Isaac Asimov: Science, Technology and Space

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

PLOWBOY: You truly feel that all the major changes in history have been caused by science and technology?

ASIMOV: Those that have proved permanent—the ones that affected every facet of life and made certain that mankind could never go back again—were always brought about by science and technology. In fact, the same twin "movers" were even behind the other, "solely" historical, changes. Why, for instance, did Martin Luther succeed, whereas other important rebels against the medieval church—like John Huss—failed? Well, Luther was successful because printing had been developed by the time he advanced his cause. So his good earthy writings were put into pamphlets and spread so far and wide that the church officials couldn't have stopped the Protestant Reformation . . . even if they had burned Luther at the stake.

PLOWBOY: Today the world is changing faster than it has at any other time in history. Do you then feel that science—and scientists—are especially important now?

ASIMOV:I do think so, and as a result it's my opinion that anyone who can possibly introduce science to the nonscientist should do so. After all, we don't want scientists to become a priesthood. We don't want society's technological thinkers to know something that nobody else knows—to "bring down the law from Mt. Sinai"—because such a situation would lead to public fear of science and scientists. And fear, as you know, can be dangerous.

PLOWBOY: But scientific knowledge is becoming so incredibly vast and specialized these days that it's difficult for any individual to keep up with it all.

ASIMOV: Well, I don't expect everybody to be a scientist or to understand every new development. After all, there are very few Americans who know enough about football to be a referee or to call the plays . . . but many, many people understand the sport well enough to follow the game. It's not important that the average citizen understand science so completely that he or she could actually become involved in research . . . but it is very important that people be able to "follow the game" well enough to have some intelligent opinions on policy.

Every subject of worldwide importance—each question upon which the life and death of humanity depends—involves science, and people are not going to be able to exercise their democratic right to direct government policy in such areas if they don't understand what the decisions are all about.

PLOWBOY: Are you implying that science and technology can solve all our problems?

ASIMOV: I think technology can save us, if it's used properly. I don't know for sure . . . some of our problems may prove insoluble even for science and technology. But if those two tools fail us, nothing else will succeed.

Of course, the decisions that have to be made concerning the uses of science and technology are not easy ones. We must consider the dangers that go along with using specific technologies, and the dangers that could result from failure to use them. To give a specific example, let's suppose that nuclear fission power plants proliferate. If accidents worse than Three Mile Island occur, there could be many deaths. On the other hand, if we were to close down the nuclear power plants and then not succeed in finding adequate replacements for our energy needs_ there could also be many deaths. And when a person dies, it makes little difference to that individual whether he or she dies at the hands of nuclear fission or of a nuclear fission power shortage.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print