-
Can Science Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century?Awake!—1993 | April 8
-
-
Can Science Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century?
“There is now overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest that Mother Earth cannot cope with its uncaring, unruly brood for very much longer.” —The European, March 19-25, 1992.
ECOLOGISTS are increasingly of the opinion that the threat to the earth, far from being just a tempest in a teapot, is serious and that it warrants attention. In fact, they say that immediate action is vital if disaster is to be avoided. “We do not have generations,” said the president of the Worldwatch Institute at the end of the 1980’s. “We only have years, in which to attempt to turn things around.”
The editors of the book entitled 5000 Days to Save the Planet were more specific in 1990 when they published their book. Since that time their countdown has continued. Time left to save the planet, according to their deadline, now hovers near the 4,000-day mark. And by the time the 21st century dawns, unless something extraordinary happens in the meantime, the figure will have dwindled to some 1,500 days.
What unusual set of circumstances has given birth to this apparent crisis? What challenges are posed by the upcoming century?
No Shortage of Problems
Peace-loving people rejoice that the Cold War has ended. But the challenge of achieving and maintaining world peace is no less real. President Mitterrand of France, speaking in January 1990 about the problems of European unification, said: “We are leaving an unfair but stable world, for a world we hope will be more just, but which will certainly be more unstable.” And The European wrote: “The price of freedom [in former Soviet bloc nations] is a growing instability, which has increased the risk of nuclear war, slight though it still is.”
Actually, some of the challenges with which the world is now faced were practically unknown when the Cold War began. It is as 5000 Days to Save the Planet notes: “Barely fifty years ago the world’s environment was still largely in balance. . . . The world was a vast, beautiful and powerful place; how could we possibly damage it? Today we are told that our planet is in crisis, that we are destroying and polluting our way to a global catastrophe.”
So-called natural disasters—floods, storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions—occur everywhere. To what extent human tampering with the environment is responsible may be open to debate. There is evidence that the earth’s protective ozone layer has in some places become dangerously thin. Climatic changes capable of causing tragedies, some scientists now warn, could strike suddenly rather than develop gradually.
Cancer, heart disease, circulatory problems, and numerous other ailments have long challenged the skills of the medical profession. Despite years of medical progress, these sicknesses still kill. In Europe alone, an estimated 1,200,000 persons die of cancer annually, almost 65 percent more than a decade ago. Because of apprehension about a new scourge—AIDS, which has killed far fewer—this huge loss goes largely unnoticed.
Another challenge: In less than 200 years, the world’s population has grown from one billion people to some five and a half billion. Despite a recent drop in the annual growth rate, some estimate that by the year 2025, world population will probably have passed eight billion, and by 2050 it will be nearing the ten billion mark. Where will all these people live? What will they eat? A UN report released in 1991 estimated that a billion people are already living in absolute poverty, their lives “so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy and disease as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human dignity.”
Paul R. Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University in the United States, notes the enormity of this problem, saying: “While overpopulation in the poor nations tends to keep them poverty-stricken, overpopulation in rich nations tends to undermine the life-support capacity of the entire planet.”
The possibility that the previously mentioned factors—or others such as drug abuse, inadequate housing, crime, and racial conflicts—might in the near future trigger a global catastrophe gives cause for real concern. The challenge is clear. How to meet it is not.
Seeking Ways to Cope
Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness of the problems, governments, with varying degrees of urgency, are seeking solutions. For example, on the environmental front, the largest ecological gathering ever held convened last June in Rio de Janeiro. The UN-sponsored Earth Summit was the second of its kind, following the one held in 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden. At that time a noted German politician said: “This conference can be a turning point in the destiny of the planet.”
Obviously, the 1972 meeting fell short of expectations. Maurice F. Strong, chief organizer of both the 1972 and the 1992 conferences, admitted: “We have learned in the 20 years since Stockholm that environmental regulation, which is the only real lever that environmental agencies have, is important but not adequate. It has to be accompanied by important changes in the underlying motivations for our economic behavior.”
Will the 1992 conference, however, prove to have been any more successful in achieving these “important changes” than was the one in 1972? And if not, will our planet still be able in another 20 years, in 2012, to host a possible third Earth Summit?
Confronted With Its Greatest Challenge
People in general are becoming more and more skeptical of the ability of religion and politics to solve world problems. But if not religion, if not politics, what can meet the serious challenges of the 21st century?
A brochure published by the German Federal Ministry for Research and Technology sheds light on this question. “Handling these problems calls for political strategies which can help not only to avoid any further changes caused by man but also to prevent the negative consequences of global changes. In view of the complexity of the problems facing us, meaningful political decisions will only be possible based on solid scientific findings and reliable forecasting models. This seems to be the only way to avoid expensive or even undesirable and disastrous developments. The provision of this information poses the greatest challenge to the scientific community at the present time.”
Science has faced formidable challenges before and has coped with them, at least to a degree. Still, it is not amiss to ask whether science can meet the unique challenges posed by the incoming 21st century. Is there room for optimism?
It is with pleasure that Awake! announces a discussion of these serious matters, to be covered in a series of articles beginning in this issue. Part 1 follows.
[Pictures on page 4]
What can science do about pollution, disease, and overpopulation?
[Credit Lines]
WHO photo by P. Almasy
WHO photo by P. Almasy
-
-
Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for TruthAwake!—1993 | April 8
-
-
Part 1
Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth
“YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) These oft-quoted words of wisdom were spoken by a man whom millions view as the greatest man who ever lived.a Although the speaker was referring to religious truth, in certain respects truth in any field of activity can set people free.
Scientific truth, for example, has freed people from many false ideas, such as that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that heat is a fluid called caloric, that foul air causes epidemics, and that the atom is the smallest particle of matter. The practical application of scientific truths in industry, as well as in the fields of communication and transportation, has freed people from unnecessary drudgery and, to a degree, from the limitations of time and distance. Scientific truths applied in preventive medicine and health-care have helped free people from premature death or a morbid fear of disease.
Science—What Is It?
According to The World Book Encyclopedia, “science covers the broad field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by principles (rules).” Understandably, there are various kinds of science. The book The Scientist claims: “In theory, almost any kind of knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific method.”
This makes for some difficulty in defining, with any precision, where one science begins and another ends. In fact, according to The World Book Encyclopedia, “in some cases, sciences may overlap so much that interdisciplinary fields have been established that combine parts of two or more sciences.” Nevertheless, most reference works speak of four main divisions: physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, and the science of mathematics and logic.
Mathematics a science? Yes, without some unified method of measurement, some way of determining how large, how small, how many, how few, how far, how near, how hot, and how cold, productive scientific investigation would have been impossible. So not without reason, mathematics has been called the “Queen and Servant of the Sciences.”
As for physical sciences, these include chemistry, physics, and astronomy. The main biological sciences are botany and zoology, while social sciences include anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology. (See box on page 8.)
A distinction must be made between pure science and applied science. The former deals purely with the scientific facts and principles themselves; the latter, with their practical application. Today applied science is also known as technology.
Learning by Trial and Error
Religion and science are both examples of mankind’s desire to know the truth. But there is a significant difference between how religious truth is sought on the one hand and scientific truth on the other. A searcher for religious truth will probably turn to the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, the Vedas, or the Tripitaka, depending on whether he is a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. There he will find what is considered by his religion to be a revelation of religious truth, possibly deriving from a divine source and therefore viewed as a final authority.
However, the searcher for scientific truth has no such final authority to turn to—neither a book nor an individual. Scientific truth is not revealed; it is discovered. This necessitates a system of trial and error, with the searcher for scientific truth often finding himself in a fruitless endeavor. But by systematically following four steps, he pursues a fruitful search. (See box “Arriving at Truth the Scientific Way.”) Nevertheless, scientific victories are celebrated on the ruins of scientific defeats as formerly accepted views are rejected to make way for new ones viewed as more nearly correct.
Despite this hit-and-miss method, scientists have over the centuries built up an amazing amount of scientific knowledge. Although often mistaken, they have been able to correct many inaccurate conclusions before serious damage was done. In fact, as long as faulty knowledge stays within the realm of pure science, the danger of inflicting serious harm is minimal. But when attempts are made to transform seriously flawed pure science into applied science, the results can be disastrous.
Take, for example, the scientific know-how that made possible the development of insecticides. These were highly valued until further scientific research revealed that some of them leave residues harmful to human health. In certain communities near the Aral sea, located in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, a link has been established between the widespread use of such insecticides and a rate of esophageal cancer seven times the national average.
Because of the convenience they offered, aerosol sprays became quite popular—until scientific investigation suggested that they were contributing to the destruction of the earth’s protective ozone layer, more quickly, in fact, than was once thought. Therefore, the search for scientific truth is an ongoing operation. Scientific “truths” of today may be tomorrow’s mistaken, and possibly even dangerous, ideas of yesterday.
Why Science Should Interest Us
Science and technology have had much to do with creating the structure of our modern world. Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, said: “Science, which started out primarily as an adventure of the mind, is now becoming one of the principal pillars of our way of life.” Thus, scientific research has today become synonymous with progress. Anyone questioning the latest scientific developments runs the risk of being labeled “antiprogressive.” After all, what some call scientific progress is to them what separates the civilized from the uncivilized.
Small wonder, then, that 20th-century British poet W. H. Auden observed: “The true men of action in our time, those who transform the world, are not the politicians and statesmen, but the scientists.”
Few people would deny that the world needs transforming. But is science up to the task? Can it discover the scientific truths necessary to cope with the unique challenges posed by the 21st century? And can these truths be learned fast enough to free humans from the fear of an impending global catastrophe?
Two-time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling said: “Everyone who lives in the world needs to have some understanding of the nature and effects of science.” It is for the purpose of providing our readers with some of this necessary understanding that we present the series “Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth.” Be sure to read Part 2, in our next issue.
[Footnotes]
a Christ Jesus. See the book The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, published in 1991 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
[Box/Picture on page 7]
ARRIVING AT TRUTH THE SCIENTIFIC WAY
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
[Box/Pictures on page 8]
SCIENCES DEFINED
ANTHROPOLOGY is the study of humans as viewed from biological, social, and cultural standpoints.
ASTRONOMY is the study of stars, planets, and other natural objects in space.
BIOLOGY is the study of how living things work and the classification of plants and animals.
BOTANY, one of the two main branches of biology, is the study of plant life.
CHEMISTRY is the study of the properties and composition of substances and the way they react with one another.
MATHEMATICS is the study of numbers, quantities, shapes, and relationships.
PHYSICS is the study of forces and qualities such as light, sound, pressure, and gravity.
PSYCHOLOGY is the study of the human mind and the reasons for human behavior.
ZOOLOGY, the second main branch of biology, is the study of animal life.
-