With respect to the arts, however, the speaker’s claim is far less convincing. It might seem
that if artists broaden their cultural exposure and real-world experience their art works would
become richer and more diverse. However, the logical consequence of increasing international
influence on the arts is a homogenous global culture in which art becomes increasingly the
same. The end result is not only a chilling effect on artistic creativity, but also a loss of cultural
identity, which seems to be an important sociological and psychological need.
The impact of global networking on political relations might turn out to be a mixed one as
well. Consider, for instance, the current unification of Europe’s various monetary systems.
Since Europe’s countries are become economically interdependent, it would seem that it
would be in their best interests to cooperate politically with one another. However, discord over
monetary policy might result in member countries withdrawing from the Community, and in a
political schism or other falling out. Consider also the burgeoning global communications
network. On the one hand, it would seem that instant face-to-face communication between
diplomats and world leaders would help avert and quell political and military crises. By the
same token, however, global networking renders any nation’s security system more vulnerable.
This point is aptly illustrated by a recent incident involving a high-ranking Pentagon official who
stored top-secret fries on his home computer, which was connected to the Internet without any
firewall precautions. Incidents such as this one might prompt the world’s governments to
become more protective of their sovereignty, more insular, and even-paranoid.
In sum, growing international influences that result naturally from global communications
and economic networks can only serve to facilitate education and to advance scientific
knowledge. However, although the same influences no doubt will have an impact on the arts
and on international politics, the speaker’s claim that those influences will be beneficial is
dubious, or at least premature, given that global networking is still in its nascent stages.
Issue 48
"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most
54
important question to consider is: How many people’s lives will be improved if the results are
successful?"
Should researchers focus on areas that are likely to result in the greatest benefit to the most
people, as the speaker suggests? I agree insofar as areas of research certain to result in
immediate and significant benefits for society should continue to be a priority. Yet, strictly
followed, the speaker’s recommendation would have a harmful chilling effect on research and
new knowledge. This is particularly true in the physical sciences, as discussed below.
Admittedly, scientific research whose societal benefits are immediate, predictable, and
profound should continue to be a high priority. For example, biotechnology research is proven
to help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology allow for safer, less
invasive diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics help prevent birth defects; advances in
engineering and chemistry improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges, and
vehicles; information technology enables education; and communication technology facilitates
global peace and participation in the democratic process. To demote any of these research
areas to a lower priority would be patently foolhardy, considering their proven benefits to so
many people. However, this is not to say that research whose benefits are less immediate or
clear should be given lower priority. For three reasons, all avenues of scientific research
should be afforded equal priority.
First of all, ifwe strictly follow the speaker’s suggestion, who would decide which areas of
research are more worthwhile than others? Researchers cannot be left to decide. Given a
choice, they will pursue their own special areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all
researchers could reach a fully informed consensus as to what areas are most likely to help
the most people. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring
to bear their own quirky notions about what is worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to
influence-peddlers renders them untrustworthy in any event.A telling example of the inherent danger of setting "official" research priorities involves the
Soviet government’s attempts during the 1920s to not only control the direction and the goals
of its scientists’ research but also to distort the outcome of that research--ostensibly for the
greatest good of the greatest number of people. During the 1920s the Soviet government
quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries,
and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were viewed as threats the
state’s authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no significant scientific advances
occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.Secondly, to compel all researchers to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to
waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today’s preeminent astrophysicist
Stephen Hawking to research the effectiveness of behavioral modification techniques in the
reform of violent criminals. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate
effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world’s researchers.
Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation a researcher would be unlikely to contribute
meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field.
Thirdly, it is difficult to predict which research avenues will ultimately lead to the greatest
contributions to society. Research areas whose benefits are certain often break little new
ground, and in the long term so-called "cutting-edge" research whose potential benefits are
55
unknown often prove most useful to society. One current example involves
terraforrning---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before.
This unusual research area does not immediately address society’s pressing social problems.
Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the
survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to
society than preventing its extinction?
In sum, when it comes to setting priorities for research, at least in the sciences, the speaker
goes too far by implying that research whose benefits are unknown are not worth pursuing.
After all, any research worth doing delves into the unknown. In the final analysis, the only
objective of research should be to discover truths, whatever they might be-- not to implement
social policy.
Issue 49
"So much is new and complex today that looking back for an understanding of the past
provides little guidance for living in the present."
The speaker claims that since so much in today’s world is new and complex the past
provides little guidance for living in the present. I agree with this assertion insofar as history
offers few foolproof panaceas for living today. However, I disagree with the speaker’s claim
that today’s world is so unique that the past is irrelevant. One good example that supports my
dual position is the way society has dealt with its pressing social problems over time.
Admittedly, history has helped us learn the appropriateness of addressing certain social
issues, particularly moral ones, on a societal level. Attempts to legislate morality invariably fail,
as illustrated by Prohibition in the 1930s and, more recently, failed federal legislation to
regulate access to adult material via the Internet. We are slowly learning this lesson, as the
recent trend toward legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes and the recognition of
equal rights for same-sex partners both demonstrate.
However, the only firm lesson from history about social ills is that they are here to stay.
Crime and violence, for example, have troubled almost every society. All manner of reform,
prevention, and punishment have been tried. Today, the trend appears to be away from reform
toward a "tough-on-crime" approach. Is this because history makes clear that punishment is
the most effective means of eliminating crime? No; rather, the trend merely reflects our current
mores, attitudes, and political climate.Another example involves how we deal with the mentally-iii segment of the population.
History reveals that neither quarantine, treatment, nor accommodation solves the problem,
only that each approach comes with its own trade-offs. Also undermining the assertion that
history helps us to solve social problems is the fact that, despite the civil-fights efforts of Martin
Luther King and his progenies, the cultural gap today between African-Americans and white
Americans seems to be widening. It seems that racial prejudice is a timeless phenomenon.
To sum up, in terms of how to live together as a society I agree that studying the past is of
some value; for example, it helps us appreciate the futility of legislating morality. However,
history’s primary sociological lesson seems to be that today’s social problems are as old as
society itself, and that there are no panaceas or prescriptions for solving these problems---only
alternate ways of coping with them.
56
Issue 50
"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of
natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make
extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered
species."
What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement
raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On
balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make
"extraordinary" efforts--at the expense of money and jobs--to ensure the preservation of any
endangered species.
As I see it, there are three fundamental arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some
responsibility to preserve endangered species. The first has to do culpability. According to this
argument, to the extent that endangerment is the result of anthropogenic events such as
dear-cutting of forests or polluting of lakes and streams, we humans have a duty to take
affirmative measures to protect the species whose survival we’ve placed in jeopardy.
The second argument has to do with capability. This argument disregards the extent to
which we humans might have contributed to the endangerment of a species. Instead, the
argument goes, if we are aware of the danger, know what steps are needed to prevent
extinction, and can take those steps, then we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction.
This argument would place a very high affirmative duty on humans to protect endangered
species.
The third argument is an appeal to self-preservation. The animal kingdom is an intricate
matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for its
survival. Severing certain relationships, such as that between a predator and its natural prey,
can set into motion a series of extinctions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a
species. While this claim might sound far-fetched to some, environmental experts assure us
that in the long run it is very real possibility.
On the other hand are two compelling arguments against placing a duty on humans to
protect endangered species. The first is essentially the Darwinian argument that extinction
results from the inexorable process of so-called “natural selection” in which stronger species
survive while weaker ones do not. Moreover, we humans are not exempt from the process.
Accordingly, if we see fit to eradicate other species in order to facilitate our survival, then so be
it. We are only behaving as animal must, Darwin would no doubt assert.
The second argument, and the one that I find most compelling, is an appeal to logic over
emotion. It is a scientific fact that thousands of animal species become extinct every year.