin was a bad discovery, however, the researches that its discovery spawned led to derivatives of Penicillin being discovered, which led to the discovery of more derivatives of those drugs, which led to the overuse of antibiotics, which led to the development of drug resistant bacteria and newer and deadlier diseases.
Before reading The Physicists, my opinion was that if I made a major discovery such as a cure for AIDS, I would withhold the discovery just like Mobius did with his, minus checking myself into a sanitarium. Why does man not use the knowledge it already has to help the world more by producing enough drugs to help third world countries combat diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis? My answer is that the scientists choose not to witness the consequences of their discoveries. If they did, they may react like Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, when he witnessed the testing of his creation, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
This is something I have thought a lot about as well. I agree with the actions of Mobius in the play, but I don't know if I'd be able to do the same. If it was the cure of AIDS or something that could help people, do I really have the moral right to withhold it? Anyway, great post :)
ReplyDeleteBut don't you think that curing a horrible disease has better consequences than inventing a weapon to obliterate entire countries? What if scientists and researchers could focus on other diseases that need cures, such as antibiotic resistant strains of those diseases, instead of using all their time and resources on a cure that could save millions of lives?
ReplyDeleteThis post seems a little dark to me. Mankind will always change. Everyone hopes to progress, but life is not lived in a straight line. There are ups and downs. Antibiotics save lives in some instances. Just because we don’t have the knowledge to know how to effectively use antibiotics doesn’t mean we would necessarily be better if they were not invented. Life is much more complicated than this. Some people think cell phones cause cancer, but what are the statistics on lives cell phones have saved? I’m just saying there is always good and bad- not just one or the other. The atom bomb killed so many people, but the samurai would never have given up willingly, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. What were we supposed to do? Let them take Hawaii and come to America? I don’t agree with people being killed, but I do think there is much more to the story than you realize unless you thoroughly study the history of World War II. Focusing on curing disease sounds great on paper, but we won’t have to worry about it if some mad leader such as Hitler takes over America and kills everyone for having brown hair.
ReplyDelete"What can be conceived, will be conceived." I think an important message of the play was that people who make these discoveries have an obligation to share with the correct people, lest they fall into the hands of people like the doctor.
ReplyDelete