This is the Anthropocene, an age for humans, by humans. It
is undeniable that we caused extinction of many species while our species
thrived – albeit not all of our species. On one hand we are saying guys, the
earth is dying maybe we should do something about it, like being more
sustainable in our activities. Then we say world population is increasing, we
have to produce more goods in a more sustainable way to ensure our future
generations can survive. Question: Why should we let human population to
continue increasing? Is it actually necessary? It was natural selection, then
artificial selection. Biodiversity has decreased drastically. What is next?
Human selection? Survival of the fittest among humans? Let’s say there comes a
phase whereby an environmental catastrophe caused food supply to run low and
people start sacrificing some individuals for food. Then cannibalism issue
becomes controversial. Is it ethical? If the problem of limited food supply
persists, cannibalism persists. Even if the food supply increases over time,
cannibalism would not cease to exist.
What I am trying to say is, times change. And as times
change, views change. That’s where we develop, that’s what makes us different
from who we used to be. When we start questioning traditional conventional
systems, a controversy happens. However, is it necessarily a good thing?
What is done cannot be undone, everything – past, present
and the future, as well as nature, society and technology. Anthropocene seems
like a compositional transition stage where we move from ‘organic’ to
‘inorganic’, from natural to technological. So was it better when humans were
part of nature? Or will it be better if our world runs on technology? Or can we
stay in the transition state for forever? Since the natural world is complex
science which mankind cannot fully understand, we should not try to revert
earth to how it was, by reducing consumption etc. Nor should we move forward
with technology dangerously with ideas such as transhumanism emerging, since we
know virtually nothing about the consequences.
Latour’s idea of ‘loving your monsters’ was idealistic. It
requires a level of moral value, and the only recognised scientific field that
includes ethical values is biological conservation. They believe that every
organism has the right to live on this planet as much as humans do. Ironically,
biological conservation preserves nature, while technology does the exact
opposite. What incentive do scientists have to be responsible for their
creations? To what extent does it mean to be responsible? What happens if the
problems surface after they die? In fact, I think the idea of ‘loving your
monsters’ is just another excuse for technological advancement, sugar-coated by
the fact that more has been done to ensure that this technology is safe. How
safe can transhumanism be? How can you be sure that your creations would not
start having a mind of their own and become the villain we see in the movies?
Humans are likely to be the cause of the end of the Anthropocene if we continue
to live in the black box. Not fully understanding something and going ahead is
risking. Risks can bring about great results, but it still is a gamble.
Rather than being caught up in our own vanity, maybe we
should really turn back and truly understand nature before we start
implementing changes. We could very well be as dead as any other planet out
there in the universe. Maybe we should start appreciating all the things we
have taken for granted, rather than try to manipulate something that has been
there for millions of years, which could possibly result in an end to all these
amazing things.
No comments:
Post a Comment