mandarine

I get angry when I see theories and schemes which do not acknowledge failure and justify an eternally delayed success by trying to turn the guilt on me. They tell me that I did not try enough, that it will work only if I do more, that if I do not do exactly as they say, if I make but one false step, it will fail and be worse than if I had done nothing. These are totalitarian theories. Generally, they do not deliver.

Below is a list of such theories, which have consistently failed in the past but keep asking us for more:

• capitalism will reduce poverty
• communism will improve people’s lives
• GMs will feed the third world
• preventive war will stop terrorism
• increasing agricultural yields will abolish hunger
• vaccines will eradicate infectious disease
• the telethon will find a cure against myopathy
• science is good

If you look around, you can find such theories by the dozen. They always have the same modus operandi: an unchallengeable basis relying on circular logic, unquestionable dogma or good intentions. Let us quickly flip through the list above.

Capitalism will reduce poverty NOT

A child of commerce, capitalism really started in England in the XVIIIth century with the dawn of the industrial revolution. Capitalism did great things. Capitalism overthrew our kings, freed our minds and allowed the development of technology. The development of Western countries has been overwhelming (for best and worst). But poverty still exists. And all this while, when we demanded to tackle poverty, capitalism has always had one answer: “give more money to the rich, it will benefit the poor eventually”. After two hundred and fifty years of failure in this domain, I cannot understand how some people can still believe that poverty is soluble in GDP growth and liberal economy left to itself.

Along the same lines, it is so sad to read how the IMF systematically maimed third-world economies by imposing structural adjustment programs. Just like XVIIth-century doctors bleeding a patient, they held on to the apparent immediate relief signs and denied any later degradations. When things got worse, they came back with a sharper lancet and a larger bassinet.

Communism will improve people’s lives NOT

I believe seventy years of USSR, 60 years of PRC, 50 years of North Korea, 50 years of Cuba or 40 years of Albania are proof enough that no communist regime ever made things better for their people, at least not without considerable human cost. I would be tempted to make an idealist’s exception for Cuba, on account of its continued high level of education and healthcare, as well as its recent (forced) move towards a post-oil era transport- and food-wise. However, this cannot erase the ruthless political repression. It all boils down to Aesop’s freedom vs well-being dilemma: better starve free than thrive a slave.

GMs will feed the third world NOT

Like everybody else, I believed the people who claimed drought-resistant GM-wheat or salt-resistant GM-rice would relieve the third-world. For all I know, it is probably not impossible. However, it’s been fifteen years now, and while they still claim they’ll feed the poor, all we’ve seen is roundup-resistant soybean or neurotoxic corn, with Monsanto taking over that very same third-world which they are supposed to feed.

Preventive war will stop terrorism NOT

We went to Afghanistan. We left a mess in Afghanistan. It did not stop terrorism. You went to Irak. You left a mess in Irak. It did not stop terrorism. They went to Chechnya, They left a mess in Chechnya. It did not stop terrorism. Does anybody believe that nuking Iran or burning Ingushetia will make any difference?

The “green revolution” will abolish hunger NOT

It’s been fifty years that we’ve changed to fossil-fuel-intensive, fertilizer-intensive, chemical-intensive agriculture. Yields have nearly tripled. Those who used to starve still starve. Those who did not starve have type-2 diabetes. Meanwhile, all over the world, the resulting drop in food prices has made smallhold farmers go bankrupt and feed the cities. And now that agrodiesel and agroethanol demand sends food prices skyrocketing, these urban poor who used to grow food will starve.

Vaccines will eradicate infectious disease NOT

All new vaccination campaigns are accompanied by the same old utopia of eradication. Let us count on our fingers: how many infectious diseases were eradicated with vaccines? The official answer is: ‘one: smallpox’. That was thirty years ago. No other disease was eradicated since. And those who sell vaccines tell us that eradication is within our grasp if we’d only buy more of their stuff and hunt down the last unvaccinated heretic. In fact, smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination; at least, not by vaccination alone. The true story is that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination combined with extremely zealous surveillance and containment policies (to put it simply: plain old quarantine on a global scale).
Next time somebody assesses the benefit/risk ratio of a new vaccine by assuming eventual eradication, they are not to be believed.

The (French) telethon will find a cure against myopathy NOT

It has been twenty years that people in France have participated each year in extraordinary feats of sports and TV-hosted solidarity shows and donated hundreds of millions of euros to research cures against myopathy. And each year, the motto was that things were soon going to get better for those suffering from the illness. After twenty years with a yearly budget bigger than the rest of the medical research funding in France, the ultimate therapeutic goal is still just over the horizon. Stop kidding me.

Science is good NOT

Science is a fabulous thing. But science per se. The pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, the understanding of our world for the sake of understanding our world, the beauty of a theorem for the sake of beauty, this is how I see the true science. XVIIIth century philosophers, XIXth century writers and XXth century engineers decided that scientific endeavour would be more appealing if it was made useful. Then science had to have an objective, some kind of ultimate goal or immediate use to be worthy of our efforts. Positivism begot scientism. The latter was the worst, as it worshipped science as intrinsically good. Believing that science could tell between good and evil is the closest example of the original sin reenacted.

And although most have rejected this absurd belief, I cannot help but feel that good old positivism verging on neoscientism is creeping back into the mainstream speech. I find it very disturbing. Did Newton say: “My law of gravitation is useful because it will be used to build airplanes, rockets, spaceships”? Did Maxwell say: “My law of electromagnetism is good because it will allow television and mobile phones”? Did Feynman say: “My contribution to quantum theory must be funded because it will be the basis for computers and litblogs”? When I hear that research credits should be allocated in proportion of the economic outcomes, or when I read that such and such research on genetics is good because it will heal zillions of people, I want to shout back that science is neither good nor bad; scientists should be left alone and do science for the sake of science; and people will eventually use scientific results in ways (good or bad) that nobody ever imagined.

This entry is filed under economy, society, health, science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.